Most polls in the US indicate that over 60% of the population favors a withdrawl from Iraq. There was a protest against the war calling for immediate withdrawl the other day in DC, yet only a few thousand people showed up. Well, it is just obvious that the polls are all wrong, isn’t it? If we do Roland’s math and use his logic, probably only .0001% of the American population actually opposes the war.

This can’t actually be Roland’s argument, can it? Can it?

March 20, 2007 @ 2:59 am | Comment

Also, 60% of the American population does not live in Washington D.C.

March 20, 2007 @ 3:14 am | Comment

Even an elected official like Cheney said “we don’t worry a lot about the polls, what they say about us”. What do you expect?

March 20, 2007 @ 3:23 am | Comment

I think a better way to get a precise number would be to have a poll where people come in and vote on whether or not they support direct elections. If only 5000 people support democracy, everyone will vote to defer to their emperors in Beijing. However, in the real world, I imagine you’d get results beyond 60% in favor of democracy. Of course, in the real world, it’s not possible, because the country bumpkins running the country from Beijing would all have to change their diapers if it did happen.
I think that this is more of a case of someone seeking out justification for their unjustified claim that democracy does not matter in Hong Kong. Plenty of people came out in 2003. Plenty of people attend the June 4th commemorations every year.
He is simply deceiving himself and others by seeking out a justification for an already-formed conclusion.

March 20, 2007 @ 3:30 am | Comment

Wait, Raj…

… did you just tell Roland to keep his conjectures to himself, so that we can read yours? You have a rather mistaken sense of your own importance.

March 20, 2007 @ 4:06 am | Comment

About living in DC, a large number of the protesters came from outside of DC. You don’t have to live there to protest there (unlike certain other places). In any case, the argument is absurd no matter how you slice it.

March 20, 2007 @ 4:12 am | Comment

I’m pretty sure Dave thought he smacked a homer with that one…only to be plucked away at the very.. last….. second…….. by 88’s basic understanding of logic. Maybe next time.

March 20, 2007 @ 4:28 am | Comment

“Wait, Raj…

… did you just tell Roland to keep his conjectures to himself, so that we can read yours? You have a rather mistaken sense of your own importance.”

CCT, you seem to be coming down with a case of “Rolanditus”. Do you seriously not know what I meant, or are you playing at being ignorant?

It is obvious that I was refering to the point that Roland seems incapable of coming up with answers to very simple questions. So if he cannot he should focus on translation skills, leaving commentary to people that can come up with the answers to simple questions.

March 20, 2007 @ 5:16 am | Comment

I think somebody just misunderstood Dave’s point. Or misled others?

Most of opponents of war in iraq probably did not know there was a protest in DC(U.S is large and organizers cannot afford to let everybody know in advance.). Also the traveling costs and timing might prevent many of those who knew the event showed up.

In Hongkong’s case, a small city made the organizing the protest much easier.

March 20, 2007 @ 5:33 am | Comment

>>I think somebody just misunderstood Dave’s point. Or misled others?

I wasn’t sure of the point Dave was making. I was just pointing out that 60% of the US does not need to live in DC for my analogy to hold.

>>Most of opponents of war in iraq probably did not know there was a protest in DC(U.S is large and organizers cannot afford to let everybody know in advance.). Also the traveling costs and timing might prevent many of those who knew the event showed up.

Fatbrick, you seem to be listing reasons that people might not protest other than their opinions on the issue of the protest. Wasn’t that my point? I think it was Raj’s point, also, but I’ll let him speak for himself.

You should let Roland know about your point — i.e., there are many reasons (logistical and otherwise) that people might not participate in a protest, and those reasons in no way indicate that they are either for or against the issue of the protest.

Also, just for the record, I believe that the population of DC is 580,000. 60% of that is 348,000. Since there were only probably 10,000 (or fewer) at the protest, we must conclude that there is a “puzzle” here that we must “solve” regarding these poll numbers, no? This kind of argument is just silly, isn’t it?

March 20, 2007 @ 6:02 am | Comment

88, let me rephrase. It is just my opnion.

US: People need to spend several hundred dollors on airfare and hotel to protest in DC
Hongkong: People only need to buy a few dollor bus ticket.

US:People might need to take 1-3 days off to go to DC to protest.
HK:A few hours-half of a day.

US: Need to launch a nationwide advertising campaign to let everyone know
HK: citywide campaign

Considering these factors, how could you compare the effects and implications of US and HK’s case? To HKers, it is easy to get the information. They need just a few bucks to get there. Only need to spend a few hours. However, only 5000 showed up. Isn’t that some kind of signal?

If you think that the number of people showed up does not matter, then number of people showed up in previous protest(2003, 2004…) should not mean anything too. Thus it is irrelevant how many people attended the protest, no matter in the past or in the future.

Well I believe the number -5000 is some signal. Since I did not read a lot about this event, I am not sure the reason behind it yet.

March 20, 2007 @ 6:30 am | Comment

I certainly wouldn’t want to confuse this very important issue anymore that it already is…BUT…. weren’t there protests in many U.S. cities?

March 20, 2007 @ 7:18 am | Comment

>Considering these factors, how could you compare the effects and implications of US and HK’s case?

1) I listed the numbers for Washington, DC. If you only want to compare DC with HK, wouldn’t the same “logic” hold?

2) There were protests in many cities — I just used DC as an example — and none of them attracted more than a few thousand protesters. To jump to a ridiculous conclusion from this like “Americans actually support the Iraq war” or whatever conclusion Roland is implying in the HK case seems a bit…silly.

This isn’t complicated. There are many reasons that people do not participate in protests — you pointed some of them out. You can’t measure the validity of polls by the number of protesters who attend a particular rally. Even at the height of the unpopularity of the Vietnam war in the US only a small fraction of the US population actually went into the streets and protested. Should we examine the percentage of the US population that protested at a particular rally and challenge polls on that basis?

March 20, 2007 @ 8:41 am | Comment

agree with sinosource and, reluctantly, CCT, that the comment “why not focus on the translating and leave the commentary to us?” smacks of ideas above one’s station.

Why ruin what is a fairly interesting post with such unashamed arrogance? Roland has his place – and a very popular one it is as well. So you disagree with him? Good. But leave the big shot stuff a miss or you’ll be getting a reputation like that clown from the longbow papers blog who read a (translated) book on China and swiftly became an expert.

March 20, 2007 @ 12:06 pm | Comment

Having been at the 2003 pro-Democracy protests in HK, I saw the response by the CCP. They had a small army of photographers on top of the Legco building in black taking pics. When they were spotted, hundreds with laser pointers homed in on most of them.

How long was it after the handover that “Tempest in a teacup” was shut down? Even the SCMP is starting to tow the line. The suffragists in HK are being bullied and coerced into submission to big commie all-migh-tee.

And that is why Taiwan, even a majority of KMT, won’t accept “one country two systems” because they know what a heap of BS that idea is. HK used to be a great city, now it is becoming a chinese city. Expect to see a majority of buildings covered in white tile by 2010.

