3 ms·

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.
  - mytailorisrich 7y ago
    It's always quite astonishing the see the attempts at twisting history to paint the Chinese as villains with respect to HK, a Chinese territory snatched in odious circumstances for the benefit of British interests, never for the 'locals'. HK should never have been British. It's now back to China. Let's all move on. It is quite right to support democracy and respect for individual rights, but we should also respect that this is a matter for the Chinese people in China. We would not accept foreigners to dictate what we should do in our own country either.
    - NeedMoreTea 7y ago
      The record is there to be seen. No twisting is necessary, it's a matter of record. We should respect that this is a matter for the Chinese people at the end of the 50 year "one country, two systems" period they willingly signed up to. Until that point sticking to the treaty lodged at the UN seems important. After all if they couldn't abide the terms, surely they wouldn't have signed it? Or is it reasonable for countries, any countries, to break international agreements whenever they feel like it?
      - mytailorisrich 7y ago
        The record only shows what I mentioned and to keep repeating this ignores the main point. As to the 50 year transition period, it remains to be seen how the mainland is breaching the terms or even attempting to breach the terms. But that's largely academic in practice since there is no enforcement. As mentioned it is mostly to placate the British and to allow them to save face. As the saying goes, promises only bind those who believe in them. The Chinese government does seem to make efforts to abide by the terms, though.

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.
- mytailorisrich 7y ago
  It's always quite astonishing the see the attempts at twisting history to paint the Chinese as villains with respect to HK, a Chinese territory snatched in odious circumstances for the benefit of British interests, never for the 'locals'. HK should never have been British. It's now back to China. Let's all move on. It is quite right to support democracy and respect for individual rights, but we should also respect that this is a matter for the Chinese people in China. We would not accept foreigners to dictate what we should do in our own country either.
  - NeedMoreTea 7y ago
    The record is there to be seen. No twisting is necessary, it's a matter of record. We should respect that this is a matter for the Chinese people at the end of the 50 year "one country, two systems" period they willingly signed up to. Until that point sticking to the treaty lodged at the UN seems important. After all if they couldn't abide the terms, surely they wouldn't have signed it? Or is it reasonable for countries, any countries, to break international agreements whenever they feel like it?
    - mytailorisrich 7y ago
      The record only shows what I mentioned and to keep repeating this ignores the main point. As to the 50 year transition period, it remains to be seen how the mainland is breaching the terms or even attempting to breach the terms. But that's largely academic in practice since there is no enforcement. As mentioned it is mostly to placate the British and to allow them to save face. As the saying goes, promises only bind those who believe in them. The Chinese government does seem to make efforts to abide by the terms, though.