> 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 Briti

> 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.