4 ms·

> I don't think it's clear that the protestors started the violence. Most reports seem to indicate otherwise. Its clear from the videos of protest supporters a

> I don't think it's clear that the protestors started the violence. Most reports seem to indicate otherwise. Its clear from the videos of protest supporters and media outlet without China's influence like BBC, CNN, The Guardian that there was violence in the protest (not small enough to be ignored). This is just deflecting the reality to create confusion. Hong Kong is China according to handover and follows "Chinese Nationality Law" except for the provisions defined in "Basic Law" which differentiate part of two systems for 50 years. So people who accepted it stayed back and those who couldn't went to either Canada, UK or some other destination. The funny part is many returned back [1][2][3], when it didn't work out for them economically or culturally in those places. Now the situation is very different, the long term prospect of cities like Shanghai, Shenzhen, Beijing, Guangzhou looked better than Hong Kong which largely moved to worse especially in housing. This discontent when there is no visible better future prospects descended into protests conflating many issues. If protests only targeting the real primary reason of economics and future prospects, it might not have divided society. Hong Kong has always been about trade, economics and money. British kept it the same without granting freedom or democracy, China to fulfill the provisions of Basic Law granted autonomy (indeed more autonomy in policy making compared to when it was a British colony), but not outright democracy which is not part of the Basic Law or Handover. [1] http://content.time.com/time/specials/2007/article/0,28804,1630244_1630240_1630206,00.html http://content.time.com/time/specials/2007/article/0,28804,1... [2] http://edition.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/asiapcf/06/06/hk.returnees/ http://edition.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/asiapcf/06/06/hk.returnees... [3] http://www.nbcnews.com/id/19438776/ns/world_news-asia_pacific/t/some-regret-leaving-hong-kong-some-return/ http://www.nbcnews.com/id/19438776/ns/world_news-asia_pacifi...