March 20, 2007 @ 1:48 pm | Comment

LOL. Thanks Raj. I just removed similar observations from my similar post on the topic. I wrote:

++++++++++

“One wonders — what is the “obvious” thing going unstated? I ask this question because there were anti-war demonstrations in the US the other day that attracted only thousands, yet the majority of Americans oppose the Iraq war. Looking at ESWN’s numbers of 5,000 marchers out of a pool of 4.2 million democracy supporters, that works out to 0.00119% of the pool present. Using a US population of 270 million, if at least 135 million oppose the war, we’d expect a turnout of at least 160,000 around the US yesterday. With just a 1% turnout, 1.35 million people should have clogged US cities yesterday. From what I can see, we were nowhere near either figure. Similarly, the Shih Ming-teh-led anti-Chen demonstrations here last year quickly peaked at a hundred thousand, and then fell to a few thousand on the weekends, much less on the weekdays, despite the millions of pro-KMT types in northern Taiwan and the widespread practice among the pro-China parties of paying demonstrators. Opposition to gay marriage is the majority position in the US, but demonstrations against it do not draw large numbers.

The sad fact is that low turnouts at demonstrations are a statistical norm for well-supported causes around the world. Perhaps ESWN should run some numbers for turnouts around the world and give us some comparisons. Maybe he’ll turn up something that makes the turnout in Hong Kong an “obvious” problem, but perhaps also he might be surprised to find that what happened in Hong Kong is perfectly normal and the reasons for it incredibly prosaic.”

++++++++++

Michael

March 20, 2007 @ 2:02 pm | Comment

“”Experts” on China who neither speak the language nor have degrees that would help qualify them to assess the political situation?”

Many people on this blog are fluent in Chinese and/or have lived many years and/or have degrees in East Asian studies. Dismissing the opinions of others due to arbitrary standards is a favorite tactic of dictators trying to stymie free speech.

“One wonders if this is jealousy and outright wrong-headedness”

Ad homenim, anyone who disagrees with your positions must be “wrong headed” (as opposed to what? Right headed? Who get’s to decide? Oh, that’s right! The Party decides who’s wrong and right headed) or jealous.

But to see a different interpretation as wrong betrays much of what is frequently wrong with this blog–”

To deny the existance of right and wrong is immoral. Pro-Party people here frequently make statements that are factually and provably false and are frequently called to account for it. Tolerance of differing opinions does not mean giving lies the same status provable truth.

“too much rant, a lot of nasty language and attacking, neither of which helps any of us in understanding the complexities of modern China and modern HK.”

I agree. Only, if you look at this history of this blog, 90% of the ranting and nasty behavior and ALL the trolling comes from pro-CCP and/or anti-democracy types (and before you all jump all over me, yes. I am aware that there are people on this blog who hold these views who do not qualify as trolls or nasty). I appreciate your attempts to get them follow some decorum but I’m p retty sure they’re doomed to failure.

“I fully expect one of the usual posters here to assail this post with the usual attacks on character and intelligence. I hope I am wrong in that respect, but doubt it.”

Notice above, you’re wrong. Not a single attack on your character or intelligence. I’ll leave that to the pro-CCP guys. They’re the experts at ad homenim arguement.

March 20, 2007 @ 2:41 pm | Comment

But wait a minute…. When did Roland question the 60% figure? Did he cast even the slightest amount of doubt on it? Or did he try, as you did Raj, to explain why there would be such a low turnout at the protests even though the polls all confirm roughly 60% of Hong Kongers want universal suffrage? What, exactly, is Roland being accused of this time? Rereading his post, I see nothing that calls into question the 60% figure. What I see is three quite reasonable ideas attempting to explain the low turnout:
1: “The people may want universal suffrage, but they do not want to be used by political parties or politicians.” Sounds reasonable to me. Nobody likes being manipulated to suit somebody else’s end, so instead of joining the protest, many otherwise pro-democracy people would rather stay home. Doesn’t call into question the 60% figure.
2: “It is also known that Hong Kong marches usually bring in groups with diverse special interests and issues” Again, seems reasonable to me. People want democracy, but they don’t necessarily want to be associated with all the other causes on display. Again, doesn’t call into question the 60% figure.
3: “And then there is the sideshow as reported in The Standard” Again, seems reasonable. Not many people like the antics of politicians and activists, and one could understand how many people would rather stay home, having seen what went on at previous protests. And once again, does not call into question the 60% figure.
Personally, Raj, I’m inclined to agree with your apathy argument. Chances are, most people don’t see the point in joining the protest cos they know the powers that be aren’t listening. As many have pointed out already, this happens all the time in states generally considered democratic, too, so it’s fully understandable how Hong Kongers could develop a similar level of apathy.

Of course, the last paragraph of Roland’s post could be taken as casting doubt on the 60% figure, but I think you could only argue that if you take that paragraph out of its original context, which may explain why Roland’s three attempts to explain the low turnout were left out of Raj’s post. And considering how often he’s accused of hating and even actively opposing democracy and freedom, it’s easy to see how he’d try to anticipate his criticism. I think his choice of wording was not the best, but I find it hard to support the argument that he was in any way casting doubt on the 60% figure based on this paragraph considering the context of the post as a whole.

And even if Roland does hate freedom and democracy (I’ll leave it up to him to tell us what he actually thinks of such matters), is it not his right to express his view? Do democratic systems somehow not allow people to express their doubts about or even hatred of democracy?

And why do people get so wound up about Roland’s opinions? He’s a popular blogger, for sure, but he’s still just another blogger expressing his opinion. So maybe he does have a bit of an ego and doesn’t handle criticism well (I don’t know, I’ve never met the guy, but that’s what I’ve been told), but he’s still entitled to express his point of view, is he not?

But I forgot, I’ve obviously fallen victim to a sinister plot by Roland and the CCP to brainwash us all into giving up our democracy and freedom.

March 20, 2007 @ 3:28 pm | Comment

This guy is stupid.

March 20, 2007 @ 3:31 pm | Comment

For the record….

Raj, I really appreciate your filling in for me when I am so insanely busy. I do feel I need to make clear that I did not author this post nor do I subscribe to the belief that Roland is “clueless.” I disagree with him on some things, agree with him on a lot of things, and while I can think of many terms that apply to him, clueless isn’t one of them.

I realize this is a hot-button issue; for some reason any discussion about Roland seems to evoke unusually polarizing discussions (even for this admittedly at-times polarized blog). But I have to say, I can’t justify calling Roland clueless – maybe too selective in what he chooses to report or not report, maybe too defensive or critical of this group or that group, maybe dead-wrong in some of his conclusions and assumptions, but those same criticisms apply to myself (hey, I’m a blogger). I think your argument is a fair one in this case. I also think by using the word “clueless” you weaken your own argument and give comfort to those who maintain this site unfairly ‘piles” on Roland, Much better to argue the issue without the personal stuff. Just my 2 cents.

March 20, 2007 @ 3:52 pm | Comment

Stupid? Now that’s some good debate.

Raj, to spit venom is your right, but why don’t you set up your own blog and stop posting here anonymously. The rest of us would like to know what gives you the right to make all these vicious character assassinations.

March 20, 2007 @ 3:53 pm | Comment

Yes, a very polarizing topic that seems to bring out the worst in everyone.

