9 ms·

The UK should have offered citizenship to residents of Hong Kong prior to 1997. It exploited the colony and local residents of HK as much as China does now. Of

by rswail 6y ago

The UK should have offered citizenship to residents of Hong Kong prior to 1997. It exploited the colony and local residents of HK as much as China does now. Offering them citizenship will allow residents a way of moving to the UK, but it does not guarantee them consular rights in Hong Kong. China already takes the view that a HK Chinese resident is a citizen of China, subject to its laws irrespective of other citizenships and will not allow consular assistance. As for Taiwan, Nixon and other swapped "allegiance" from the ROC to PRC in 1972. Most nations do not havce diplomatic relations with the ROC because if they do, then PRC withdraws diplomatic recognition and negotiation with them. Note that Taiwan's government does not want "independence". They still claim to be the legitimate government of the whole of China, even though that status was lost in the UN in 1971. Both the ROC and PRC claim that Taiwan is part of China, but differ (obviously) as to which government is "legitimate".

vkou 6y ago
One of the two major parties in Taiwan wants to be recognized as independent, the other wants the world to recognize them as the one legitimate government of China (Which is, of course, farcical.)
samcheng 6y ago
Your view of Taiwan's government is somewhat outdated. The KMT party (which once ruled China, and for decades ruled Taiwan) has suffered a series of overwhelming electoral defeats, and the now-ruling DPP party has a platform of "Taiwan" as an independent nation, rather than the (exiled) "Republic of China." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Progressive_Party https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Progressive_Party
- nobody0 6y ago
  Yet Taiwan still call itself Republic of China regardless of parties. There was never a country called Taiwan. https://law.moj.gov.tw/Eng/LawClass/LawAll.aspx?PCode=A0000001 https://law.moj.gov.tw/Eng/LawClass/LawAll.aspx?PCode=A00000...
  - realusername 6y ago
    Even that is changing slowly, the next Taiwanese passport will remove all mention of China
    - nobody0 6y ago
      Avoiding mention it does not change ROC(Taiwan). Unless they announce independence, which is very unlikely.
      - realusername 6y ago
        The president did made a speech recently saying the island is already independent which is another big step. It's getting there slowly, step by step. The HK events really destroyed the taiwainese public support which was left for reunification.
        nobody0 6y ago
        It is independent from mainland now, as an island of Republic of China. ROC also includes other islands outside Taiwan, like Jinmen. There are not many young people support reunification all along regardless of what happened in HK.
  - seszett 6y ago
    That's because of (continental) China threatening invasion if Taiwan ever declares independence. The statu quo is the only safe option for Taiwan, and that means keeping the historical claims. China prefers seeing Taiwan as a dissident government of China rather than as a successfully independentist territory. So the Taiwanese governments have to make very gradual changes towards a fully independentist stance rather than straight up acknowledging that the island is independent.
    - nobody0 6y ago
      There is no such a thing called gradual independence. You either have it by announcing it and other countries recoginize it or you do not have it. What I see is politicians play the rent-seeking game between China and the U.S.
threw43aafasdf 6y ago
Amusingly, the case of PRC's acceptance to UN was championed by India, which both lost to China badly in '62, and interestingly, was also the instrument by which China was destroyed in the Opium wars by Britain. This view of India, it's fall from grace in Asia, and its transformation from a source of knowledge to the sword of imperialism was very notable in the pan-Asian movt. in Japan (whose roots are actually in the anti-Meiji rebellions). This history is unacknowledged not only in India, but in Japan too. It's not surprising that the turban-clad 'asan' view of Indians as imperial-lackeys is a distinct point in Chinese movies. Sun-Yat Sen, the founder of the first Chinese republic wa himself supported by this clan in Japan; and very interestingly, Rash-Behari Bose who was key to the formation of the INA, and the subsequent independence of India (via the Sepoy Mutiny), was helped by Sun-Yat Sen during in his early years in Japan (when he was being hunted down by the pro-British Japanese govt.) It's also very likely that Subhash Bose fakes his death in Taiwan and escaped to Russia via then Manchuria, and was in contact with CCP heads. All said, it's unsurprising that today, 'India', a country often sneered at by the Caucasians (I say this measuredly), is suddenly being termed 'America's best friend' in line with Obama's 'pivot to Asia' (aka, the New Opium War).
- aksss 6y ago