khc 7y ago
> Its clear from the videos of protest supporters and media outlet without China's influence like BBC, CNN, The Guardian that there was violence in the protest (not small enough to be ignored). This is just deflecting the reality to create confusion. That's not a fair characterization at all. The distrust for police goes deeper[1] and even just looking at this year's protest it's not clear cut. > British kept it the same without granting freedom or democracy That's again wrong. British did give HK some democracy and definitely more freedom than what's currently given (at least in reality if not on paper) > China to fulfill the provisions of Basic Law granted autonomy (indeed more autonomy in policy making compared to when it was a British colony), but not outright democracy which is not part of the Basic Law or Handover. The recent protest started because China is not fulfilling the provisions of Basic Law [1] https://qz.com/281108/is-hong-kongs-famed-rule-of-law-breaking-down/ https://qz.com/281108/is-hong-kongs-famed-rule-of-law-breaki...
- dragonsh 7y ago
  > That's again wrong. British did give HK some democracy and definitely more freedom than what's currently given (at least in reality if not on paper) British were in Hong Kong for 150 years and only granted enough freedom to Hong Kong to align with their own interest of generating profits and economic dividends for Britain. This is how they treated all their colony including Hong Kong. This is not freedom, its like instead of a caged zoo, they gave an open zoo with a bit larger area and decides what freedoms to give. Hong Kong never had democracy including during British time. If you have any written evidence in law or regulation on the contrary let me know. So far I couldn't find any evidence except the "Basic Law" which guarantees certain freedom. In civil societies we have institution of marriage with regulations and laws. It exists on paper, although many will say love doesn't need a certificate. If there is a commitment it's not a problem to put it on paper, not granting Hong Kong freedom and democracy on paper shows Britain's treatment of Hong Kong as a colony. > The recent protest started because China is not fulfilling the provisions of Basic Law If China broke any provisions of Basic Law a case can be filed in courts of Hong Kong. Indeed Hong Kong asked China to re-interpret Basic Law which contravenes basic human rights in 1999. No one protested at that time because although it was against basic human rights, it benefits Hong Kong people economically. "On 26 June 1999, in line with the request of the HKSAR Government, the NPCSC issued its interpretation which makes it clear that children born outside Hong Kong will be eligible for the right of abode only if at least one of their parents has already acquired permanent residence status at the time of their birth. Also, those eligible for ROA need to comply with Article 22 of the Basic Law, i.e. they need to apply for the necessary approval from the relevant Mainland authorities before entry into Hong Kong. The Chief Executive, Tung Chee Hwa, announced measures to be taken by the Government. Later rulings of the Court of Final Appeal confirmed that the Government had acted entirely constitutionally and legally. Differences in opinion remain as to whether Hong Kong's judicial independence and the rule of law have been undermined. Criticism of the interpretation has originated largely from the legal sector."
  - khc 7y ago
    > British were in Hong Kong for 150 years and only granted enough freedom to Hong Kong to align with their own interest I don't want to speculate why the British did what they did, and that's not the point > Hong Kong never had democracy including during British time. If you have any written evidence in law or regulation on the contrary let me know. So far I couldn't find any evidence except the "Basic Law" which guarantees certain freedom. There's a difference between freedom and democracy and I will answer separately. On democracy, HK had long had some sort of election for the legislature (sure not the entire 150 years). I was there and my parents voted. It's dishonest to say you can't find any evidence of it. On freedom. Basic Law may well (I am not sure) be the first local constitution, but the HK court system followed British precedence and people in HK generally enjoyed the same freedom guarantees that British living in UK do. Also, in practice there's increasing levels of self-censorship so having the Basic Law doesn't mean much. > If China broke any provisions of Basic Law a case can be filed in courts of Hong Kong. Indeed Hong Kong asked China to re-interpret Basic Law... No one protested at that time Actually plenty of people protested, but I see you cherrypicked examples. More recently China re-interpreted Basic Law to disqualified democratically elected legislature members. China also sent agents to HK and kidnapped an HK resident into China for political crime. You said British only granted freedom to HK base on self-interest, and you are very eager to be very generous towards China's motivations and skipped over examples that are very easy to find. Either you are not able to find them because they are blocked by the GFW, or that's something are more intentional on your part.
thedudeabides5 7y ago
Ok, and what if the people of Hong Kong just don’t want to be part of China anymore? Independence movements are as old as the concepts colonialism and empire. Why not expand the right of self-determinism to Hong Kong?
- Mikeb85 7y ago
  And who's going to enforce this 'right'? It's not about what's right, just realpolitik. China's not letting them go, everyone knows that.
- dragonwriter 7y ago
  > Why not expand the right of self-determinism to Hong Kong? Because no one outside of Hong Kong is going to fight a war with China over it, and that's what defending that right in any substantive way means.
NeedMoreTea 7y ago
> British kept it the same without granting freedom or democracy Well they tried. Shortly after the Chinese revolution, HK was receiving an influx of refugees from China. Mostly well educated and skilled people. Britain was moving to bring in democratic reforms in the 1950s. China threatened to invade to "liberate" the territory if such reforms continued. https://qz.com/279013/the-secret-history-of-hong-kongs-stillborn-democracy/ https://qz.com/279013/the-secret-history-of-hong-kongs-still...
- dragonsh 7y ago
  > Well they tried. Shortly after the Chinese revolution, HK was receiving an influx of refugees from China. Mostly well educated and skilled people. Britain was moving to bring in democratic reforms in the 1950s. China threatened to invade to "liberate" the territory if such reforms continued. They didn't try but abandoned any efforts due to self interest of profits and economic extraction from a colony. The article put this in a better context, I just put excerpts from the link you shared: Brits wanted to make sure they’d protected their economic interests before they departed, much the way they did in Singapore and Malaysia. Another one: In fact, in 1982, when negotiations began, the Hang Seng Index was already shaky due to fears that if China took over, the Communist Party would gut Hong Kong’s rule of law or nationalize wealth, causing the market to crash and capital to flee. The Brits needed to calm markets and ensure financial stability. That meant making sure the handover agreement protected British financial interests.
  - NeedMoreTea 7y ago
    The consequence of continuing would have been far worse than abandoning. The fact remains that they were moving to put in place democratic reforms. Prior to the Chinese revolution HK was an economic backwater - most of its population being related to the transhipment port and military presence. Kowloon and New Territories were only added as buffer zone for the port. Growth was nearly all post Chinese revolution. In the post-war decolonisation period GB had a policy of no independence before majority rule. They were putting in place democratic reforms elsewhere, and ensuring minority rule (ie South Africa) didn't continue after independence.
cthalupa 7y ago
>Its clear from the videos of protest supporters and media outlet without China's influence like BBC, CNN, The Guardian that there was violence in the protest (not small enough to be ignored). This is just deflecting the reality to create confusion. Only if you ignore the fact that government encouraged (and rewarded) counter-protestors were attacking them in the subways on the way to and from the initial peaceful protests.