March 20, 2007 @ 4:06 pm | Comment

I doubt very much that Roland “hates freedom and democracy”.

March 20, 2007 @ 9:28 pm | Comment

Agreed.

March 20, 2007 @ 11:08 pm | Comment

I’ve been avoiding the Roland threads like the plague because I don’t want to get caught up in all the drama. However, you can criticize and censure the guy without descending to ad hominems or patronizingly telling him to essentially, “shut his trap”. Even if the purportedly low turnout at Hong Kong’s democracy marches is an old chestnut of his, even if his commentary does not meet your standards.

(Hey, I guess “Rolanditus” is infectious!)

March 20, 2007 @ 11:36 pm | Comment

Richard, I don’t seek to fill in for you, as you are free to post as much as or as little as you like on your own blog. In all seriousness it simply isn’t possible to fill in for you, as you generally come up with the most interesting articles and insightful comments. I should contribute more frequently, but generally I do it when I see something interesting.

However, I disagree that I could phrase my criticism of him in a way that the naysayers would find acceptable. If they found it acceptable it would be so weak as to not be criticism. What I’m doing is poking fun at him – you wouldn’t want to see me attacking him, it would be brutal. I’m not sure that “serious” posts are the way to go about things, unless another blogger does something really wrong.

He used the term “hate freedom and democracy”, not me. I don’t think he does, but if he actually believes in it he has a very strange way of showing it.

nausicaa

I know some people say British humour is difficult to get, but really even you should have realised I was not actually telling him to shut up.

feng

“Character assassination”? If I wanted to assassinate his character, I would be a lot more scathing. This is “good cop”.

March 21, 2007 @ 5:46 am | Comment

Actually, having met Roland, I can testify that he does hate freedom and democracy. He also eats babies, poops pure hydrochloric acid — he’s the guy behind the extinction of the Yangtze River dolphin — and is personally responsible for harvesting the organs of thousands of Tibetan youth every year. (He has a collection of jaunty hats made out of them.)
Thank god you’ve finally caught this monster dead to rights. He must be stopped.

March 21, 2007 @ 6:21 am | Comment

Brendan, I think you could do with some more practice before you try to be funny again.

Though I must admit it will be interesting to see who laughs.

March 21, 2007 @ 6:53 am | Comment

No no, Raj — I was agreeing with you! Sure, I used to think that Roland was a smart guy and a hell of a translator providing a pro bono service that to date nobody else on any side of any ideological debate has matched, a guy who for his troubles was weathering attacks by petty snipers who lacked the skills or the competence to come up with counter-arguments based on primary sources rather than sheer ideological bias — but your recent posts have convinced me otherwise. Now I see him for what he really is.

March 21, 2007 @ 7:14 am | Comment

I pretty sure that was sarcasm…… so…Brendan isn’t Chinese? Just when you’ve got everyone pigeonholed….

March 21, 2007 @ 7:26 am | Comment

Brendan, sorry I think you still need to work on your act.

March 21, 2007 @ 7:47 am | Comment

>>providing a pro bono service

I’ll never understand this “pro bono service” meme. He has a blog. He translates stuff. He has his own reasons for blogging — just like everyone else, he is trying to get his views across. I don’t see how this is supposedly providing a “service” (and for free!) that people are supposed to be grateful for. And, of course, anyone who criticizes Roland’s arguments is just a petty, jealous hack without his translation skills. That doens’t make much sense to me.

March 21, 2007 @ 8:46 am | Comment

88 has a good point. Although Roland – obviously – works for free, he translates what he wants. By doing that he is able to shape the views of those that read his blog more easily than if he simply translated the lead article from certain newspapers.

What he does is useful in that it helps some people find out about things that may have stayed off the radar otherwise. But if he really provided a “service” he would actually translate what other people wanted and not what he wanted. He certainly does not do the former.

March 21, 2007 @ 9:00 am | Comment

This isn’t the first time you’ve used the blog. Unless you have a good reason to change your ID, use your original one – or don’t post at all. Raj

March 21, 2007 @ 9:10 am | Comment

Raj, good cop? So you see yourself as some kind of blogging police? You just deleted a completely civil comment that called you petty. Was that because it was anonymous, or because you can’t handle criticism?

It’s time for you to stop blogging anonymously here, and use your own name like the rest of us. Delete this if you want, but I’ve just taken a screenshot.

March 21, 2007 @ 9:16 am | Comment

“John Kennedy”

First of all, I know you’re feng37. Please don’t try to pull the wool over my eyes. Second, the fact you chose an alias like John Kennedy shows your demands for my real name are hypocritical.

“Totally Anonymous!” is actually a member of the blog who has posted here quite recently. However he decided to try to hide himself from the board. Now that I have got his attention, hopefully he will continue to post under the identity we knew him as.

I would ask you post under your previous alias of feng37. You have already changed once from “Dongxi Magazine”. Alternatively you could explain why you suddenly switched – I would like to hear why.

Also it’s not a good idea to goad the blog administrators.

March 21, 2007 @ 9:29 am | Comment

John Kennedy is my real name. Feng37 is the alias I used when I published Dongxi back in 2005, when I later translated poems at feng37.com, that I still use now, and the alias I initially used at Global Voices Online where I blog-from China-about human rights, people going to prison, etc..

March 21, 2007 @ 9:35 am | Comment

Dear Raj,

I am not sure if you’re petty but it’s pretty clear that you have no sense of humor.

I was the one who left the original comment you deleted and you can check the email address and IP address which should match.

That original comment was meant as a joke and it more or less read as follows:

“I just want to go on the record and say that I think Brendan’s “act” is pretty admirable. And actually, Raj is the one who is sounding petty here.

There, I’m on the record.

[signed] Totally Anonymous!”

Now if you don’t get that I was trying to be funny, or if you were offended by that, it’s not my problem.

I just want to get this straight and out in the open. In this comment, I am using the name I usually use on this site, as you requested.

In your edit of the second comment I left which you totally erased except for the name “Totally Anonymous!” you suggested that this was not the first time I’ve used this blog. Indeed, you are right. I read the blog regularly and comment now and then using this name. And that’s exactly what I wrote in the second comment you erased. Merely to keep the possibility of humour alive…

Now I will tell you that I am not joking. Please do not use the information you have at your fingertips to conclusively identify me any further.

Best,
Matt

P.S. Is “humorous effect” a good enough reason to change the name I comment with?

March 21, 2007 @ 9:39 am | Comment

As I told a fellow bloger recently, I could put up an open thread with just the title “Roland” and all hell would break loose.

March 21, 2007 @ 9:53 am | Comment

John Kennedy

But you did use the feng37 alias – you had a use for not using your real name. That is why others use aliases. I have my own reasons for doing so, as do other people here.

“I am not sure if you’re petty but it’s pretty clear that you have no sense of humor.”

The content of your posts is not important provided it sticks to some basic ground-rules. You can say I’m petty, whether or not you believe it.

“I was the one who left the original comment you deleted and you can check the email address and IP address which should match.”

I know that – otherwise I would have deleted your second comment as well.

“In this comment, I am using the name I usually use on this site, as you requested.”