  > I say this measuredly I should hope so. That’s a stunning generalization if I get your intent, and to boot, wholly inaccurate as Indians are (and many can/do identify as) Caucasians. Are you using The term as a proxy for the Occident as a whole? The United States specifically? Ignoring the technical inaccuracy, I think America remains a bit of an Indiaphiliac and has been that way for decades. It’s entirely compatible to hope the best for a nation, respect its intellectual achievements and regional challenges, value the alignment of interests while also remaining critical of its political and humanitarian shortcomings - as The US regards India and I’m sure the feeling is mutual. At the same time, I think the US is wise to stay out of the growing conflict in Northern Kashmir. When it comes down to dust though, I’ve no doubt the US would help India defend against existential threats. China on the other hand isn’t worried about existential threats except maybe from Japan, and is in fact demonstrating and expansionist (if not imperial) foreign policy - which is to say, they would not conceivably need help from the US in the present conflict. I don’t see India attempting to seize territory from China any time soon.
aksss 6y ago
> It exploited the colony and local residents of HK as much as China does now. This.. seems a bit strident. Or a reach, anyway. I don’t recall a similar situation in HK in the 90’s. I also recall the joint declaration’s intent was to maintain HK autonomy until about 2047, something the U.K. advocated for, not China. The liberties the people in HK are used to and fighting to retain are there specifically because of the what the U.K. set up.
- hangonhn 6y ago
  The UK granted those liberties and some measure of self governance only in the last years of its rule. The Governor of Hong Kong was never elected. The elected portion of the legislative council was implemented rather near the end of the UK’s time in HK. For most of British HK history, the governor picked the members of the council. Basic Law which gave certain guarantees to HK didn’t even exist until 1990! That said, British rule of HK, despite the UK having fairly authoritarian levels of power, was fairly restraint. I don’t recall many HK people feeling bitter towards the UK during that time I lived there — just prior to the handover.
  - TheSpiceIsLife 6y ago
    Self-rule is sometimes, as would appear in the case of Hong Kong, orthogonal to wildly successful.
  - billfruit 6y ago
    I thing there were large scale protests in the 60s, may be 1962 against British rule in HK. Also did Britain do enough to protect and to take back HK during WW2. If I remember correctly, HK was only given back to Britain after the final surrender of Japan in WW2. Japan had taken HK following the attack on the same day as Pearl Harbour attack.
  - culturestate 6y ago
    > The UK granted those liberties and some measure of self governance only in the last years of its rule Hong Kong was nearly[1] granted effectively autonomous status by Britain in the 1960s. China threatened a military intervention should that happen. 1. https://qz.com/279013/the-secret-history-of-hong-kongs-stillborn-democracy/ https://qz.com/279013/the-secret-history-of-hong-kongs-still...
barry-cotter 6y ago
> It exploited the colony and local residents of HK as much as China does now. I’m not aware of the UK kidnapping anyone to stand trial in a foreign jurisdiction. On exploitation, in 1945 Hong Kong was bombed out rubble and in 1997 it was a first world city that had a higher GDP per capita than the United Kingdom. Some exploitation.
- terenceng2010 6y ago
  Maybe the exploit is about: The nationality of HongKonger was the same as other UK citizen at the time called CUKC. For other UK ex-colony, they usually had a independent election to be an independent country or so, and these countries do not have the UK nationality anymore. But HKers never had such election taken place.
  - barry-cotter 6y ago
    They were going to make it a democracy in the 60s until China said they’d invade if they did. > China's leaders explicitly wanted to "preserve the colonial status of Hong Kong".[21] Liao Chengzhi, a senior Chinese official in charge of Hong Kong affairs, said in 1960 that China "shall not hesitate to take positive action to have Hong Kong, Kowloon and New Territories liberated" should the status quo (i.e. colonial administration) be changed. The warning killed any democratic development for the next three decades. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_development_in_Hong_Kong https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_development_in_Ho... http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/28/world/asia/china-began-push-against-hong-kong-elections-in-50s.amp.html http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/28/world/asia/china-began-pus...
- La1n 6y ago
  Exploitation doesn't mean someone else can't gain anything, and you should know that the history of colonial Hong Kong started many, many, years earlier.
- dntbnmpls 6y ago
