Updated: Jul 29, 2021
Open-source intelligence (OSINT)
Keywords: Political correctness (政治正確) ; Political colours (政治顏色) ; Narrative control (敘事控制); Ruling class (統治階級) ; Working class (勞動者階級)
London, June 17, 1879 ... For a number of years past (and at the present time) the English working-class movement has been hopelessly describing a narrow circle of strikes for higher wages and shorter hours, not, however, as an expedient or means of propaganda and organisation but as the ultimate aim.
The Trade Unions even bar all political action on principle and in their charters, and thereby also ban participation in any general activity of the working-class as a class. The workers are divided politically into Conservatives and Liberal Radicals, into supporters of the Disraeli (Beaconsfield) ministry and supporters of the Gladstone ministry. One can speak here of a labour movement (proper) only in so far as strikes take place here which, whether they are won or not, do not get the movement one step further.
To inflate such strikes — which often enough have been brought about purposely during the last few years of bad business by the capitalists to have a pretext for closing down their factories and mills, strikes in which the working-class movement does not make the slightest headway — into struggles of world importance, as is done, for instance, in the London Freiheit, can, in my opinion, only do harm. No attempt should be made to conceal the fact that at present no real labour movement in the continental sense exists here, and I therefore believe you will not lose much if for the time being you do not receive any reports on the doings of the Trade Unions here. - Frederick Engels (1)
Frederick Engels (1820-1895) perfectly defined the capitalist colour politics (political colours) which has been further intensified with internet social media of today after the millennium. ''The Trade Unions even bar all political action on principle and in their charters, and thereby also ban participation in any general activity of the working-class as a class. The workers are divided politically into Conservatives and Liberal Radicals, into supporters of the Disraeli (Beaconsfield) ministry and supporters of the Gladstone ministry.'' For Hong Kong politics, you can only need to replace the Disraeli (Beaconsfield) ministry with BLUE 'pro-establishment' camp, the Gladstone ministry with YELLOW 'opposition' camp. Furthermore, trade unions designated for workers are under the control of four major labour aristocrat companies. In short, political colours are to divide and conquer the working class people by ruling class under capitalism in order to prevent them from taking general mass actions as a class. Instead, only fighting against different political colour camps (workers versus workers) is allowed by their employers. Thus strict rejection to any colour politics is politically necessary for the working class people to protect their own class interests and social lives.
Not only the issues of people's livelihood are political issues but also those are economic issues. Genuine political issues are issues of people's livelihood, in the same way, real economic issues are issues of people's livelihood. Political con artists of Hong Kong unanimously separate issues of people's livelihood, economy and politics in order to protect vested interests by abstraction and a distraction from grave issues. In other words, true social issues are issues of people's livelihood not any ''political colours''. CCP created a new slogan in 2020, called 'the people's livelihood is the biggest political issue'. Therefore, CCP is right that only legitimate ''political correctness'' is to solve the issues of people's livelihood not any other things. On the contrary, so called ''political correctness'' in capitalist society is set by monopoly capitalists in various fields of society to defend their vested interests and also legitimise oppression, eradication, purge, cancel culture, trolling, doxing, bullying, manipulation, censorship on different voices as people can see on social media platforms ubiquitously.
In general, ''political correctness'' (a.k.a. official narrative or rhetoric ; which used to be called dogma/ dogmatism; the opposite term is ''thought-crime'') is set by monopoly capitalists / oligarchs (Who are they? See Hong Kong's Richest 2021 List) to systematically eliminate their competitors and dissidents. Then, ''colour politics'' (a.k.a. political colours) is the main narrative control device (narrative structure) of the ruling class (narrative managers; thought-police) to divide and conquer the working class people in both real and internet society. Hence, political correctness, political colours and narrative control form dialectics of social censorship.
See multinational Chambers of Commerce, and their identities are ''local Hong Kong companies'' when their member companies enter into the mainland Chinese market via CEPA. Simultaneously the Chamber of Commerce is the most powerful political force who actually enjoys privileged voting rights in elections of both the Legislative Council and chief executive of Hong Kong in the name of 'pro-establishment'. In fact, external forces are internal forces, internal forces are external forces in Hong Kong; furthermore, external forces still can exclusively select and send their own members / agents to the Legislative Council via the ''pro-establishment'' Chamber of Commerce. It means that the on-going purge of 'opposition' camp is to scapegoat those 'oppositionists' who paid by the same Hong Kong oligarchs from the point of view of the ruling class of this city.