If people start switching their aliases, it makes it difficult for the “admins” to track the general behaviour on the blog. One classic troll trick is to switch around to confuse us. I don’t mean to target you, but if I notice I take a hard line to ensure there are no exceptions. Hope you don’t mind.

“P.S. Is “humorous effect” a good enough reason to change the name I comment with?”

You don’t need permission, I just prefer to ensure everyone knows who everyone is if they’ve been to the blog before. If you do want to change just identify yourself on your new posts once or twice. If it’s as was here, then I will check your ID and accept it’s a joke.

“Please do not use the information you have at your fingertips to conclusively identify me any further.”

I have never publicised any information about any people that visit this blog, nor will I probably do so. The one exception would be where there is serious trolling.

March 21, 2007 @ 9:56 am | Comment

Sorry about this Richard. I feel partially responsible for the ruckus.

March 21, 2007 @ 9:56 am | Comment

@Raj

Blah Blah Blah….

March 21, 2007 @ 9:59 am | Comment

Matt, there are times to make jokes and there are times not to. Given we’ve just had a little misunderstanding, is it really prudent for you to further confuse matters?

Richard, as if the open threads ever were well-organised and rational.

March 21, 2007 @ 10:03 am | Comment

@Raj

Forgive me for being so serious.

March 21, 2007 @ 10:06 am | Comment

Matt, the apology is mine to make. Don’t worry – next time I have an issue with what you post I will just delete and not leave any comments.

Enjoy

March 21, 2007 @ 10:10 am | Comment

Well, that’s a pretty straight-forward statement. Aren’t you embarrassed to say that?

March 21, 2007 @ 10:13 am | Comment

Matt, where’s you sense of humour?

Now I think we’ve had enough of these fun-and-games – it would be best if the conversation were to get back on-topic.

March 21, 2007 @ 10:21 am | Comment

As I told a fellow bloger recently, I could put up an open thread with just the title “Roland” and all hell would break loose.
Posted by: richard at March 21, 2007 09:53 AM

Richard, there’s a reason the English-language Hong Kong blogs in general ignore Roland at this point.

Some may love the traffic he can throw their way. And some may like the social aura he brings them.

and SinaSource, there is no doubt that the Basic Law was intentionally poorly written by the CCP in order to leave wriggle room for interpretations… like the one that said 5 years is 2 years. And when you shamelessly state that 5 is 2, you can pretty much interpret the world without regard to reality and Hong Kong’s Basic Law without regard to the language in the text.

And chriswaugh_bj – You say you find Roland’s arguments convincing. Name the political parties represented at the march that people wouldn’t want to be taken in by? Why wouldn’t they want to be taken in by them and if they are so unpopular, why is the CCP afraid to run against them in an open election? (There’s a reason the pro-Beijing parties want to hold on to the functional constituencies, ‘cuz the parties that Roland wants to suggest are unpopular with the people hold a strong majority in the 30 directly elected geographical seats of Hong Kong’s LegCo.)

March 21, 2007 @ 10:27 am | Comment

raj. sorry, but your attempts at using the old “It was a joke” get-out clause and the even more desperate “You just don’t get the British sense of humour” routine have fallen flat. You are not funny. Brendan was quite amusing. Roland is arrogant, but has earned that right. You haven’t. Roland runs a very interesting and popular blog (although it has run out of steam a little since the design rejig). You post anonymously on the back of someone else’s achievements. Give up while you are only a little way behind.

March 21, 2007 @ 11:41 am | Comment

I know some people say British humour is difficult to get, but really even you should have realised I was not actually telling him to shut up.

Well, give the man a bowl of milk, ’cause that’s some catty crap right there.

Whatever. Be defensive and condescending then, Raj. I’m out of Roland Watch 2007.

March 21, 2007 @ 11:51 am | Comment

I’m all about Roland 2007 for the sexiness and the humor. I agree that Raj is a tad more hung than Roland but Roland has that ignorance thing that is so very attractive 9and Key) to the Males..on the Mainland…. I’d have voted for that other bitch but I got confused an shit…

March 21, 2007 @ 1:06 pm | Comment

Dudes, Relax..you are NOT deciding policy.. Thankfully…

March 21, 2007 @ 1:35 pm | Comment

Raj,

I fully support your conclusions about Roland and his ineffective commentary.

HK’ers have better things do than troll the streets in protest of political abstractions, even if they happen to support a viewpoint.

In my book, any afternoon I spend standing in the street for a noisy protest is a wasted afternoon. It is simply not possible to activate large mainstream political change just by causing a ruckus – those that think so are misguided. Protest-oriented activism that hippies so desperately cling to is a product of the 60s and although it had its success in the 60s, the idea has not aged well. It was *never* a sustainable tactic– and in present day society, it is not longer a fresh one. Instead, modern day mass protests are stale, ineffective, somewhat cultish and completely trite.

To those that wish me to idle about with war paint, signs and fog horns — do us all a favor and do it somewhere as to not block traffic.

The rest of us have better places to go.

March 21, 2007 @ 1:56 pm | Comment

Using aliases? Changing aliases! Man, I’m outta my league here.

From now on I shall be known as……..’Poor’

March 21, 2007 @ 3:26 pm | Comment

@Tom-Daai Tou Lam:

When did I say I found Roland’s arguments convincing? I said I found his ideas reasonable. There’s a difference. I also stated, and I quote myself here: “Personally, Raj, I’m inclined to agree with your apathy argument. Chances are, most people don’t see the point in joining the protest cos they know the powers that be aren’t listening.” I posted that comment because Raj seemed to be taking Roland’s last paragraph out of context and implying that Roland was casting doubt on the polls showing 60% support for universal suffrage in Hong Kong, and yet the original post by Roland that I read stated three quite reasonable ideas attempting to explain the difference between the poll figures and the turnout for the protests. Was I convinced? No, I found his ideas reasonable, but not being in Hong Kong and, despite having visited Hong Kong several times, not really knowing the place or its people beyond the superficial understanding of a mere tourist, I really couldn’t say if he was right or wrong. And to be perfectly honest, I don’t really care. What bugs me is irrational argument based on people’s ideological bugbears in which people are misquoted, words are put in other people’s mouths (as you just did, thank you very much) and all reason is abandoned.

As for your questions, they are irrelevant to me. You can ask Roland, if you want to. I was simply saying, based on my understanding of humanity in general, that his ideas sounded reasonable to me.

March 21, 2007 @ 4:43 pm | Comment

Roland runs a very interesting and popular blog (although it has run out of steam a little since the design rejig).
Posted by: mike at March 21, 2007 11:41 AM

Interesting? Like reading Ta Kung Pao is interesting.

And many EEG musical artists, like Twins, are popular, but eminently talentless.

March 21, 2007 @ 4:51 pm | Comment

chris – roland’s marketing expertise is designed to sell you a load of horse manure by polishing the frames it’s set in.

