本篇英国essay代写-Hong Kong and its democracy讲了香港及其民主问题，尤其是以占领中央的大事为题，引起了国内外的广泛关注。在这段时间，媒体发表了一些文章，其意见与大陆人们所认为的大不相同，这可能是由于对中国的误解及其与香港的关系所致。本篇essay代写由51due代写平台整理，供大家参考阅读。
In my paper I am going to talk about the issue of Hong Kong and its democracy, especially based on the great event of occupying the Central, which has attracted great amount of attention from home and abroad. In this period of time the media published some articles with the views that were quite different from what people in mainland thought, which can be caused by the misunderstanding of China and its relationship with Hong Kong. Particularly I found an article about the comments from BBC, which is titled with "Hong Kong Protests: Has Beijing won?" I am going to analyze this article by asking the question: "what does 'Beijing won' mean, with the help of the facts that you may not know due to the limitations of the media that is not based on China totally, by which I will clarify what the event really was to you. Here's the part of the article which is totally copied from bbc.com.
Hong Kong protests: Has Beijing won?
Some say Xi Jinping has won in Hong Kong. I doubt if that's how he sees it.
As he watches pictures of traffic flowing through the heart of Admiralty today, he will certainly feel relieved that he didn't lose. But he is fighting a multi-level multi-player game. He has merely survived a level.
This is not to say he didn't play adroitly.
By leaving the protests to burn out amidst their own divisions and the weariness of the wider Hong Kong public, he deprived the umbrella movement of the oxygen of repression and demonstrated that Beijing's tool kit for dealing with citizen defiance runs beyond tanks or truncheons.
What's more, he made no concessions. The lesson that Beijing does not bow to pressure was delivered not just to Hong Kong but to the world.
But the only real victory Beijing can claim in the entire episode is not in Hong Kong but at home on the mainland where, barring a few brave souls who raised their voices on behalf of Hong Kong democracy, little stirred.
This is an important victory for the propaganda machine, which successfully presented the protesters as a mix of spoilt children narrowly pursuing their own interests at the expense of the public good, and cunning enemies of the state in league with foreign forces.
"Any person who cares about Hong Kong and about the people of Hong Kong should say 'NO' to this hijacking of the general public will for personal objectives," said the Communist Party flagship newspaper, the People's Daily.
Champions of democracy everywhere take note - the aspirations of the young protesters of Hong Kong did not immediately resonate with their counterparts on the mainland.
Despite being beneficiaries of globalization and despite having ever greater contact with the West through university education and holidays abroad, many young Chinese are suspicious of idealistic political messages.
Since childhood, they have been exposed to a historical narrative which dwells on China's humiliation at the hands of foreigners.
Many now echo their government's suspicion of street protests, social chaos and foreign ideas peddled by people whose hidden agenda may be to divide China and keep it down.
According to China's best known military theorist, Sun Tzu (writing two-and-a-half thousand years ago), the best kind of victory is won without fighting.
Seeing the mainland stable throughout two-and-a-half months of street protest in Hong Kong is just such a victory.
But provoking thousands of citizens onto the streets in the first place is, by the same token, no kind of victory at all. Beijing brought the umbrella movement on itself.
Here are some close analysis that are to show you what the author's logic is. “But he is fighting a multi-level multi-player game. He has merely survived a level.” This is a rhetorical expression. The “multi-level” and “multi-player” means Xi Jinping is now at the battle of winning Honk Kong, which is to have many competitive elements that for him it is hard for him to win. The sentence is to express this idea vividly.
“By leaving the protests to burn out amidst their own divisions and the weariness of the wider Hong Kong public, he deprived the umbrella movement of the oxygen of repression and demonstrated that Beijing's tool kit for dealing with citizen defiance runs beyond tanks or truncheons.” This sentence writes the description of how the central government is dealing with the protests. Here the writer uses some rhetoric expressions vividly by the words “umbrella movement” and “the oxygen of repression to render that China government is going to persecute the protests, but China central government didn’t send any police to Hong Kong because Hong Kong in many areas governed themselves. Without using those words, the sentence will not be so pungent
“What's more, he made no concessions. The lesson that Beijing does not bow to pressure was delivered not just to Hong Kong but to the world.” In this sentence, the author uses “what’s more” to make China government more critical because it can show that he has worse mistake that should be criticized by the world. Maybe in the author’s eyes, it is still that there are no concessions on the way Beijing government deals with protests. The “lesson” is still a metaphor, which means “announcement” or something. That is to say, in author’s view, the government shows her tough to not only Hong Kong but the world. And still the fact is that those who lead the protesting movement have been banned to go to some countries because these countries government take him as the person who will destroy their public security. Thus the fact is that Beijing government never shows anything against the world in this event.
