Or perhaps, as a better fit for democratic ideals than Confucius, maybe Mozi?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mozi

AFAIU the crackdown in Hong Kong was predicated on a seemingly Mozi-like argument. From Wikipedia: "Some believe the best descriptor to be state consequentialism. According to this reading, Mohist ethics makes moral evaluations based on how well the action, statement, etc., in question contributes to the stability of a state. Such state-related goods include social order, material wealth, and population growth."

In other words, the protests were threatening not only the stability of the parent Chinese state, but in their duration and severity even the stability of Hong Kong itself. In doing so, the protesters were being selfish and indulgently individualistic. At least, that's the argument the Chinese leadership regularly put forth.

It's amazing that a government can treat its citizens like chattel, and we have politicians here in the west that want to import that. It's disgusting

Calling Taiwan the real China isn't really accurate. I suspect had they managed to crush the Red army the nationalists would have done very similar things to keep control of the region given the instability after they tried to westernise

Are you serious? Confucius ask people to follow tight caste system and all the emperors love it to death. It’s actually great for dictators