For example, by claiming the march was well publicised. It wasn’t. And p.s. it isn’t that easy to publicise these things. It’s illegal to buy political TV ads in Hong Kong. Political TV ads are restricted to government only. I knew it was going to be smaller than normal looking at Apple Daily in the morning and not seeing the banner cover as per other marches. Getting to the gathering place, I realised why the organisers were targetting 2000 people. Not enough space due to other activities in Victoria Park. p.s. Guess Roland left out the pre-march target of 2000 and didn’t mention that the march attracted 250% of that target. Wonder why?

And if my questions are irrelevant, then you’re saying that you will accept Roland’s propositions as reasonable despite your own ignorance of the situation. Do you really just accept the ideological frames Roland feeds you unquestioningly? p.s I don’t need to ask Roland, I was there. And I counted at least 6 different political parties with representatives that were directly elected to Hong Kong’s LegCo.

March 21, 2007 @ 5:03 pm | Comment

mike

“Brendan was quite amusing.”

I’m not sure how gross exaggeration and pure irrelevancy can regarded as funny. Or is daring to criticise the “Great Roland” for anything tantamount to saying he is the Devil?

“Roland is arrogant, but has earned that right. You haven’t.”

Since when were you the bloggers’ regulator? To make a statement that you can decide who can say what is – ironically – rather arrogant and thus hypocritical.

Also I would disagree that anyone can earn the right to be arrogant. Either people can be or they can’t be. You can forgive temporary behaviour, slips and the like – but not consistent behaviour. Not that I have even called Roland arrogant, so why raise it?

Tommyrot

At least the “hippies” had democracy and could use it to their advantage – the half-baked system in HK is much less sympathetic to public protest.

nausicaa

I think you need to calm down – if anyone was being defensive it was you.

March 21, 2007 @ 5:52 pm | Comment

oooooooooh drama….

Roland is being fairly reasonable; Raj, just admit you made a mistake and back down, ok? It will do your standing a lot of good.

March 21, 2007 @ 6:49 pm | Comment

t_co

What it is I made a mistake over and how am I supposed to back down? I am quite serious – I’d just like you to be a bit more specific. I wouldn’t want to be in a position like Japan faces where it keeps being told “you haven’t apologised properly yet”.

March 21, 2007 @ 6:51 pm | Comment

Roland certainly provides a large amount of interesting material from China/HK that would otherwise not impinge on the English language blogosphere. He uses his role as a filter to present some very unbalanced pro-government views – which he readily admits to. He’s definitely not clueless, he just has an agenda that some [including myself] find unpalatable.

I imagine Roland to be like the anglophile Chinese scholar in Timothy Mo’s novel The Monkey King, who turns out to be a CPC member with a chip on his shoulder and a deep hatred of the British.

March 21, 2007 @ 7:19 pm | Comment

Roland isn’t being fairly reasonable any more than Bush is being reasonable saying his aides shouldn’t testify before Congress under oath, because that would be partisan.

If you want to believe, clap your hands. I’m not going to stop you, but anyone with an ounce of info on the situation could poke a zillion holes in Roland’s reasonableness like watching Colin Powell prattle on at the UN on Iraq’s WMD and those mobile chem/bio weapons production labs.

March 21, 2007 @ 7:20 pm | Comment

Yikes. Is it time for me to play Net Nanny? “Don’t make me come in there – play nice!”

March 22, 2007 @ 2:47 am | Comment

Fatbrick, comments are normally welcome but your silly hyperbole has crossed the line this time. You know perfectly well what you said is complete nonsense. Make a proper point or don’t make one at all. Raj

March 22, 2007 @ 5:19 am | Comment

Just make it clear, I just made a general statement based on my observation in this thread. No dirty word and personal attack involved.

No, but you’re still putting a bit of a spin on what you said. You made a very daft comment after another moderator had already said to calm down. It’s usually a good idea to assume such instructions are mandatory and not optional. Raj

March 22, 2007 @ 7:50 am | Comment

Raj, I suggest you post your responses as separate comments, rather than editing someone’s post.

March 22, 2007 @ 8:59 am | Comment

I agree with Lisa.

March 22, 2007 @ 9:55 am | Comment

No, Tom-Daai Tou Laam, I do not just accept Roland’s ideological frames or whatever you’re rambling about. I read what he posts, I make up my own mind. I was merely pointing out that what Roland actually wrote was quite reasonable and nothing at all like Raj painted it. That’s all. There’s no argument to be had here.

March 22, 2007 @ 3:52 pm | Comment

lol, right on Brendan!

March 23, 2007 @ 10:02 am | Comment

Tom Dai – comparing ESWN with Twins. The bitterness is just dripping off that post. let me just say that – in my opinion – he is far more interesting than any of the undergraduate polemic ( that boy ronaldo) I have seen from you.

Raj – exaggeration and irrelevancy is not funny any more? I thought you had a british sense of humour? bang goes 30 years of british comedy if you cut out the irrelevancy and exaggeration. a humourous guy like yourself would know that.

and calling me the blogging regulator? hey, I haven’t even told you to shut up yet (joking…of course). Plus arrogance is not an opinion, nor a statement, so no hypocrisy involved, but let’s not get into that eh? you are surely embarrassed enough.

Come on raj, time to pack it in. you expressed an opinon. badly. no-ones asking you to apologise, but you could surely quick trying to continually justify what was an error of judgement. couldn’t you?

March 23, 2007 @ 1:57 pm | Comment

If you want to believe, clap your hands. I’m not going to stop you, but anyone with an ounce of info on the situation could poke a zillion holes in Roland’s reasonableness like watching Colin Powell prattle on at the UN on Iraq’s WMD and those mobile chem/bio weapons production labs.

Enlighten us (or me, at least). What, generally, makes Roland’s reasonableness such a sham? That’s a serious, earnest request, not sarcasm. I’ll readily admit that when it comes to Chinese politics, and especially Mainland/HK politics, I’m still a beginner, and this seems as good an opportunity as any to learn.

Maybe there’s a chance we can make this educational.

March 23, 2007 @ 2:01 pm | Comment

I think the heart of Raj’s argument is valid, or at least worthy of discussion. If only we could discuss it without getting hysterical.

Hong Kong people have indicated – quite consistently through polls – that they want universal suffrage. However they probably do not believe that protesting about it will make much of a difference. It’s all very well that saying getting 4+ million people on the streets “cannot be stopped”, but then again when did Hong Kong ever get 4+ million people on the streets? The UK managed much less than that in protests against the war in Iraq (Police said 750,000 – organisers said 2 million), despite the fact we have a population of over 60 million and there was generally a lot of opposition to the war.

Let’s take a figure of 1.5 million (quite generous) for the number that marched. That would be 2.5% of the population. So according to Roland’s logic, why did only 2.5% protest if so many opposed it?

The answer is that people can feel very strongly on an issue yet not believe their time is best spent protesting about something. Governments regularly ignore such protests even when they have to face the public at the ballot boxes.

I believe this is a fair response to ESWN’s question, which unfortunately is a rhetorical question because he doesn’t allow comments on his site:

So maybe these comments will generate the usual criticisms that I hate democracy and freedom. But what is your explanation as to why 5,000 people showed up for the march when public opinion polls showed that 60% of the population are for universal suffrage?