  > I’m not aware of the UK kidnapping anyone to stand trial in a foreign jurisdiction. That's because the UK kidnapped the entirety of hong kong. > On exploitation, in 1945 Hong Kong was bombed out rubble Isn't that because that's where the colonizing brits were? You know the ones the japanese wanted to remove from asia? > and in 1997 it was a first world city that had a higher GDP per capita than the United Kingdom. The rise of Hong Kong's GDP entirely tracks the opening of china. Meaning the UK had nothing to do with hong kong's rise. Also, it's a joke to compare a city ( hong kong ) to a country ( UK ). I see it done too many times in traditional and social media. Hong kong's GDP per capita is lower than london's. Using your logic, does it make that an exploitation?
kerng 6y ago
I think you statements about Taiwan are not accurate anymore - definitely not since recent elections, but even before that.
pmachinery 6y ago
> The UK should have offered citizenship to residents of Hong Kong prior to 1997. It exploited the colony and local residents of HK as much as China does now. Britain only started paying a bit of lip service to "freedom" and "democracy" when it became time to hand the territory back to China, and even now they aren't offering citizenship, they are simply saying they're considering allowing people to stay a few months longer in Britain. > Both the ROC and PRC claim that Taiwan is part of China, but differ (obviously) as to which government is "legitimate". We all know that if the "CCP" had lost the civil war and was reduced to ruling a tiny island off the coast, nobody would take the "PRC" any more seriously - as the true ruler of the whole country or as an independent state - than a "Confederate States of America" holed up on the Florida Keys.
- gwd 6y ago
  > We all know that if the "CCP" had lost the civil war and was reduced to ruling a tiny island off the coast, nobody would take the "PRC" any more seriously - as the true ruler of the whole country or as an independent state - than a "Confederate States of America" holed up on the Florida Keys. Perhaps not for the first 10 years. But 60 years and two generations later, it doesn't make any sense at all to refuse to recognize the independence of a self-governing group of over 20 million people.
  - kelnos 6y ago
    It makes perfect sense. No one of any importance wants to be the first to piss off mainland China.
- stale2002 6y ago
  > holed up on the Florida Keys. Taiwan is made up of 70% of native Taiwanese people. It is disingenuous to say that the people living there, are made up of escaped refugees from the china mainline. The fact that 70% of the population living their, has ancenstry dating back hundreds of years, is what make their claim valid.
  - throw55435 6y ago
hyko 6y ago
"It exploited the colony and local residents of HK as much as China does now." nope: https://www.economist.com/asia/2019/07/01/hong-kong-protesters-storm-the-legislative-council https://www.economist.com/asia/2019/07/01/hong-kong-proteste...
- jialutu 6y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1967_Hong_Kong_riots https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1967_Hong_Kong_riots
- freeflight 6y ago
  HK spent over 150 years under British colonial rule [0]. The vast majority of that time without any real democratic participation of HK citizens as those were considered British subjects and did not have full rights nor citizenship [1]. [0] https://www.scmp.com/week-asia/opinion/article/2122508/hong-kong-india-needs-remember-truth-about-british-colonialism https://www.scmp.com/week-asia/opinion/article/2122508/hong-... [1] https://journals.openedition.org/rfcb/1613#tocto1n8 https://journals.openedition.org/rfcb/1613#tocto1n8
  - thinkingemote 6y ago
    I think the key part was "as much"
jariel 6y ago
"It exploited the colony and local residents of HK as much as China does now." If by 'exploited' you mean 'foisted Hong Kong to an immeasurably higher standard of living than the mainland, and protected them from the brutal oppression of the CCP, and enabled HK to be an example Asian country, one of the most sophisticated nations, with one of the highest GDP/capita in the region and world' ... then ok. And of course 'The CCP now' will brutally oppress HK, bring them behind the curtain, throw away any legal process, watch their every move, subject them to any number of controls and censorship ... So that's one funny way to look at it.
krona 6y ago
> The UK should have offered citizenship to residents of Hong Kong prior to 1997. They did.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
Lio 6y ago
> The UK should have offered citizenship to residents of Hong Kong prior to 1997. Yes, they should of but realistically they couldn't, life just isn't that simple. China had explicitly blocked that. The hand over agreement to China was a very difficult and subtle balancing act. Since the '60s China had apposed further moves towards democracy or extension of HK citizen rights with the threat of invasion. However, as Thatcher pointed out in the 80s, China didn't even need to invade they could just cut the water supply off any time they felt like it.

