Reds under the PTA

Pro-democrat Lee Wing-tat says 40 Communist Party members are among the 150 immigrants per day Hong Kong must must must accept  from China. Everyone assumes as much. In her 2010 book Underground Front – The Chinese Communist Party in Hong Kong, Christine Loh mentioned that many of those selected (by Mainland authorities) for one-way permits are CCP loyalists.

One-way permit holders are supposedly coming here for family reunion after being on a waiting list for years, and are presumably not especially educated or skilled. It is unlikely that Party members among them would be on high-powered ‘missions’. Beijing can send whatever academics, businessmen or officials it wants here to work as serious intel-gathering or other agents.

Lee suggests that this influx of Mainlanders is partly intended to boost the local pro-Beijing electorate. Now Beijing has clearly ruled out representative government in Hong Kong and rigs ballots, this sounds quaint. But his point that the migrants join United Front grassroots activities makes perfect sense. They will speak Mandarin rather than Cantonese. The loyalist newcomers will have ‘neighbourhood committee’ and similar backgrounds. And of course they will bring up their kids to be oh-so patriotic (barring mishaps). This is Mainlandization at its most obvious and basic.

One-way permits would be more a reward for loyalty to the Party than handed out as cover for an official assignment. Bribery and other favoritism probably also come into it – choice of these migrants is all out of Hong Kong’s hands.

So, it’s nothing weird or sinister – just a policy to gradually dilute the native population and culture until they go the way of the Manchu.

This entry was posted in Blog. Bookmark the permalink.

7 Responses to Reds under the PTA

  1. Zek says:

    The ongoing demographic replacement in Hong Kong is blindingly obvious to anyone with eyes to see and has been apparent for some time.

    The 150/day are all about this and about breaking the spirit of the Hong Kong middle class (who can barely afford to raise and educate one child) . High and Low against the Middle is happening all over the world, so nothing new there.

    Are you similarly disenchanted by the dilution of the native stocks, languages, and cultures of Western Countries? Just curious.

    Amusingly, the dysgenic asymmetrical mutants over at Hong Kong Free Press are very much in favour of diluting the Hong Kong Gene pool with any kind of unassimilable incompatible non-mainlander ethnic groups.

  2. @Zek – for me, the use of phrases like “diluting the gene pool” comes uncomfortably close to the wilder shores of eugenics and Nazi plans to breed the master race – not to mention China’s current attempt to wipe out the Uyghurs as a distinct population. Furthermore it confuses culture and race, which are two different (though admittedly often related) concepts.

    Hong Kong’s two significant ethnic minority groups are from the English-speaking countries and South Asia. Both groups have been part of HK since the British moved in – in fact the (then) colony’s first police were Sikhs. Otherwise there are the overseas domestic helpers, the vast majority of whom stay only a few years. So who are these “unassimilable incompatible non-mainlander ethnic groups” you refer to?

  3. Knownot says:

    But there may be many “mishaps” in immigrants’ families. I am hardly the person my parents wanted me to be. Are you?

  4. zek says:

    Old Newcomer:

    To paraphrase a certain Bronshtein, You may not be interested in Human Biological Diversity, but let me assure you that HBD is most definitely interested in your and my progeny, ‘going forward’ (as all the Managerialist/Technocratic drones like to say).

    Alluding to Godwin’s Law every time something a bit icky comes up in political debates isn’t going help us primates from reverting to atavistic lower brainstem behaviour when the Goodthinkers who police the Overton Window and set policy insist on driving society into cul de sacs with their ‘It Ought to Be So’ idealisms. Plain speech and debating unpleasant observable real world facts are the stitch in time that might just save nine. But anyway, let’s get back to Hong Kong.

    The big argument seems to be that Hong Kong’s people were not asked whether or not they consented to being gifted with 150 mainlanders per day. Clearly if asked, they would have said a most emphatic no.

    Every now and then there is much bleating in HKFP and amongst the Good Thinking commentariat about Hong Kong’s duty to accept dubious refugees from Africa, Middle East, and the Subcontinent. Just for fun, occasionally some good-hearted soul complains that Filipinos or other restricted visa holders are barred from a path to permanent residency. All of these rejections are held up as being moral failings of the Hong Kong Government and People. I put it to you that we both know that were a representative sample of the Hong Kong population polled on the acceptability of ANY of the above, the answer would be a resounding No.

    So I’m mildly interested to know why China messing with Hong Kong Demographics without the consent of the governed is any more or less evil and undesirable than SJWs wishing to do precisely the same without the consent of the governed…. the only difference being, the precise genetic makeups of the (shall we say) Dilutants.

    Please tell me that it’s more than just Who Whom 🙂

  5. Stanley Lieber says:


    It would seem that the difference between the groups is (1) volume of immigrants, (2) degree of disruption to the social fabric and (3) malign CCP intentions.

  6. @Zek – the only asylum seeker here whom I know personally is definitely not dubious – if he is sent home he is very likely to wind up on a mortuary slab with a large bullet hole in him, next to his late brother. As for the 150 a day, I don’t think most Hongkongers object to local people being able to bring mainland spouses and children here in an orderly fashion. The two key questions are, are all those coming genuine family reunion cases? Probably not. And is 150 a manageable number, given their needs for housing, education, etc? Maybe not. But both those issues are beyond Hong Kong’s control in present circumstances.

    As for Godwin’s Law, I don’t think any mention of controlling the genetic makeup of a population can fail to raise comparisons with Nazi Germany. I wasn’t using the comparison as a generalised insult.

  7. Zeek ze verbose says:

    After wading through Zek’s dirge, my only thoughts are, ‘come back Dr Adams all is forgiven’!

Comments are closed.