5 ms·

Thanks for your patient and kindy reply. I believe many people in China, especially young students or businessmen have read or heard what you mentioned more or

by duguxu 7y ago

Thanks for your patient and kindy reply. I believe many people in China, especially young students or businessmen have read or heard what you mentioned more or less. People from mainland definitely know the official news is not the full picture. But just don't simply assume they have no picture at all or their knowledge is totally incorrect without anything in line with the facts. That's my core point. > They could only examine prima facie evidence, a much lower bar than guilty beyond reasonable doubt. How low is that? Do you have some serious materials easy to read on this issue? I think mainland people never deny Hong Kong's superiority on juridical system. Tourists would have a great interest knowing how it works and make Hong Kong a great success in business. However, it's superficial and hateful to propaganda just by focusing on familiar things and pretending nobody knows. > a proper legal system and accountable democracy are the key to long term stability Every sensible protester knows the importance of stability. But to get more support by propaganda, instead of taking it for granted, there's a lot to explain along the way between their behavior and the value both side shares. For certain group of people, it's not as obvious as the protesters see. >Britain wanted to give more democracy to Hong Kongers, but got opposed by Beijing Notice Britain could have given more democracy for Hong Kong without China's pressure before 1980 but she didn't, like Young plan. My point here is, according to history, the colony is not a better symbol for freedom and democracy than the SAR in mainland people's eyes, but more like a symbol for independence.