BBC reported the Sunday nationwide ''protests'' in Cuba (July 11, 2021): ''In response to the rare unrest, President Miguel Díaz-Canel addressed the nation in a TV broadcast and blamed the US for the turmoil. He called its tight sanctions on Cuba - which have been in place in various forms since 1962 - a "policy of economic suffocation". Mr Díaz-Canel said the protesters were mercenaries hired by the US to destabilise the country, and called for his supporters to go out and defend the revolution - referring to the 1959 uprising which ushered in Communist rule. "The order to fight has been given - into the street, revolutionaries!" he announced.'' (3) Although it can be seen as a typical regime change attempt by the US and its allies against Cuba, Hong Kong colour revolutions cannot be categorised as the same kind of operations. So called 'colour revolution' already became the cliched narrative control device in Hong Kong. In reality, true masterminds / beneficiaries of Hong Kong colour revolutions are still at large.
Why Hong Kong oligarchs needed those large scale colour revolutions (e.g., 2014 Umbrella Revolution ; 2016 Mong Kok civil unrest and the 2019-2020 Hong Kong Anti-Extradition Law Amendment Bill Movement) ? Psychologically, it began with the birth of Xi Jinping administration (2012-) whose political orientation still is anti-trust, anti-monopoly and anti-neoliberalism. It triggered fear and caution of Hong Kong tycoons / oligarchs needed to stage large scale ''colour'' political events in Hong Kong in order to maintain their status quo, social hegemony, monopoly and vested interests. For this political goal, paid 'opposition' camp was primally scapegoated gradually. Recent political incidents all indicated and happened in this context (READ Hong Kong Intelligence Report #40 2021 Hong Kong Electoral Reform is A Victory of Oligarchs) . Such as exodus of democratically-elected district councillors (80-250 / 479; 2020-) ; the closure of Apple Daily (7/1/2021); the lone-wolf assault on police (7/1/2021) and subsequent aftermath on the HKU student union (July 8-16). Unfortunately, this process will only continue. One of undeniable proofs of this claim is that this purge does not mean to totally eliminate ''colour politics'' itself because local oligarchs still need it to block any social reform attempts against them.
The Hong Kong oligarchs feel safe as long as citizens are radically engaging in hazardous BLUE-YELLOW colour politics instead of directly tackling social issues caused by social monopolies of the oligarchs themselves. After every large scale colour riot, oligarchs and their agents can appear as prosecutors for the central government due to their official 'pro-establishment' position. For oligarchs, the entire 'pro-establishment' camp itself is immune from any political surgery, and remnants of 'opposition' camp are also preserved for the future use. In other words, the purge is not fully in the hands of the central government. Local oligarchs have a tight grip on it. Some oligarchs themselves are not only members of the Chamber of Commerce (one of major electoral bodies of the legislative council and chief executive of Hong Kong) but also they are members of Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference (124+78 HK members; 2018-2023) and National People's Congress (36 HK members; 2018-2023).
Question1: There had been the general crisis of capitalists, especially for oligarchs in Hong Kong during the 2019-2020 Hong Kong Anti-Extradition Law Amendment Bill Movement?
First of all, the US government won't stage any colour revolution if there is no direct demand / strong support from multi-national companies (monopoly capital) operating in a particular country or region. Therefore, so called 'mastermind(s)' is monopoly capital ultimately.
For instance, the Guatemalan Coup of 1954, in which The United Fruit Company (UFCO) demanded the Eisenhower administration to stage a CIA coup against the non-communist Jacobo Arbenz government. Thus the ultimate mastermind of the coup was UFCO not the US government.
''In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, Latin American governments were characterized by economic policies that allowed for liberal foreign investments from wealthy countries like the United States. Military dictators led a number of these Latin American governments. The United Fruit Company (UFCO), an extremely successful American owned and run company, profited greatly from investments it made in Guatemala.
The business of United Fruit was bananas, and from bananas it had built a business empire in the Central American nations of Guatemala, El Salvador, Honduras, Nicaragua, Costa Rica and Panama. The United States government was also interested in bananas, and had sponsored initiatives to promote the fruit in the American diet. Guatemala became known as a “banana republic,” a disdainful term for poor, developing countries that relied on a single cash crop, such as bananas, and were ruled by corrupt governments. Under the Guatemalan dictator Jorge Ubico, the United Fruit Company gained control of 42% of Guatemala’s land, and was exempted from paying taxes and import duties. Seventy-seven percent of all Guatemalan exports went to the United States; and 65% of imports to the country came from the United States.
The United Fruit Company was, essentially, a state within the Guatemalan state. It not only owned all of Guatemala's banana production and monopolized banana exports, it also owned the country's telephone and telegraph system, and almost all of its railroad track.