khc 7y ago

> Its clear from the videos of protest supporters and media outlet without China's influence like BBC, CNN, The Guardian that there was violence in the protest (not small enough to be ignored). This is just deflecting the reality to create confusion. That's not a fair characterization at all. The distrust for police goes deeper[1] and even just looking at this year's protest it's not clear cut. > British kept it the same without granting freedom or democracy That's again wrong. British did give HK some democracy and definitely more freedom than what's currently given (at least in reality if not on paper) > China to fulfill the provisions of Basic Law granted autonomy (indeed more autonomy in policy making compared to when it was a British colony), but not outright democracy which is not part of the Basic Law or Handover. The recent protest started because China is not fulfilling the provisions of Basic Law [1] https://qz.com/281108/is-hong-kongs-famed-rule-of-law-breaking-down/ https://qz.com/281108/is-hong-kongs-famed-rule-of-law-breaki...

dragonsh 7y ago
> That's again wrong. British did give HK some democracy and definitely more freedom than what's currently given (at least in reality if not on paper) British were in Hong Kong for 150 years and only granted enough freedom to Hong Kong to align with their own interest of generating profits and economic dividends for Britain. This is how they treated all their colony including Hong Kong. This is not freedom, its like instead of a caged zoo, they gave an open zoo with a bit larger area and decides what freedoms to give. Hong Kong never had democracy including during British time. If you have any written evidence in law or regulation on the contrary let me know. So far I couldn't find any evidence except the "Basic Law" which guarantees certain freedom. In civil societies we have institution of marriage with regulations and laws. It exists on paper, although many will say love doesn't need a certificate. If there is a commitment it's not a problem to put it on paper, not granting Hong Kong freedom and democracy on paper shows Britain's treatment of Hong Kong as a colony. > The recent protest started because China is not fulfilling the provisions of Basic Law If China broke any provisions of Basic Law a case can be filed in courts of Hong Kong. Indeed Hong Kong asked China to re-interpret Basic Law which contravenes basic human rights in 1999. No one protested at that time because although it was against basic human rights, it benefits Hong Kong people economically. "On 26 June 1999, in line with the request of the HKSAR Government, the NPCSC issued its interpretation which makes it clear that children born outside Hong Kong will be eligible for the right of abode only if at least one of their parents has already acquired permanent residence status at the time of their birth. Also, those eligible for ROA need to comply with Article 22 of the Basic Law, i.e. they need to apply for the necessary approval from the relevant Mainland authorities before entry into Hong Kong. The Chief Executive, Tung Chee Hwa, announced measures to be taken by the Government. Later rulings of the Court of Final Appeal confirmed that the Government had acted entirely constitutionally and legally. Differences in opinion remain as to whether Hong Kong's judicial independence and the rule of law have been undermined. Criticism of the interpretation has originated largely from the legal sector."
- khc 7y ago
  > British were in Hong Kong for 150 years and only granted enough freedom to Hong Kong to align with their own interest I don't want to speculate why the British did what they did, and that's not the point > Hong Kong never had democracy including during British time. If you have any written evidence in law or regulation on the contrary let me know. So far I couldn't find any evidence except the "Basic Law" which guarantees certain freedom. There's a difference between freedom and democracy and I will answer separately. On democracy, HK had long had some sort of election for the legislature (sure not the entire 150 years). I was there and my parents voted. It's dishonest to say you can't find any evidence of it. On freedom. Basic Law may well (I am not sure) be the first local constitution, but the HK court system followed British precedence and people in HK generally enjoyed the same freedom guarantees that British living in UK do. Also, in practice there's increasing levels of self-censorship so having the Basic Law doesn't mean much. > If China broke any provisions of Basic Law a case can be filed in courts of Hong Kong. Indeed Hong Kong asked China to re-interpret Basic Law... No one protested at that time Actually plenty of people protested, but I see you cherrypicked examples. More recently China re-interpreted Basic Law to disqualified democratically elected legislature members. China also sent agents to HK and kidnapped an HK resident into China for political crime. You said British only granted freedom to HK base on self-interest, and you are very eager to be very generous towards China's motivations and skipped over examples that are very easy to find. Either you are not able to find them because they are blocked by the GFW, or that's something are more intentional on your part.