tempguy9999 7y ago
> Notice Britain could have given more democracy for Hong Kong without China's pressure before 1980 but she didn't, like Young plan The link from hker's extensive post (thanks man!) 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... specifically says this "But documents recently released by the National Archives in Britain suggest that beginning in the 1950s, the colonial governors who ran Hong Kong repeatedly sought to introduce popular elections but abandoned those efforts in the face of pressure by Communist Party leaders in Beijing" Do you accept britain actually tried to do what you say it didn't? (edit: I'm not denying we did some really bad stuff, but we may have got it right that time) Also in your original post you said > Stressing only on freedom towards mainland people sounds as horrible as stressing only on order towards protesters This is very hard for me to understand as a westerner. 'Freedom' means the ability for me to choose, as an adult individual, what I can do (within the constraints of not messing up the lives of others; basic morality). You seem to be saying that mainlander chinese are actually afraid of or repulsed by that? That they do not wish to have that ability to be themselves? I think I'm reading you wrong, could you give me an idea of what you're trying to say.
- duguxu 7y ago
  > Do you accept britain actually tried to do what you say it didn't? I tend to believe whatever a serious official document says. But notice there was serious corruption in the government of Hong Kong before 1970s and pressure also comes from British officials and businessmen. It’s hard for me to imagine Britain would just abandon democracy mainly because of Beijing’s pressure while at the same time be an anti-communism fortress for western bloc and proactively impose sanctions against mainland. On the other hand, it’s well known there are some controversies between London and Beijing in 1980s after the handover was determined. I think this sentence mixes these two periods together and is misleading if no further new evidence is provided. > This is very hard for me to understand as a westerner. It’s just an analogy. Is order a bad thing for you? Of course not. But I think most westerners wouldn’t regard “order only” in political background as just respecting rules and keeping tidy. Many words are sometimes overused with political agenda behind. Stressing ONLY something means extremism and no compromise at all for other good. I can’t follow your logic from this analogy to these weird conclusions. Chinese like freedom as much as you.
  - tempguy9999 7y ago
    > I tend to believe whatever a serious official document says. [...] and is misleading if no further new evidence is provided. OK, so you accept it but reject it. OK. In case you're interested, if you'd followed the link you'd have seen this "In it, Zhou says Beijing would regard allowing Hong Kong’s people to govern themselves as a “very unfriendly act,” says Cantlie. Not long thereafter, in 1960, Liao Chengzhi, China’s director of “overseas Chinese affairs,” told Hong Kong union representatives that China’s leaders would “not hesitate to take positive action to have Hong Kong, Kowloon and the New Territories liberated” if the Brits allowed self-governance:" and also the original typewritten docs https://qz.com/279013/the-secret-history-of-hong-kongs-stillborn-democracy/ https://qz.com/279013/the-secret-history-of-hong-kongs-still... faded but readable. > I can’t follow your logic from this analogy to these weird conclusions It wasn't a conclusion, only questions. I just didn't understand what you're saying. I still don't. I was just asking for clarification. > and proactively impose sanctions against mainland As someone aware of british abuses of power (opium war etc) and like to know more, would you be kind enough to link to something showing that china had sanctions imposed on it by the UK at the time. I did some googling but found nothing (probably looking in the wrong place).
hker 7y ago
> > They could only examine prima facie evidence, a much lower bar than guilty beyond reasonable doubt. > How low is that? Do you have some serious materials easy to read on this issue? This entry on Prima Facie may be helpful [1], though perhaps a bit light. On a related note, Hong Kong’s conviction rate is just 50% [2], so statistically speaking prima facie is a much lower bar than guilt beyond a reasonable doubt in Hong Kong. Moreover, one additional concern is that cases could be made-up for extradition, such as the case for Gui Minhai in the Causeway Bay Books disappearances [3], making it much easier to produce prima facie evidence for extradition. For a more relevant essay on the difference between Hong Kong’s and Chinese legal system especially on the issue of anti-extradition and the (lack of) independent jurisdiction, see [4] in Chinese. [1]: https://legaldictionary.net/prima-facie/ https://legaldictionary.net/prima-facie/ [2]: https://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/law-crime/article/1833802/low-conviction-rates-magistrates-courts-cause-alarm https://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/law-crime/article/183380... [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causeway_Bay_Books_disappearances https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causeway_Bay_Books_disappearan... [4]: https://www.master-insight.com/內地法制難被接受：法院為何不敢做「無罪判決」/ https://www.master-insight.com/內地法制難被接受：法院為何不敢做「無罪判決」/ > I think mainland people never deny Hong Kong's superiority on juridical system. Tourists would have a great interest knowing how it works and make Hong Kong a great success in business. However, it's superficial and hateful to propaganda just by focusing on familiar things and pretending nobody knows. Thanks for your opinion. There is no denying that the protestors could do better in conveying their message, but arguably their audience, the mainlanders, is so diverse that sometimes it is hard to satisfy everyone. But the protestors would try I think. > > a proper legal system and accountable democracy are the key to long term stability > Every sensible protester knows the importance of stability. But to get more support by propaganda, instead of taking it for granted, there's a lot to explain along the way between their behavior and the value both side shares. For certain group of people, it's not as obvious as the protesters see. Thanks for the words. Yes, even among protestors, there are values that is more obvious to some but less obvious to others, so your view is completely understandable.

by duguxu 7y ago

tempguy9999 7y ago

> Notice Britain could have given more democracy for Hong Kong without China's pressure before 1980 but she didn't, like Young plan The link from hker's extensive post (thanks man!) 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... specifically says this "But documents recently released by the National Archives in Britain suggest that beginning in the 1950s, the colonial governors who ran Hong Kong repeatedly sought to introduce popular elections but abandoned those efforts in the face of pressure by Communist Party leaders in Beijing" Do you accept britain actually tried to do what you say it didn't? (edit: I'm not denying we did some really bad stuff, but we may have got it right that time) Also in your original post you said > Stressing only on freedom towards mainland people sounds as horrible as stressing only on order towards protesters This is very hard for me to understand as a westerner. 'Freedom' means the ability for me to choose, as an adult individual, what I can do (within the constraints of not messing up the lives of others; basic morality). You seem to be saying that mainlander chinese are actually afraid of or repulsed by that? That they do not wish to have that ability to be themselves? I think I'm reading you wrong, could you give me an idea of what you're trying to say.