The United Fruit Company was well connected to the Eisenhower administration. Secretary of State John Foster Dulles and his New York law firm, Sullivan and Cromwell, represented the company. Allen Dulles, the director of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and brother of John Foster Dulles, had served on UFCO's Board of Trustees and owned shares of the company. Ed Whitman, the company's top public relations officer, was the husband of Ann Whitman, President Eisenhower's private secretary. Ed Whitman produced a film, Why the Kremlin Hates Bananas, which depicted UFCO fighting on the front line of the Cold War. The company’s efforts paid off. It picked up the expenses of journalists who travelled to Guatemala to learn its side of the crisis, and some of the most respected North American publications, including the New York Times, Christian Science Monitor, New York Herald Tribune, and New Leader, ran stories that pleased the company.'' (4)
People can easily find The United Fruit Company (UFCO)-like monopoly capitalists in Hong Kong. This classical case proved that any regime change attempt of US against particular foreign country is urged by multi-national companies operating in that country or region in the first place.
Another classical case is the Chile Coup Attempt of 1970. This time the monopolistic telecommunication company I.T.T. demanded the Nixon administration to stage a coup in Chile. Hence, the ultimate mastermind of the coup was I.T.T. not the US government at all.
''WASHINGTON, March 21—Jack Anderson said tonight that the International Telephone and Telegraph Corporation had told the White House in 1970 it would be prepared to “assist financially in sums up to seven figures” to block the impending inauguration of Salvador Allende Gossens as Chile's President. In his syndicated column, distributed for publication in tomorrow's newspapers and dealing, like today's, with I.T.T. and the 1970 election of the Chilean Marxist, Mr. Anderson quoted from what he said was a long memorandum from a ranking company official on his discussions with Nixon Administration officials.
“The company's efforts, and Its fervent hopes for a military coup [in Chile], are spelled out in a remarkable set of secret documents from I.T.T.'s Washington office,” Mr. Anderson wrote. But, he said, “the documents indicate the company got a generally polite but cool reception from the White House and the State Department, although Ambassador to Chile Edward Kerry is reported to have been militantly anti‐Allende and friendly to I.T.T.'s cause.
[...] Mr. Anderson quoted in particular tonight from what he said was a memorandum dated Sept. 14, 1970, from J. D. Neal, the I.T.T.'s director of international relations, to W. R. Merriam, the head of the company's Washington office. Investments in Chile: Mr. Neal, who had joined I.T.T. after a long career in the State Department, was quoted as having said he had telephoned an aide to Henry A Kissinger, the White House adviser on national security of fairs, after having heard from Mr. Merriam certain “suggestions about Chile” that the company president, Harold S. had made. The telephone call was said to have been made to Viron P. Vaky, then Mr. Kissinger's staff adviser on Latin America and Mr. Neal was said to have conveyed to him “Mr. Geneen's deep concern about the Chile situation.” This concern was linked to the company's investments in Chile, including a 70 per cent interest in the Chile Telephone Company, which was taken over by the Allende Government last October, a telephone equipment manufacturing concern and two Sheraton hotels. Mr. Neal was quoted as writing in the memorandum that he “Told Mr. Vaky to tell Mr. Kissinger Mr. Geneen is willing to come to Washington to discuss I.T.T.'s interest and that we are prepared to assist financially in sums up to seven figures.”'' (5)
Again, the another classical case also proved that a regime change operation is primarily demanded by monopolistic multinational companies operating in a specified country or region.
Although Hong Kong colour revolutions followed the similar path, the major difference is that Hong Kong ''regime'' change attempts targeted the local government not the central government like any other case. It is quite impossible to estimate that overthrowing the local government is equal with overthrowing the central government. Thus their true aim was not to overthrow the local government. There are several reasons for this:
a) The top Hong Kong oligarch Ka-shing Li (1928-) himself denied any prospect of successful separatist independence from China.
''對於港獨問題，李嘉誠指港獨說「脫離現實」，港人不會認同，反問「香港有咩資格獨立呀？」被問及本港出現「本土」想法，李嘉誠指，香港是中國一部分。他又指，中央已多次重申本港「一國兩制」不變，認為見到中央的決心。他又以「黃台之瓜 何堪再摘」比喻香港現況，指不論政治派別為何，港人都不應再做傷害香港之事。被問及對2047問題的看法，李嘉誠回應指「2047年一國一制都話唔定」，但相信屆時「國內人嘅心會好好多」，呼籲港人可以樂觀一點。'' (6)
b) Mainland China stably dominates both trade and energy resources of Hong Kong. It cannot be challenged by just staging colour revolutions in this city because of mainland China's fundamental importance for the city's economy. For instance, almost all energy supplies are from mainland. Furthermore, it did not weaken the mainland China's grip on the islands after the numerous colour riots. The economic data tells everything.
