5 ms·

Protesters expose a fractured Hong Kong, but China’s grip only tightens

25 points by La-ang 7y ago

mytailorisrich 7y ago
The issue of HK was settled in 1997 when it returned to full Chinese sovereignty. The rest really is a grieving process for those nostalgic of the colonial period. The transition period was useful for China because HK was important and the government did not want to scare foreign companies away. It also allowed the British to save face. We read sometimes that the expectation was that HK's system would 'spread' to the mainland... It was at best wishful thinking. HK might have had the rule of law (Still has it, and it is still lacking on the mainland) but it did not have Democracy under the British, who really started to open the system up after they agree to the retrocession, and the Chinese were not the type to turn 'soft' (1989 brought those who thought otherwise down to Earth, hard). On the 'Chinese' side (mainland), I think that the thinking was that as the country develops the role and importance of HK would diminish. We see that now. HK really rose to prominence after 1949 when Shanghai was effectively killed off. Before that Shanghai was the leading centre and the trend is that it will reclaim the title. By population Shenzhen is also now larger than HK so one might wonder whether HK will end up being 'absorbed'. For China as a whole, it seems to me that the rule of law is a key issue because China will not be able to truly achieve its potential without it. Lastly, it's interesting that no-one ever mentions Macau that was retroceded to China in 1999 under similar arrangements after a much longer colonial period (governed by the Portuguese since the 16th century). Edit: The Chinese side's point if view is also not often discussed. For China HK has always been a source of shame and humiliation, and understandably so. The retrocession was very emotional in China because it finally ended that period. That is to say that I think that China will never budge on HK and will react very strongly against any 'interference', with the full support of the Chinese population at large because that brings them back to the darkest times of the Opium Wars and of the Unequal Treaties, even if all Chinese are not necessarily unsympathetic towards the protesters when it comes to democracy.
- NeedMoreTea 7y ago
  Of course Hong Kong rose to prominence thanks to masses of anti-communist, mostly well educated and trained refugees fleeing post civil war China. Britain was moving to give the territory democracy in the 1950s. They only refrained when China made it clear that continued moves to democratise would result in invasion. At the same time Beijing talked of the importance of keeping HK just as it was as it was already an essential route to Western trade and hard currency for them. https://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/28/world/asia/china-began-push-against-hong-kong-elections-in-50s.html https://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/28/world/asia/china-began-pu...
  - mytailorisrich 7y ago
    Which colonies did the Brits give democracy to in the 1950s? They were busy fighting the Mau Mau uprising. I feel that blaming Chinese threats is a convenient excuse.
    - NeedMoreTea 7y ago
      The records of Hong Kong are there, and open, so hardly excuse.
      - mytailorisrich 7y ago
        If you know for a fact that a proposal which you don't necessarily agree with, but which would make you look good, is going to be vocally rejected so as to provide you with an apparent reason not to implement it then you should definitely propose it. Politics 101. I'd still like to know about any democratic push by the British colonial authorities in any other colonies at the time... Because even if the HK colonial administration genuinely wanted it I think that the British government did not want to hear about it quite independently of any Chinese 'threat'.
        NeedMoreTea 7y ago
        Except that's not how it happened.

25 points by La-ang 7y ago

The issue of HK was settled in 1997 when it returned to full Chinese sovereignty. The rest really is a grieving process for those nostalgic of the colonial period. The transition period was useful for China because HK was important and the government did not want to scare foreign companies away. It also allowed the British to save face. We read sometimes that the expectation was that HK's system would 'spread' to the mainland... It was at best wishful thinking. HK might have had the rule of law (Still has it, and it is still lacking on the mainland) but it did not have Democracy under the British, who really started to open the system up after they agree to the retrocession, and the Chinese were not the type to turn 'soft' (1989 brought those who thought otherwise down to Earth, hard). On the 'Chinese' side (mainland), I think that the thinking was that as the country develops the role and importance of HK would diminish. We see that now. HK really rose to prominence after 1949 when Shanghai was effectively killed off. Before that Shanghai was the leading centre and the trend is that it will reclaim the title. By population Shenzhen is also now larger than HK so one might wonder whether HK will end up being 'absorbed'. For China as a whole, it seems to me that the rule of law is a key issue because China will not be able to truly achieve its potential without it. Lastly, it's interesting that no-one ever mentions Macau that was retroceded to China in 1999 under similar arrangements after a much longer colonial period (governed by the Portuguese since the 16th century). Edit: The Chinese side's point if view is also not often discussed. For China HK has always been a source of shame and humiliation, and understandably so. The retrocession was very emotional in China because it finally ended that period. That is to say that I think that China will never budge on HK and will react very strongly against any 'interference', with the full support of the Chinese population at large because that brings them back to the darkest times of the Opium Wars and of the Unequal Treaties, even if all Chinese are not necessarily unsympathetic towards the protesters when it comes to democracy.

NeedMoreTea 7y ago
Of course Hong Kong rose to prominence thanks to masses of anti-communist, mostly well educated and trained refugees fleeing post civil war China. Britain was moving to give the territory democracy in the 1950s. They only refrained when China made it clear that continued moves to democratise would result in invasion. At the same time Beijing talked of the importance of keeping HK just as it was as it was already an essential route to Western trade and hard currency for them. https://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/28/world/asia/china-began-push-against-hong-kong-elections-in-50s.html https://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/28/world/asia/china-began-pu...
- mytailorisrich 7y ago
  Which colonies did the Brits give democracy to in the 1950s? They were busy fighting the Mau Mau uprising. I feel that blaming Chinese threats is a convenient excuse.
  - NeedMoreTea 7y ago
    The records of Hong Kong are there, and open, so hardly excuse.
    - mytailorisrich 7y ago
      If you know for a fact that a proposal which you don't necessarily agree with, but which would make you look good, is going to be vocally rejected so as to provide you with an apparent reason not to implement it then you should definitely propose it. Politics 101. I'd still like to know about any democratic push by the British colonial authorities in any other colonies at the time... Because even if the HK colonial administration genuinely wanted it I think that the British government did not want to hear about it quite independently of any Chinese 'threat'.
      - NeedMoreTea 7y ago
        Except that's not how it happened.