6 ms·

I don't think the main problem Hongkongers have with this law is necessarily the content, but the fact it has been pushed on them by an external government whic

I don't think the main problem Hongkongers have with this law is necessarily the content, but the fact it has been pushed on them by an external government which many Hongkongers expected to remain independent from for the next 27 years. From their perspective, having their own government taking marching orders from Beijing undermines the principle of "one country two systems". Aside from the principle of it, there are also several aspects of the proposed law that go beyond what many people consider to be reasonable. Most notable for migrants and tourists is the emphasis on preventing and penalizing "foreign interference", which doesn't sit well in a city that is still the most multicultural in East Asia. Allowing the mainland security apparatus to set up offices in the city is also concerning, given mainland law enforcement is famous for disappearing and torturing people who do not support the single party dictatorship. I think it's fairly clear that this is an opportunistic power-grab by the central government. The coronavirus has allowed them to dramatically increase the intensity of their security measures in the mainland, instituting Xinjiang-style movement tracking apps, "temporary" barricades and checkpoints all over the country. The state media has whipped up intense anti-American hatred, and the government is emboldened by the fact that America is dealing with the virus comparatively poorly. There is a widespread public support for cracking down on Hong Kong, which has been presented here in mainland as a city besieged by terrorists and American agents of chaos, all out to destroy China. I suspect from the point of view of the central government, being able to advance their timetable on the takeover of Hong Kong is the silver lining of this pandemic.

chrischen 6y ago
Was Hong Kong ever really independent though?
- throwaway_pdp09 6y ago
  Well, it made its own laws, had a different style of economy, had much greater freedom. From an outsider's perspective (mine), seems so.
  - chrischen 6y ago
    Read up on Hong Kong history. The people of Hong Kong were under foreign rulers pretty much their entire history. This is one of the reasons why you should always fight for what’s right. Injustice anywhere is injustice everywhere. They just didn’t bother to begin fighting until they didn’t like their ruler.
    - throwaway_pdp09 6y ago
      Of course it was a colony since... whenever. Speaking as a brit, you're bang on. But given that, what rectitude you suggest I (or they) fight for is unclear. It seems they prefer the UK legacy to the encroaching Chinese one. I'm unsure what you're saying (though I do agree with you about rights and justice, completely).
      - OBLIQUE_PILLAR 6y ago
        It is my understanding that the protests originally started over HK residents frustrated that they would never ever be able to afford decent housing inside of HK, and they blamed a couple of central figures in HK (who are not Chinese residents). The protests seem to have become much more than that. The final form of the protests don't address the frustration of HK residents over living costs.
    - jcytong 6y ago
      The British rule was more successful because it was governing at arms length. London never flexed like Beijing by actively disqualifying publicly elected legislators and meddling with its internal affairs, eroding individuals freedom and rights. Eg pressuring companies like Cathay Pacific, Big four accounting firms to take action against employees participating in lawful assemblies and protests. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019%E2%80%9320_Hong_Kong_protests#Mainland_China_reactions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019%E2%80%9320_Hong_Kong_prot...
- av_engr 6y ago
  Essentially, yes. Besides China having sovereignty over the city, it has its own currency, government, different law system than China, a border with China, and different passport. In recent years on the rise of Chinese Nationalism, the Chinese government seems to downplay this a lot to eliminate the HKer's local identity and creates an image of HK = China. Culturally, it is also vastly different than China.
  - chrischen 6y ago
    What i meant was it was under British rule prior to China. The British ruler was literally appointed by outsiders. From an American perspective it’s more about losing a territory under Allied jurisdiction. From the local perspective it’s about losing independence rights—though they didn’t really have that right under British rule either.
    - aianus 6y ago
      Towards the end, it was only under direct British rule because China threatened to invade if the British gave them self-governance. 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...
      - chrischen 6y ago
        Towards the end the British tried to increase Democracy as a an anti-PRC political move but efforts were stalled by HK people themselves. This is a reminder that it’s important to fight for rights everywhere, not just when it suits your interests. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_development_in_Hong_Kong https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_development_in_Ho...
        spacehunt 6y ago
        > stalled by HK people themselves From the article you linked, it says it was stalled by vested interests and the CCP. Where does it say it was stalled by HK people?
supernova87a 6y ago
Thanks for that informative reply

chrischen 6y ago

Was Hong Kong ever really independent though?

throwaway_pdp09 6y ago
Well, it made its own laws, had a different style of economy, had much greater freedom. From an outsider's perspective (mine), seems so.
- chrischen 6y ago
  Read up on Hong Kong history. The people of Hong Kong were under foreign rulers pretty much their entire history. This is one of the reasons why you should always fight for what’s right. Injustice anywhere is injustice everywhere. They just didn’t bother to begin fighting until they didn’t like their ruler.
  - throwaway_pdp09 6y ago
    Of course it was a colony since... whenever. Speaking as a brit, you're bang on. But given that, what rectitude you suggest I (or they) fight for is unclear. It seems they prefer the UK legacy to the encroaching Chinese one. I'm unsure what you're saying (though I do agree with you about rights and justice, completely).
    - OBLIQUE_PILLAR 6y ago
      It is my understanding that the protests originally started over HK residents frustrated that they would never ever be able to afford decent housing inside of HK, and they blamed a couple of central figures in HK (who are not Chinese residents). The protests seem to have become much more than that. The final form of the protests don't address the frustration of HK residents over living costs.
  - jcytong 6y ago
    The British rule was more successful because it was governing at arms length. London never flexed like Beijing by actively disqualifying publicly elected legislators and meddling with its internal affairs, eroding individuals freedom and rights. Eg pressuring companies like Cathay Pacific, Big four accounting firms to take action against employees participating in lawful assemblies and protests. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019%E2%80%9320_Hong_Kong_protests#Mainland_China_reactions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019%E2%80%9320_Hong_Kong_prot...
av_engr 6y ago
Essentially, yes. Besides China having sovereignty over the city, it has its own currency, government, different law system than China, a border with China, and different passport. In recent years on the rise of Chinese Nationalism, the Chinese government seems to downplay this a lot to eliminate the HKer's local identity and creates an image of HK = China. Culturally, it is also vastly different than China.
- chrischen 6y ago
  What i meant was it was under British rule prior to China. The British ruler was literally appointed by outsiders. From an American perspective it’s more about losing a territory under Allied jurisdiction. From the local perspective it’s about losing independence rights—though they didn’t really have that right under British rule either.
  - aianus 6y ago
    Towards the end, it was only under direct British rule because China threatened to invade if the British gave them self-governance. 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...
    - chrischen 6y ago
      Towards the end the British tried to increase Democracy as a an anti-PRC political move but efforts were stalled by HK people themselves. This is a reminder that it’s important to fight for rights everywhere, not just when it suits your interests. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_development_in_Hong_Kong https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_development_in_Ho...
      - spacehunt 6y ago
        > stalled by HK people themselves From the article you linked, it says it was stalled by vested interests and the CCP. Where does it say it was stalled by HK people?

supernova87a 6y ago

Thanks for that informative reply