''Since the reform and opening-up of the Mainland, its share of Hong Kong's global trade had increased significantly from 9.3% in 1978 to 51.8% (HK$4,248.0 billion or US$547.6 billion) in 2020. It has been Hong Kong's largest trading partner since 1985. The Mainland has been Hong Kong's largest supplier in goods since 1982. The value of Hong Kong's total imports from the Mainland was HK$1,923.5 billion (US$248.0 billion), accounting for 45.1% of Hong Kong's total imports in 2020.
[...] Major imports were electrical machinery, apparatus and appliances, telecommunications and sound recording and reproducing apparatus and equipment, office machines and automatic data processing machines, professional, scientific and controlling instruments and apparatus, and articles of apparel and clothing accessories, etc. [...] In 2020, the Mainland was Hong Kong's largest domestic export market, absorbing HK$22.1 billion (US$2.8 billion) worth of goods, or 46.6% of our total domestic exports. Major domestic exports were plastics in primary forms, medicinal and pharmaceutical products, cereals and cereal preparations, metalliferous ores and metal scrap, and non-ferrous metals, etc.
[...] Hong Kong was the Mainland's largest source of realised foreign direct investment, accounting for about 55.0% of the national total as at end-2019, with the cumulative value reaching HK$9,367.9 billion (US$1,195.5 billion). Hong Kong's investments in the Mainland concentrate largely in the Guangdong Province. In 2020, Guangdong Province's realised direct investment from Hong Kong reached RMB$118.9 billion, representing an increase of 13.1%.'' (7)
As the above data clearly indicates, there is no objective reason for Hong Kong oligarchs and US to voluntarily abandon the economic ties with the mainland China in terms of profits. Thus, those limited colour riots were originally not meant to separate Hong Kong and mainland. The strategic goal is not geographical separation at all as they clearly know separation is impossible.
''Hong Kong derives its energy supplies almost entirely from external sources. Energy is either imported directly (as in the case of oil products and coal products), or produced through some intermediate transformation processes using imported fuel inputs (as in the case of electricity and gas). [...] The mainland of China has been the major supplier of natural gas and LPG in recent years. [Tables 2.4(A) - 2.4(C)]
[...] In 2020, Indonesia accounted for 73.1% of imports of steam coal and other coal as well as 40.0% of imports of wood charcoal in Hong Kong. [Table 3.4(C)] [...] Imports of electricity from mainland of China exhibited a general upward trend in the past decade, with 20.8% increase recorded between 2010 and 2020. [Table 4.3] (8)
Apparently, without the major energy suppliers mainland China and Indonesia, Hong Kong itself is unable to produce energy for its population. This is why any separatist colour revolution is scientifically nonsense and completely inapplicable in Hong Kong. Moreover, the ruling class of this city including US did not have any determined intention, motive to completely isolate the city from the rest of the world. Their true goal was and still is something different from the official narrative.
d) The ruling class of Hong Kong especially in the financial sector prophesied the unexpectedly ''limited or minor influence'' of colour revolutions on HK economy beforehand in terms of investment. Indeed, they had strong confidence on it. Surprisingly, they always proved the prophecies at the end. It means that those colour revolutions were not random events and not managed by complete outsiders who are totally uncontrollable, alienated from the local ruling class. Bank of America (Merrill Lynch) prophesied:
[...] 銀行和金融業影響有限。 美林估計在基本情況下，「佔領中環」對香港銀行和金融業的盈利影響低於1%，因為大多數銀行已經制定業務連續性計劃，可以轉移員工和客戶至抗議區域外，因此對香港銀行和金融業影響有限。房地產市場影響有限。在基本情況下，「佔領中環」對香港房地產市場影響將會有限；但是若在最壞情況下，由於遊客數目減少，對零售業及房地產市場(尤其是出租股)的盈利將有影響，購買住宅物業的市場氣氛亦有負面反應。'' originally cited by Bank of China. (9)
Then, compare the annual growth rate of GDP between 2013 and 2014. The former was +3.102%; the latter was +2.762% annual growth. Both were positive annual growth rates. There was no such general crisis for oligarchs. (10)
How about 2019? First, the ups and downs of Hong Kong retail sales are tightly linked with the wave of mainland tourist arrivals in direct proportion which have been drastically and systematically plunged after May 2019. In other words, the economic stagnation has started before the first colour riot of June 12, 2019. It inevitably accompanied the decline of retail sales since then until now (2021). This political reaction from mainland China was unpredicted by any financial experts beforehand as a main cause of the downfall of GDP growth of 2019.