“But the only real victory Beijing can claim in the entire episode is not in Hong Kong but at home on the mainland where, barring a few brave souls who raised their voices on behalf of Hong Kong democracy, little stirred.” Here appears the word “but” to show the importance of the sentence, which is the discounting term to show the idea that Beijing really get their victory on putting some people who are for the occupying in jails. Here the author is to say Beijing government takes some measures that of dictatorship to control the condition or public opinion. Still the fact is that there’s no evidence that the central government has arrested anyone who express the support for Hong Kong people’s occupying, because it has never happened. On the contrary, the public opinion is not to support the occupying, because those who support occupying were criticized by the public with sharp words. In this time the central government stands with their people.
“Despite being beneficiaries of globalization and despite having ever greater contact with the West through university education and holidays abroad, many young Chinese are suspicious of idealistic political messages.” There uses two “despite” to be the discounting word that to imply the opinion that will occur at the following expressions, which is led by “many”, which is a guarding term to prove that there is the situation that really occur just like what the author has mentioned.
“But provoking thousands of citizens onto the streets in the first place is, by the same token, no kind of victory at all. Beijing brought the umbrella movement on itself.” Here again using “but”, not to mention, to highlight the author’s view that will mention in the main clause. “no victory at all” is the evaluate term, which is to stress that the behavior that is mentioned before is nothing like a victory.
The whole article has no assuring, but from words to words, the author is quite sure about her idea. Maybe it is because it is an article that published on the official media, it cannot be too subjective.
Here we are going to reconstruct the argument that the author has written out.
“But the only real victory Beijing can claim in the entire episode is not in Hong Kong but at home on the mainland where, barring a few brave souls who raised their voices on behalf of Hong Kong democracy, little stirred.” In this sentence, the author doesn’t give a clear chain of reasoning; therefore, the premise of her conclusion is not clear. We can try to find the reasoning chain as follow:
The victory for Beijing is to stop people to stand on behalf of Hong Kong’s event
Beijing government has done it well, but not in Hong Kong or the world
∴ Beijing can claim their victory on the mainland
From this chain we can find that the in author’s eyes, the mission for China’s mainland government is to control the public opinion about the event, and she can do anything even it is too far. But there are some problems upon the reasoning:
Firstly, the government has never put anyone into the jail due to expressing any opinion about Occupying the Central. We cannot find any evidence from media all over the world, because it never happens.
Secondly, controlling the public opinion has nonsense to the Beijing government, because for China’s government, the most important thing is to maintain the unification of the country. Repressing people’s voice has nothing to Chinas victory, or China has no competition to anyone except for those who are ready to damage Hong Kong’s public security and stability on the excuse of democracy. But since Hong Kong is a self-governed place, the central government doesn’t do too much to stop the event.
Thirdly, the author wrongly estimated that people are on the wrong side against the government. The truth is that people on the mainland are wholly support the government to take measures to stop the protesting, because it has greatly damaged Hong Kong’s economy. Netizens voluntarily criticize the people who are attempting to make Hong Kong out of China’s government by instigating people to parade on the street.
The misunderstanding of China’s government is because people don’t fully understand that China is a governed by dictatorship. However, the truth is China’s government is not as what media described. People in China enjoy fully human right.
Thus we are able to have the knowledge that "Beijing won" has nonsense from my analysis of the logic that how the author prove Beijing won. I have analyzed how the author give out her idea and what is her premise to draw out her conclusion. However, the premise she write to get her conclusion is wrong mainly because her premise is not the fact. So the conclusion that she draw that Beijing won in mainland by barring people who raised their voices for Hong Kong’s protests is totally wrong. That is what we position now we should stand.