I do not believe Roland hates freedom or democracy – far from it. Several times I’ve called him “the best blogger in Asia.” But there’s no reason a civilized conversation can’t take place looking dispassionately at Roland’s point and determining how valid it is. Unfortunately, you’re as likely to have a dispassionate thread about Roland as you are about the Yasukuni Shrine, and Raj – who is doing me a great service by helping to keep this site alive – opened up the Pandora’s box right away with the post’s headline. It was all downhill from there. Can we learn from this experience?

March 23, 2007 @ 3:32 pm | Comment

Dear Richard, I’ve observed all this without comment and I’ll now intrude once and for all. Actually, I have no words of my own to offer except those of Lung Ying-tai as translated in:
http://www.zonaeuropa.com/200703.brief.htm#043:

Suppose there is a subject, which ten thousand people say is condemnable. This appears to be a very obvious subject. But at a time when ten thousand people say this is condemnable, I feel that we should tolerate and respect some people for not stating that this is condemnable or just refusing to state their positions. I think that you ought to respect them too, because of all the core values that we have, I think the most core of the values is: we respect dissenting opinions.

If this is a true core value as opposed to a fake mask, then you need to respect anyone else not using your approach to solve a problem; you need to respect someone else using a different method to undertake the same resistance. That is to say, waving the flag and shouting aloud is one approach, maintaining silence is another approach and evasion is yet another approach. I do not think that the person who goes to the public square to pour gaosline on himself should condemn those who do not follow suit as ‘cowards’; alternately, how do you know that a person who chooses to maintain silence feels less pain and hate than you do? how do you know that a person who chose evasion would not eventually achieve much better effects than your direct approach? You cannot actually judge.

If our ultimate goals are democracy and freedom, then you must pass the test for everything that you do now. That test is: you are talking about a society with democracy and freedom, but during the process, you demand everybody else to follow you by doing things the same way, and anyone who fails to do so is a fake, then you have just destroyed the thing that you claim to be pursuing and you are wearing a fake mask. I believe that if you want to practice it, you must do so one bit at a time in your real life. Then you can prove whether you are someone who is genuinely seeking the goal. This is a test that many people cannot pass.

Richard, I believe in a tolerant, diversified and multicultural society, in China or anywhere else. I ask you and your community members to join in that society. Be positive, not negative. Support each other, not destroy each other.

March 23, 2007 @ 4:21 pm | Comment

Thanks Roland. I hope you have noticed that I have tried to be increasingly positive about China, while calling it on its malfeasances as I see them (just as i do with the US). I am trying to see the country from a wider lens than before.

I don’t think we are destroying each other or anything else here – most of the times the conversations are quite cordial. Then there are the surefire third-rail topics, of which you, for whatever reasons, are one. Usually I end up closing such threads when i think it’s disintegrated into mindless fist-swinging. I hope you’ve noticed how many of the comments here are positive about you, and how I try to resist and discourage blanket generalizations such as “CCP shill.” Both sides partake in these generalizations, and it always bothers me. I used to use them a lot myself back in the “CCP equals evil” days. But things are rarely so simple.

I’d say more, but now’s not a good time. Maybe I will send you an email. Thanks for contributing.

March 23, 2007 @ 5:15 pm | Comment

Hi Roland, thanks for dropping by.

I think the problem is that you are still not addressing some of the points made in relation to your views. Whilst everyone has a right to their own position, you leave many of your views ambiguous. That may be your choice, but if you refuse to clarify them – such as whether or do not you support universal suffrage in direct-only elections in HK – then people will continue to make assumptions based upon what you do say.

If you do not want such misconceptions to continue you can easily express your views (whatever they are) directly on your blog – everyone reads it, so they’ll see them immediately. This isn’t about forcing everyone to think/talk the same way (that’s what the CCP often tries to do), it’s about trying to find out where people stand. What you said just now is very interesting but does little to indicate what you believe in and want for Hong Kong, China, Taiwan and so forth.

As I said, if you want to make clear your views you have a medium to do so – ESWN. If you would prefer not to then others will make assumptions based on your commentary. The ball is in your court (and has been for a while).

mike

You obviously have a poor understanding of British comedy. Only the most low-brow comedians would exaggerate to the extent fatbrick was. Exaggeration is funny only in moderation or delivered well – neither applied to him.

What I said, I said as I wanted to. Some people didn’t like it, others did. I’m not out here to please you guys, so I’m not going to pack anything in.

March 23, 2007 @ 9:28 pm | Comment

eswn,

>>we respect dissenting opinions.

Do we respect opinions merely because they dissent from a so-called majority viewpoint? Or do we respect the right of dissent? The right to present a dissenting opinion? For example, should I respect fascist opinions because they are “dissenting opinions?” Or what about opinions that are based on prejudice and bias rather than facts? Your argument seems to be that the content of opinions doesn’t really matter. And so, in this case, you didn’t address any of the specific objections to the content of your arguments but instead retreated into abstractions/polemics over “dissent” and “democracy.” There is a difference between “dissent” and errors of judgment.

I respect the right of fascists or anyone else to present an argument — in public — for all to consider. This has nothing to do with the content of their arguments. Do you feel that people here were attacking your right to make an argument that people disagree with? Or were they criticizing the content of your argument? I don’t think someone can qualify as a free-speech/democracy martyr simply because a few people criticized one of their arguments.

>>I believe that if you want to practice it, you must do so one bit at a time in your real life.

So then you are claiming that everyone should “follow you by doing things the same way,” aren’t you? You may call this “tolerance,” but you are still prescribing what people should do. In any case, I’m not really sure how this applies to people raising objections to some of your arguments. Are you saying that if someone questions your arguments or style of blogging, they aren’t true “democrats?” Is the mark of a “true democrat” lack of judgment? I hope not.

Anyway, I hope you don’t think I am trying to “destroy” you. I agree with some of your opinions and I disagree with others. Criticism and debate are healthy and aren’t necessarily a sign of disrespect — I realize not everyone agrees with this opinion. I hope someday you allow comments on your blog, because it is an interesting and oftentimes insightful blog and people could learn more from it by debating some of your points, as could you.

March 24, 2007 @ 12:14 am | Comment

Roland says
Richard, I believe in a tolerant, diversified and multicultural society, in China or anywhere else. I ask you and your community members to join in that society. Be positive, not negative. Support each other, not destroy each other.

Roland says:
ESWN: Of course, Chen Shui-bian is entitled to his personal opinion. Nevertheless, it is annoying when these comments are coming from a person who perhaps needs to look much deeper inside his own soul about himself and his state.

Exactly.

March 24, 2007 @ 11:15 am | Comment

You got it right SinaSource. Many Westerners who live in China are losers in their own country. They cannot find a job or a wife or girlfriend. So they come to China and they feel superior because 1) they earn more than regular Chinese 2) they are treated better in China than regular Chinese 3) They have a psychological superior feeling living in China because they think they understand the world better than “brainwashed” and “unthinking” Chinese people.

Those are the 3 reasons Westerners live in China and attack China everyday and none of them will feel the need to learn about Chinese language or culture or society.

They are losers. Don’t worry about them.

March 24, 2007 @ 1:49 pm | Comment

He provides a service to bloggers such as yourself who do not read Chinese. Perhaps that bothers some of the people here–those who comment on China when they cannot even read the language.