One major driver of the economic downturn in Hong Kong is a steep decline in retail sales. Private consumption accounts for around 65% of the city’s GDP.
[...] Visitors from mainland China, who account for close to 80% of tourists in Hong Kong, fell by around 4.45% in January to October this year compared to the same period in 2018.
INTERESTING VIDEO (2019)
Despite the Soros conspiracy theory (his assumed loss for the 'mysterious' systemic error of The Stock Exchange of Hong Kong of September 5, 2019 was unconfirmed by the US media SCMP on September 17, 2019; Short sellers assembled for Hong Kong’s market tumble may have paid HK$12.4 billion for show that never was), Hong Kong's stock market was unexpectedly prosperous throughout 2019.
The numerous colour riots of 2019 did not even torment the Hong Kong's vital stock market and 'investors' in contrary to official narrative of 'pro-establishment' media.
Despite the pressure on the economy, Hong Kong’s benchmark stock index — the Hang Seng Index — appears on track to end 2019 higher than where it started the year.
Hong Kong looks set to retain its position as the top market for new stock listings globally. That’s mainly thanks to a mega secondary listing by Chinese technology giant Alibaba and an initial public offering by brewery Budweiser’s Asia Pacific business, which helped the city surpass rival stock exchanges in the U.S. and mainland China. (11)
e) US enjoys high trade surplus with Hong Kong, has a tight grip on its financial system, law system and media culture. This is why the goal of localised colour revolutions are especially different from any other cases in history in Hong Kong. Simply, US has no motive to overthrow this local government at all because US already has what they wanted in this city.
The most important point is that US did not impose ''crippling sanctions'' on Hong Kong as it's imposing on Cuba and Venezuela. It was and still is impossible if their real aim was to overthrow the SAR government. In other words, those local colour revolutions were originally not meant to overthrow the SAR government but those were mainly to protect vested interests and local oligarchs ('real estate hegemony') in this city by scapegoating cannon fodders. In the sense that CCP's anti-monopoly policy triggered fear of local oligarchs, and then, they demanded the US government to stage the political 'exorcism', 'controlled' revolutions against oligarchs' competitors, HK workers and CCP without damaging high trade surplus between HK and US. They even exploited the events to further consolidate their political powers in the SAR 'establishment'. This explains ''custom-made'' colour revolutions people witnessed in 2014 and 2019. In other words, BLUE / YELLOW colour politics itself cannot explain this logically.
High Trade Surplus With Hong Kong in 2019
U.S. goods and services trade with Hong Kong totalled an estimated $61.3 billion in 2019. Exports were $45.0 billion; imports were $16.3 billion. The U.S. goods and services trade surplus with Hong Kong was $28.7 billion in 2019.
The U.S. goods trade surplus with Hong Kong was $26.0 billion in 2019, a 16.1% decrease ($5.0 billion) from 2018. The United States had a services trade surplus of an estimated $2.7 billion with Hong Kong in 2019, up 3.1% from 2018.
U.S. foreign direct investment (FDI) in Hong Kong (stock) was $81.9 billion in 2019, a 2.6% increase from 2018. U.S. FDI in Hong Kong is led by non-bank holding companies, manufacturing, and information services.
Hong Kong's FDI in the United States (stock) was $14.1 billion in 2019, up 7.2% from 2018. Hong Kong's FDI in the United States is led by wholesale trade, manufacturing, and real estate. (12)
These numbers clearly indicate that US has no stake in ''destroying Hong Kong''. If Hong Kong really becomes the Libya or Afghanistan, US will simply lose the astronomical trade surplus with Hong Kong. It proved that core masterminds of Hong Kong vastly benefited from FDI in US in 2019, and US itself is at least not the core mastermind of those political events. Therefore, the official narrative to frame US is ridiculously false.
As citizens know well that Hong Kong is part of the US Dollar international payment system (Ultimately, all international payments in US dollars have to be settled through the US, as the issuer of the currency. Specifically, international wire transfers are processed via the Federal Reserve's Real Time Gross Settlement System (RTGS), known as the “Fedwire Funds Service” or just “Fedwire”). Moreover, there is no de-dollarisation tendency in Hong Kong.