thedudeabides5 7y ago

Ok, and what if the people of Hong Kong just don’t want to be part of China anymore? Independence movements are as old as the concepts colonialism and empire. Why not expand the right of self-determinism to Hong Kong?

Mikeb85 7y ago
And who's going to enforce this 'right'? It's not about what's right, just realpolitik. China's not letting them go, everyone knows that.
dragonwriter 7y ago
> Why not expand the right of self-determinism to Hong Kong? Because no one outside of Hong Kong is going to fight a war with China over it, and that's what defending that right in any substantive way means.

NeedMoreTea 7y ago

> British kept it the same without granting freedom or democracy Well they tried. Shortly after the Chinese revolution, HK was receiving an influx of refugees from China. Mostly well educated and skilled people. Britain was moving to bring in democratic reforms in the 1950s. China threatened to invade to "liberate" the territory if such reforms continued. https://qz.com/279013/the-secret-history-of-hong-kongs-stillborn-democracy/ https://qz.com/279013/the-secret-history-of-hong-kongs-still...

dragonsh 7y ago
> Well they tried. Shortly after the Chinese revolution, HK was receiving an influx of refugees from China. Mostly well educated and skilled people. Britain was moving to bring in democratic reforms in the 1950s. China threatened to invade to "liberate" the territory if such reforms continued. They didn't try but abandoned any efforts due to self interest of profits and economic extraction from a colony. The article put this in a better context, I just put excerpts from the link you shared: Brits wanted to make sure they’d protected their economic interests before they departed, much the way they did in Singapore and Malaysia. Another one: In fact, in 1982, when negotiations began, the Hang Seng Index was already shaky due to fears that if China took over, the Communist Party would gut Hong Kong’s rule of law or nationalize wealth, causing the market to crash and capital to flee. The Brits needed to calm markets and ensure financial stability. That meant making sure the handover agreement protected British financial interests.
- NeedMoreTea 7y ago
  The consequence of continuing would have been far worse than abandoning. The fact remains that they were moving to put in place democratic reforms. Prior to the Chinese revolution HK was an economic backwater - most of its population being related to the transhipment port and military presence. Kowloon and New Territories were only added as buffer zone for the port. Growth was nearly all post Chinese revolution. In the post-war decolonisation period GB had a policy of no independence before majority rule. They were putting in place democratic reforms elsewhere, and ensuring minority rule (ie South Africa) didn't continue after independence.

cthalupa 7y ago