Hey SinaSource — you can’t be talkin’ to me, right? I’ve been doing Chinese to English translation for 15 years now. I take PHD courses offered in Chinese here at NCKU.

When this site offers TRANSLATED material from Chinese–done by the blogger himself then maybe you all have a leg to stand on in criticising Roland. Until then, it might be better to cease fire.

Remind me again how being a skilled translator makes one a democracy supporter. I must have missed that one in poli sci 101.

Michael

March 24, 2007 @ 5:32 pm | Comment

When this site offers TRANSLATED material from Chinese–done by the blogger himself then maybe you all have a leg to stand on in criticising Roland.

SinaSource, what kind of thinking is that? This has nothing to do with translation, but interpretation of data. So no one who doesn’t offer translations can criticize Roland? Or Danwei? Or any other site that offers translation? What about point of view and accuracy? Aren’t they open to criticism? Now, I’m not saying there is (or isn’t) anything to criticize in any of those sites. But I’ve never heard such a proposal before – that if a person translates and you don’t you have no right to discuss perceived inaccuracies or prejudices in their work. Please elaborate.

You know, one commenter here – let’s call him Mr. X – once lambasted another commenter/blogger for criticizing me. Mr X wrote, “I’ve been to your blog and there are no comments and tiny site trafic. When you have 2,000 readers visiting your blog everyday and hundreds of comments, then you can criticize Richard.”

Flattering as this was to read, it is absolutely, 100 percent wrong. Everyone is up for criticism, and when you blog you are holding yourself up to scrutiny, and sometimes you’ll get whacked like a pinata. No one is above that, not for being a prolific translator, not for drawing lots of commenters, not for having above-average site traffic.

88s, I thought your reply to ESWN was well stated, thanks. HongXing, you are absolutely right, none of here are trying to learn Chinese, none of us speak it, and all of us completely misunderstand and hate China. However, if you respect eswn, how about following his own advice above: ” Be positive, not negative. Support each other, not destroy each other.”

March 24, 2007 @ 6:19 pm | Comment

Sinasource/Hong Xing,

I’ve addressed this three times now and each time you are unwilling/unable to comprehend it. So I’m posting my last comment AGAIN. Maybe this time it will get through your thick skull:

(Hong Xing, let’s leave out for a second that your own English swings wildly between bad and laughable but that has never stopped you from offering your “informed opinion” on world affairs or, say, American coffee habits…)

You are hopelessly naive if you believe this. MOST Lao Wai in China now speak Chinese, many of them very well. I for one, and I’m not alone on this board, do research in the Chinese archives where the materials are exclusively in 文言. I translate articles on my own blog. You could check it out, but the all powerful and wise CCP has decided to block the site. Oh yeah, and you might want to check out Brendan’s little site, too…He’s another regular contributor here.

Do we have the translation skills of Roland? Maybe not. Certainly I don’t. (Well…maybe Brendan, it would be a close fight.) But the idea that nobody on this board reads Chinese, or reads Chinese books and articles on a regular basis is false. (cf. Michael’s comment)

You’re living in a dreamworld. Why don’t you try coming up with a real argument for once?

I for one appreciate Roland as a translator. Is he selective? Sure. But all translators are selective. Yan Fu, China’s first great translator of Western books, was very selective in what he published. Did Yan Fu have an agenda? Probably, go ask Ben Schwarz. I only translate items on my blog that interest me. Does this mean I have an agenda? I don’t know. Why am I talking like Donald Rumsfeld? Yet another good question worth exploring.

Ps. Hongxing, in your comment before slinking away from the board in disgrace the last time, you made a mistake in YOUR Chinese. The pinyin for 秦 is “Qin” not “Qing.”

(Sorry for reposting some of this, but tweedle dee and his pal seem to need things repeated before comprehension slowly sinks in.)

March 24, 2007 @ 6:45 pm | Comment

What I find most puzzling about all this is that I always took Roland’s comments on numbers at marches to be, if anything, bemoaning apathy in Hong Kong, not motivated by a dislike for democracy. I have been a regular reader at ESWN for some time and have met Roland when he came up to Beijing. I cannot for the life of me see how raj manages to arrive at the inference he does from Roland’s past output, including his participation in the group blog set up during the WTO meeting.

March 24, 2007 @ 10:42 pm | Comment

>>Why am I talking like Donald Rumsfeld?

You translate the articles you have, not the articles you wish you had.

or

As we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns — the ones we don’t know we don’t know. And the biases of translators are known unknowns. We all know that.

March 24, 2007 @ 11:42 pm | Comment

Jim, how does participating in a blog group during a WTO meeting show Roland supports universal suffrage in HK and the abolition of the functional constituencies? Can’t you find something a little more concrete than that?

His continued silence on that front just furthers the belief amongst many that he seeks to undermine the cause of political reform in HK. Why does he refuse to clarify his position? He asked questions of Richard, which were answered – why is he so reluctant to answer questions asked of him? Or does the Great Roland not ask questions from mere mortals?

I remember what he had to say about the December 2005 pro-democracy march. He kept saying he KNEW the figure was 60,000-80,000 and nowhere near the 250,000 numbers given by the organisers, despite the fact those lower numbers only came from a university team. In fact those were the only comments he had to say. Not “well done people for campaigning for change” or “we need change” just that the organisers’ numbers were wrong. What kind of a person focuses on something relatively minor like that at the expense of the bigger issue of tens of thousands (maybe over 100,000 people) from a single city demand change? All he ever does is go on about the numbers not being accurate enough.

He also complained last year because the pro-democracy march got more coverage than the pro-government one, whilst of course once again disputing the march organisers’ figures. In addition he complained various agencies only mentioned the Police figures for the pro-government one. Again, would someone who was seriously committed to universal suffrage in HK do that?

March 25, 2007 @ 12:07 am | Comment

I am really surprised none of you even tried to read Hongkong opinion polls.
just google HKU pop site. There you can find many intersting poll results conducted by Hongkong university about normal Hongkong residents’ option about Hongkong democracy march, central government, political leaders, etc. Poll results may partly explain why number of march participants dropped last year

March 25, 2007 @ 12:57 am | Comment

raj – I offered that not because the blogging itself was evidence, but that the content of the things he wrote there. Would you care to address the suggestion that Roland might actually be decrying apathy?
I’d still contend that Roland’s ability to provide access to a diversity of views originally expressed in Chinese to an English-language readership in itself enhances democratic debate.
Now you seem to be demanding some kind of auto-da-fe from the man. You say “His continued silence on that front just furthers the belief amongst many that he seeks to undermine the cause of political reform in HK.” That’s a breathtaking claim hardly supported by what little evidence you’ve presented.

March 25, 2007 @ 12:58 am | Comment

“Would you care to address the suggestion that Roland might actually be decrying apathy?”

I have not seen Roland show any direct support for univeral suffrage and the dissolution of the functional constituencies, so why would he decry apathy? The only people that decry apathy are those that care, and I see no evidence to suggest that he does.