The US dollar RTGS system (also known as US dollar CHATS) was launched in August 2000 with The Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation as its settlement institution. The US dollar RTGS system not only processes US dollar interbank payments on an RTGS basis, but also handles US dollar bulk clearing and settlement of cheques and stock market-related payments. Banks in Hong Kong are entitled to access the system and can apply for direct membership through the settlement institution or indirect membership by settling their payments through direct members. Participation of other financial institutions has to be approved by the HKMA and the settlement institution on a case-by-case basis. (13)
The exchange rate of HKD with USD is fixed. HKMA called it Linked Exchange Rate System.
The Monetary Base is fully backed by US dollar assets, and all changes in the Monetary Base are fully matched by corresponding changes in US dollar assets held in the Exchange Fund at a fixed exchange rate. The HKMA provides Convertibility Undertakings (CUs), under which the HKMA commits to sell Hong Kong dollars upon request by banks at the strong-side CU of HK$7.75 per US dollar, and to buy Hong Kong dollars upon request by banks at the weak-side CU of HK$7.85 per US dollar. (14)
The fixed exchange rate system with US is firmly defended by the HKSAR government. Therefore, this is no scientific reason to cause the downfall of the business partner for US.
In comparison to investing in Chinese companies listed in Shanghai or Shenzhen – the home of Mainland China’s two stock exchanges – it is more attractive for foreign investors to invest in Chinese companies listed in Hong Kong. Shanghai and Shenzhen are subject to Mainland China’s capital controls whereas Hong Kong is not. Even where Chinese companies are only listed in Shanghai or Shenzhen, Hong Kong has the added advantage of stock exchange connection schemes with both cities. These schemes mean foreign investors can invest in eligible Chinese companies only listed in Shanghai or Shenzhen through the more investor-friendly Hong Kong stock exchange.
[...] More recently, the capital raising role of Hong Kong has become even more important to China as an ever-growing number of Chinese companies are choosing to complete listings on Hong Kong’s stock exchange. Many of these companies are already listed on the New York stock exchange and are completing secondary listings on the Hong Kong stock exchange in anticipation of the delisting of Chinese companies by more hawkish US financial regulators.
These secondary listings in Hong Kong have even been dubbed the ‘homecoming’ of Chinese companies and include tech giants, such as NetEase and JD.com. According to Refinitiv, between 2019 and 2020 the value of China offshore listings in Hong Kong doubled to over US$18 billion. In comparison, the same listing in the US grew by only a quarter to over US$3 billion. (15)
From the points of view of ''multinational'' investors, there was no general crisis of Hong Kong economy during the colour revolution of 2019. It did not even exist in their eyes. Completely no significant impacts on investments in Hong Kong at all.
For the ruling class of Hong Kong, those political events were isolated, limited, 'well-organised' incidents which totally under their control thus those were surprisingly ignorable factors in practice. On the contrary, if those colour revolutions were genuinely random events organised by completely independent outsiders, there could have been a real economic crisis for multinational investors (MNCs; including both internal and external forces).
US is one of English common law countries yet there is no US judge in Hong Kong at present (July 16, 2021). Those Overseas Non-Permanent Judges don't include any US judge as citizens can check on their official HKCFA website (they are mainly from UK, Australia and Canada).
However, US and other MNCs' real political ground in this field is the Legislative Council of Hong Kong under the membership of lawfully designated 'pro-establishment' trade unions according to Cap. 542 Legislative Council Ordinance:
20P. Composition of the commercial (first) functional constituency (See Special Remarks)
The commercial (first) functional constituency is composed of corporate members of The Hong Kong General Chamber of Commerce entitled to vote at general meetings of the Chamber.
(Added 48 of 1999 s. 13. Amended 14 of 2021 s. 284) (16)
Then, citizens only need to check corporate members of those 'pro-establishment' Chambers of Commerce if they include 'pro-democracy' US companies.
The Hong Kong General Chamber of Commerce - 'Pro-establishment' camp
From the member directory of the official site (of course, it is not a full list), people can check US companies easily, for instance,
The New York Times (HKN0347).
NYT is US democrat media and one of prominent supporters of 'pro-democracy' camp. NYT reported on June 29, 2021:
HONG KONG — With each passing day, the boundary between Hong Kong and the rest of China fades faster.
The Chinese Communist Party is remaking this city, permeating its once vibrant, irreverent character with ever more overt signs of its authoritarian will. The very texture of daily life is under assault as Beijing moulds Hong Kong into something more familiar, more docile.
