4 ms·

> 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 extens

> 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).
  - duguxu 7y ago
    it’s UN sanctions against China during Korean war. i will add more reply later.
  - duguxu 7y ago
    > OK, so you accept it but reject it. I had read them in Chinese. I accept these documents confirm Beijing opposed turning Hong Kong into a self-governed Dominion, which would probably soon become an independent country like Singapore. Very likely Beijing believed it's harder to integrate an independent polity than a handover from Britain in the future. It's more like a concern against independence in my opinion. The opportunity for democracy I referred to is the kind of attempts like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young_Plan_(Hong_Kong) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young_Plan_(Hong_Kong) . Pressure from Beijing doesn't always make a proper excuse. It's misleading to dismiss the resistance and obstruction from Britain side. I am not trying to argue who is responsible, but considering the final results we have in history, the colony failed to justify with practical actions as a much better light of democracy as some protesters might think. > I still don't Some people may think "freedom" is freedom and "order" is order. But through radical propaganda, these could sounds like "freedom" is about riots and "order" is about crush for other people. That's why there should be some talking about shared values instead stressing only on one of them, even if it is absolutely good. > would you be kind enough to link to something showing that china had sanctions imposed on it by the UK at the time. My mistake, it's not just sanction but embargo. see https://www.mardep.gov.hk/theme/port_hk/en/p1ch6_1.html https://www.mardep.gov.hk/theme/port_hk/en/p1ch6_1.html

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).
- duguxu 7y ago
  it’s UN sanctions against China during Korean war. i will add more reply later.
- duguxu 7y ago
  > OK, so you accept it but reject it. I had read them in Chinese. I accept these documents confirm Beijing opposed turning Hong Kong into a self-governed Dominion, which would probably soon become an independent country like Singapore. Very likely Beijing believed it's harder to integrate an independent polity than a handover from Britain in the future. It's more like a concern against independence in my opinion. The opportunity for democracy I referred to is the kind of attempts like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young_Plan_(Hong_Kong) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young_Plan_(Hong_Kong) . Pressure from Beijing doesn't always make a proper excuse. It's misleading to dismiss the resistance and obstruction from Britain side. I am not trying to argue who is responsible, but considering the final results we have in history, the colony failed to justify with practical actions as a much better light of democracy as some protesters might think. > I still don't Some people may think "freedom" is freedom and "order" is order. But through radical propaganda, these could sounds like "freedom" is about riots and "order" is about crush for other people. That's why there should be some talking about shared values instead stressing only on one of them, even if it is absolutely good. > would you be kind enough to link to something showing that china had sanctions imposed on it by the UK at the time. My mistake, it's not just sanction but embargo. see https://www.mardep.gov.hk/theme/port_hk/en/p1ch6_1.html https://www.mardep.gov.hk/theme/port_hk/en/p1ch6_1.html