This is a key point, he only has negative things to say or imply about the HK democracy movement but never anything positive. If from time-to-time he said he wanted full democracy the apathy theory might work. But given he doesn’t there’s no reason for me to believe he is decrying apathy.

“I’d still contend that Roland’s ability to provide access to a diversity of views originally expressed in Chinese to an English-language readership in itself enhances democratic debate.”

Jim, I’m sorry but that is utter rubbish. We’ve already said that he decides what to translate – he is serving his own agenda (whatever that is). An example only from today is his translation of a piece of utter tripe from Ming Pao (thanks to Michael Turton for highlighting this) saying the following:

“But Taiwan’s Mainland Affairs Council believes that Hong Kong is ripe for universal suffrage and, if implemented, the effects would be just as good as (if not better than) Taiwan. But precisely because the ruling party in Taiwan (Democratic Progressive Party) is pushing the Taiwan independence route which is causing longlasting tension across the strait, the various elections in Taiwan have created a negative impression to the Hong Kong people. The chaos has worried certain Hong Kong people. If Hong Kong were to realize the same political democracy in Taiwan, there would be chaos and instability.”

No supporter of HK democracy would repost such a snivelling piece of scaremongering bullcrap, without at least trashing it like Michael M did on his blog.

“Now you seem to be demanding some kind of auto-da-fe from the man.”

Read my comments again – I demand nothing. I have merely set out a very, VERY easy way for him to manage a lot of the criticism against him. Is it so terrible to state your beliefs? I’m happy to state mine, as are people like Richard. Why not Roland?

March 25, 2007 @ 1:32 am | Comment

raj – just stopped by ESWN and found this from Roland, which to me is a fine example of what I was talking about; Roland’s providing access to the message of civil society activists, which enhances democratic debate.

March 25, 2007 @ 2:40 am | Comment

Jim, I’m not convinced. I find it strange that he complains about the lack of news about a few hundred people, yet complains about the focus on tens of thousands. That is a suspiciously inconsistent position.

Would you consider the position that Roland might merely support them against Police harassment and that points about them wanting double democracy was a coincidence?

Tom once said that Roland agrees with the mainland’s Liaison Office that “democracy in Hong Kong is held back by poor or wrong leadership of the democracy movement in Hong Kong instead of by the CCP monopoly of power”. Now it’s up to Tom to explain how he drew that conclusion, but it would explain why Roland generally has negative reports on the main democracy movement. A few hundred protestors will never change anything, but the larger organisation could. Which is why he would have no problem with speaking up for the little guy – they won’t change anything. Roland himself showed he believed that when he said in an interview HK could never get China to change because it’s so much smaller. He’s a hypocrite if he implies a few hundred protestors can change anything in Hong Kong but HK cannot hope to influence China just because of its size.

As I said, if he believes in HK democracy he has an excellent medium to say so directly. But I have not found a single incidence, despite his many, many interviews, where he has said he supports universal suffrage in HK and the abolition of the functional constituencies.

It is amusing he once said he doesn’t trust politicians, because his avoidance of talking about HK democracy is exactly what politicians do to avoid answering questions. I could see that when he came onto this thread, ignoring all the questions asked of him and asked questions of Richard. Why did he do that? Because he knew it would be a good way to try to derail the discussion of him, and Richard, being the nice guy that he is, would oblige in answering his questions. Changing the direction of the conversation is also what crafty politicians do. It’s so ironic that he displays the behaviour of the very people he claims to dislike.

March 25, 2007 @ 2:48 am | Comment

“This is a limited blog.” How true! I can’t sew, I can’t fly an airplane, I can’t speak Swahili. So many thing I can’t do. Listen, SinaSource – I never once made a single claim anywhere that I am an expert on China, that I am good in Chinese, that I know more than anyone else about China or anything else for that matter. I just like to write about what I see and hear and give my opinions. Is there any blog that is not “limited,” seeing that each of us has his limitations? Do you see ESWN as an “unlimited” blog? What are your criteria for determining which blog has limits and which do not?

I don’t know who you are or where you suddenly came from, but I have my ideas. The insult you just hurled at Joseph Bosco further cements my impression. It also tells me your intentions in being here are not honorable and you are not here to engage in constructive dialogue. Do it once more and you are out. And don’t accuse me of censorship. I’ve left your stuff intact and given you fair warning. On my friend Roland’s blog, you can have no voice at all. Here I try to listen to everyone, so long as they show they are here to engage and not to destroy. Again, follow Roland’s advice above not to destroy, the way you just shamefully tried to destroy Joseph. And now we all know about SinaSource.

March 26, 2007 @ 12:09 am | Comment

Unfortunately Sinasource, “thick skull” is an understatement as you consistently refuse to read comments and posts completely.

You said: “My point was simply this: this blog posts English-language articles and is apparently run by someone who does not read Chinese.”

It is obvious that you either a) didn’t read my whole comment or b) were unable to understand it. Try reading it again.

Richard’s not the only one who posts here.

As for my tone, those who want respect, give respect. And I’ve seen far too little of it from you.

March 26, 2007 @ 1:01 am | Comment

richard, raj should be stripped from his power to moderate comments. I do not like him censoring them. Raj is a jealous Japanese telling the same tiring story, over and over again. *yawn*

March 26, 2007 @ 9:01 am | Comment

Ultimately, Raj, I think you and Roland seem to have differing views on what constitutes Hong Kong democracy. Perhaps Roland does not necessarily agree with the dissolution of the functional constituencies and immediate establishment of direct elections (because of impractability) yet supports democracy in principle. After all, such a position would be very similiar to arguments advanced by proponents of the Electoral College within the United States. And reading Roland’s above comment, I find it quite obvious that he supports the principles and foundational beliefs of democracy.

Seriously, Raj, you’re starting to sound like somebody from a struggle session in CR. Just replace all your mention of democracy with “the glorious proletarian revolution” or “Mao Zedong thought” and it becomes apparent how virulently you hate anyone who does not support immediate democracy in Hong Kong 100%.

March 26, 2007 @ 10:10 am | Comment

Raj is fine. He just needs to cool down a bit these days cause I also notice that he deleted comments more often in the past few days.

But I don’t think his hotheadedness made some of his points less valid. For example, he pointed out that Roland never stated where he stands regarding HK democracy and did not answer any question directly. Of course I think Roland has the right to believe whatever he wants, but if he tries to influence his readers by his comments he probably should have the courage to make it clear what he really believes in. (note: by saying all this I am not saying that it is not good of him to translate all these Chinese articles for the non-Chinese-reading readers.)
If Roland had been more open to his readers, there certainly wouldn’t be the need for people to defend him by saying PERHAPS he supports democracy in principle…

@Raj,
really, I agree with you most of the time, but I really think by censoring other people’s post, you actually weakened your points because 1). bystanders would not be able to see how ridiculous or rude those posts are (you know, like the strategy that Richard uses with HX is quite good) and 2). your oppenents can then argue that you deleted them because you got nothing to say. Anyway, it is just my opinion.
Be good!

March 26, 2007 @ 11:34 am | Comment

And on that note, I am closing this thread. Thanks to everyone who chimed in.

March 26, 2007 @ 4:35 pm | Comment