Residents now swarm police hotlines with reports about disloyal neighbours or colleagues. Teachers have been told to imbue students with patriotic fervour through 48-volume book sets called “My Home Is in China.” Public libraries have removed dozens of books from circulation, including one about the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and Nelson Mandela. (17)
Reading the article titled, 'A Form of Brainwashing’: China Remakes Hong Kong'. Yes, the ''freedom-fighter'' NYT is apparently anti-Beijing, anti-China, anti-CCP but they are like any other 'pro-democracy' MNCs enjoying membership of the largest 'pro-establishment' Chamber of Commerce. This kind of political inconsistency perfectly embodies true nature of political events happening in Hong Kong. For the ruling class of Hong Kong, external forces are internal forces; internal forces are external forces. External forces under membership of warring (?) 'pro-establishment' Chambers of Commerce enjoy electoral privilege and political protection that they can select their own favourable lawmaker(s) at the Legislative Council.
Another interesting thing is that PCCW's cross-organisational membership between YELLOW 'pro-democracy' 'opposition' camp AmCham (B. G. Srinivas; registered in 1981) and BLUE 'pro-Beijing' 'pro-establishment' camp HKGCC (HKP0360).
PCCW Limited is a Hong Kong-based company which holds interests in telecommunications, media, IT solutions, property development and investment, and other businesses.
Employing approximately 23,500* staff, PCCW maintains a presence in Hong Kong, mainland China as well as other parts of the world.
PCCW shares are listed on The Stock Exchange of Hong Kong Limited (SEHK: 0008) and traded in the form of American Depositary Receipts (ADRs) on the OTC Markets Group Inc. in the U.S. (Ticker: PCCWY).
*As at December 31, 2014. (18)
PCCW is the largest telecommunication company in Hong Kong which run by the top oligarchs Ka-shing Li (1928-) and his son, Canadian Richard Li (HKGCC, 1966-) as a multinational company. Its cross-membership between 'pro-establishment' and 'opposition' camps points out that for oligarchs of Hong Kong, YELLOW-BLUE colour politics is just a political device to divide and conquer the working class people. At least political correctness of colour politics is not any limitation for them. Furthermore, local oligarchs are not only internal forces but also are external forces as US MNCs.
In addition, the top #1 oligarch of Hong Kong, Ka-shing Li's CK Hutchison Holdings Limited is a member of both BLUE 'pro-establishment' HKGCC and YELLOW 'anti-CCP' AmCham simultaneously as a US-HK MNC. It is same for another monopoly capital, New World Development that New World Development enjoys cross-membership among BLUE 'pro-establishment' HKGCC (investment; No. HKN0210), Our Hong Kong Foundation (Dr. Henry CHENG as Vice Chairman) and YELLOW 'anti-CCP' AmCham at the same time. Thus, for monopoly capital, colour politics is just a political tool to manage society. With help from the US government, Hong Kong's specifically localised colour revolutions happened in this context. The main aim was and still is to protect vested interests at any cost. Here, one thing must be mentioned that NEXT DIGITAL was neither monopoly capital nor a US MNC. (Apple Daily was the El Mercurio of Hong Kong not the UFCO or I.T.T. in HK politics)
Hong Kong oligarchs (monopoly capital; conglomerates) would say: 'Colour politics for you not for us!'
This shows that US has a grip on the establishment of Hong Kong. Meanwhile, BLUE / YELLOW colour politics is for the working class people not for the ruling class people themselves. There is no colour politics among the upper layer of the ruling class MNCs as masterminds of political campaigns, investors or patrons, the most powerful political and economic forces of society.
Question2: Real Estate Oligarchs are suddenly trustworthy now? They really want to save their victims of social monopolies?
In short, the answer is NO. It seems that TIME FOR PR. There are three news must know below:
a. LegCo's motion on "Increasing land supply on all fronts" on June 9, 2021:
On June 9, 2021, one of the democratically elected lawmakers of HKFTU, Wong Kwok-kin (1952-) submitted the non-binding personal proposal (this itself is a kind of PR) at the Legislative Council of Hong Kong which called ''Increasing land supply on all fronts''. By this move, HKFTU accurately criticised both real-estate oligarchs and crony capitalism of this city. However it was denied by functional constituency representatives' votes, especially by Abraham SHEK Lai-him (1945-) who is the most senior 'automatically elected' functional constituency representative (real-estate; 2000-).
b. At the DAB's forum, one of Hong Kong real estate oligarchs Sun Hung Kai Properties Ltd., Adam KWOK (1983-) who is an executive member of The Real Estate Developers Association of Hong Kong one-sidedly blamed SAR government for alleged postponement of construction procedures that resulted in short of 78,000 units within 6 years.