duguxu 7y ago
> Do you accept britain actually tried to do what you say it didn't? I tend to believe whatever a serious official document says. But notice there was serious corruption in the government of Hong Kong before 1970s and pressure also comes from British officials and businessmen. It’s hard for me to imagine Britain would just abandon democracy mainly because of Beijing’s pressure while at the same time be an anti-communism fortress for western bloc and proactively impose sanctions against mainland. On the other hand, it’s well known there are some controversies between London and Beijing in 1980s after the handover was determined. I think this sentence mixes these two periods together and is misleading if no further new evidence is provided. > This is very hard for me to understand as a westerner. It’s just an analogy. Is order a bad thing for you? Of course not. But I think most westerners wouldn’t regard “order only” in political background as just respecting rules and keeping tidy. Many words are sometimes overused with political agenda behind. Stressing ONLY something means extremism and no compromise at all for other good. I can’t follow your logic from this analogy to these weird conclusions. Chinese like freedom as much as you.
- tempguy9999 7y ago
  > I tend to believe whatever a serious official document says. [...] and is misleading if no further new evidence is provided. OK, so you accept it but reject it. OK. In case you're interested, if you'd followed the link you'd have seen this "In it, Zhou says Beijing would regard allowing Hong Kong’s people to govern themselves as a “very unfriendly act,” says Cantlie. Not long thereafter, in 1960, Liao Chengzhi, China’s director of “overseas Chinese affairs,” told Hong Kong union representatives that China’s leaders would “not hesitate to take positive action to have Hong Kong, Kowloon and the New Territories liberated” if the Brits allowed self-governance:" and also the original typewritten docs https://qz.com/279013/the-secret-history-of-hong-kongs-stillborn-democracy/ https://qz.com/279013/the-secret-history-of-hong-kongs-still... faded but readable. > I can’t follow your logic from this analogy to these weird conclusions It wasn't a conclusion, only questions. I just didn't understand what you're saying. I still don't. I was just asking for clarification. > and proactively impose sanctions against mainland As someone aware of british abuses of power (opium war etc) and like to know more, would you be kind enough to link to something showing that china had sanctions imposed on it by the UK at the time. I did some googling but found nothing (probably looking in the wrong place).

hker 7y ago

> > They could only examine prima facie evidence, a much lower bar than guilty beyond reasonable doubt. > How low is that? Do you have some serious materials easy to read on this issue? This entry on Prima Facie may be helpful [1], though perhaps a bit light. On a related note, Hong Kong’s conviction rate is just 50% [2], so statistically speaking prima facie is a much lower bar than guilt beyond a reasonable doubt in Hong Kong. Moreover, one additional concern is that cases could be made-up for extradition, such as the case for Gui Minhai in the Causeway Bay Books disappearances [3], making it much easier to produce prima facie evidence for extradition. For a more relevant essay on the difference between Hong Kong’s and Chinese legal system especially on the issue of anti-extradition and the (lack of) independent jurisdiction, see [4] in Chinese. [1]: https://legaldictionary.net/prima-facie/ https://legaldictionary.net/prima-facie/ [2]: https://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/law-crime/article/1833802/low-conviction-rates-magistrates-courts-cause-alarm https://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/law-crime/article/183380... [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causeway_Bay_Books_disappearances https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causeway_Bay_Books_disappearan... [4]: https://www.master-insight.com/內地法制難被接受：法院為何不敢做「無罪判決」/ https://www.master-insight.com/內地法制難被接受：法院為何不敢做「無罪判決」/ > I think mainland people never deny Hong Kong's superiority on juridical system. Tourists would have a great interest knowing how it works and make Hong Kong a great success in business. However, it's superficial and hateful to propaganda just by focusing on familiar things and pretending nobody knows. Thanks for your opinion. There is no denying that the protestors could do better in conveying their message, but arguably their audience, the mainlanders, is so diverse that sometimes it is hard to satisfy everyone. But the protestors would try I think. > > a proper legal system and accountable democracy are the key to long term stability > Every sensible protester knows the importance of stability. But to get more support by propaganda, instead of taking it for granted, there's a lot to explain along the way between their behavior and the value both side shares. For certain group of people, it's not as obvious as the protesters see. Thanks for the words. Yes, even among protestors, there are values that is more obvious to some but less obvious to others, so your view is completely understandable.