"The devil is in the details." There are key points in his remarks. One is clear denial of the existence of 'real estate hegemony'. In other words, this oligarch saying major developers are not 'hoarding land for profit' is totally false. Besides this, the major 4 real estate monopoly capitalists only own 1,000 hectares of land?
Even at the time of the worst social unrest in 2019, the big 4 Hong Kong real estate oligarchs' land hoarding recorded more than 1,000 hectares.
Hong Kong real estate oligarchs' propaganda, its PR goal is to deny notorious 'land hoarding' practice, deny existence of so called 'real estate hegemony' (social monopolies by real estate tycoons), and the most important thing is to scapegoat the HK SAR government. Thus they are true and real antagonistic forces in this city.
Moreover, Sun Hung Kai Properties Ltd. owns 5,750 hectares (57, 500, 000 m2) of land in Hong Kong alone in 2020 according to their 2019-20 annual financial report. Only 1,000 hectares? That is a lie.
Another point is that he mentioned 'only if it is separated ownership or development unplanned', they could willingly and cooperatively support land resumption for SAR government. It simply means that Sun Hung Kai Properties Ltd. itself is not willing to directly provide their vastly hoarded lands for the city. Instead, let the SAR government to take others.
c. When LegCo was proceeding to vote on the non-binding proposal 'House Policy Reform, Resolution of Housing Question / 改革房屋政策，解決住屋問題' of Tony Tse (1954-) who is a lawmaker for Functional Constituency (Architectural, Surveying, Planning and Landscape) on July 15, 2021, Abraham SHEK Lai-him (1945-) hypocritically demanded Frank Chan (1958-) who is the Secretary for Transport and Housing, the chairman of Hong Kong Housing Authority of Hong Kong SAR government separation of his Transport and Housing into different departments in order to accelerate the process of constructing public housing units.
In fact, the biggest beneficiaries of inactiveness of the SAR government on the land and housing questions are real estate oligarchs themselves. Furthermore, Abraham SHEK Lai-him's allegation is nothing new while it is a pure PR stunt to hijack momentum of 'reformists' in order to defend vested interests of his employers behind his show. The main point is that like any other PR stunts of the real estate oligarchs of Hong Kong, it is to scapegoat the SAR government for everything. In other words, they do not want to deal with the aftermath of their own greedy social monopolies in this city.
Unfortunately, the KMT media Oriental Daily News even supported their PR campaign by their op-ed on July 16, 2021:
This op-ed proved that the largest media of Hong Kong, Oriental Daily News is just one of propaganda-PR tools for real estate oligarchs. The media itself proved themselves politically unreliable for the working class people of this city.
There are two points cannot be ignored in this article: one is opposition against competition between SAR government and the real estate oligarchs. On the contrary, the competition between them can improve housing issues as the major question still is the lack of competitions. Oriental Daily News distorted it.
Another point is that Oriental Daily News exactly followed real estate oligarchs' scapegoating scheme on the SAR government, as a result, the SAR government is unfairly criticised for all social issues in this city.
Therefore, citizens should more carefully monitor Oriental Daily News while broadly receive news from various media resources. Oriental Daily News is politically unreliable and highly opportunistic to domestic issues. In fact, their true colour is the ruling real estate oligarchy in the present Hong Kong situation.
The Hong Kong oligarchs (two-faced tycoons) feel safe as long as citizens are radically engaging in hazardous BLUE-YELLOW colour politics instead of tackling social issues caused by social monopolies of the oligarchs themselves. Furthermore, after every large scale colour riot, oligarchs and their 'agents' can always appear as local 'prosecutors' for the central government due to their official 'pro-establishment' position and cross-organisational titles in the establishment. As a result, poorly brainwashed students and wrongly radicalised workers are totally scapegoated for nothing. In conclusion, colour politics itself must be completely eradicated once and for all.
最近看來地產霸權與石禮謙的經民聯，民建聯，東方日報（台灣的泛藍媒體中時合伙；台灣在野黨國民黨；扮演建制派角色的在港最大''泛藍''媒體）開始了政宣活動(lobbying?)，即將寡頭壟斷資本所造成的罪孽全都歸結於特區政府身上(這是地產霸權的一貫主張；地產霸權不存在論)。這是絕不合公義的，對港府，陳帆也極不公平的，這算是地產霸權惡用媒體的公關，是因為港府本身對港經濟幾乎沒有經濟桿槓(槓桿; economic lever)。地產霸權寡頭明知，在他們壟斷市場和建制權威的現狀機制下，港府增加的土地供應都會自動落入壟斷資本的手裏。看似突然為他們自己受害者的貧民爭取改革（多麼偽善！），實際上只是偷換改革的概念（偽裝改革）並