by rswail 6y ago

vkou 6y ago

One of the two major parties in Taiwan wants to be recognized as independent, the other wants the world to recognize them as the one legitimate government of China (Which is, of course, farcical.)

samcheng 6y ago

Your view of Taiwan's government is somewhat outdated. The KMT party (which once ruled China, and for decades ruled Taiwan) has suffered a series of overwhelming electoral defeats, and the now-ruling DPP party has a platform of "Taiwan" as an independent nation, rather than the (exiled) "Republic of China." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Progressive_Party https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Progressive_Party

nobody0 6y ago
Yet Taiwan still call itself Republic of China regardless of parties. There was never a country called Taiwan. https://law.moj.gov.tw/Eng/LawClass/LawAll.aspx?PCode=A0000001 https://law.moj.gov.tw/Eng/LawClass/LawAll.aspx?PCode=A00000...
- realusername 6y ago
  Even that is changing slowly, the next Taiwanese passport will remove all mention of China
  - nobody0 6y ago
    Avoiding mention it does not change ROC(Taiwan). Unless they announce independence, which is very unlikely.
    - realusername 6y ago
      The president did made a speech recently saying the island is already independent which is another big step. It's getting there slowly, step by step. The HK events really destroyed the taiwainese public support which was left for reunification.
      - nobody0 6y ago
        It is independent from mainland now, as an island of Republic of China. ROC also includes other islands outside Taiwan, like Jinmen. There are not many young people support reunification all along regardless of what happened in HK.
- seszett 6y ago
  That's because of (continental) China threatening invasion if Taiwan ever declares independence. The statu quo is the only safe option for Taiwan, and that means keeping the historical claims. China prefers seeing Taiwan as a dissident government of China rather than as a successfully independentist territory. So the Taiwanese governments have to make very gradual changes towards a fully independentist stance rather than straight up acknowledging that the island is independent.
  - nobody0 6y ago
    There is no such a thing called gradual independence. You either have it by announcing it and other countries recoginize it or you do not have it. What I see is politicians play the rent-seeking game between China and the U.S.

threw43aafasdf 6y ago

Amusingly, the case of PRC's acceptance to UN was championed by India, which both lost to China badly in '62, and interestingly, was also the instrument by which China was destroyed in the Opium wars by Britain. This view of India, it's fall from grace in Asia, and its transformation from a source of knowledge to the sword of imperialism was very notable in the pan-Asian movt. in Japan (whose roots are actually in the anti-Meiji rebellions). This history is unacknowledged not only in India, but in Japan too. It's not surprising that the turban-clad 'asan' view of Indians as imperial-lackeys is a distinct point in Chinese movies. Sun-Yat Sen, the founder of the first Chinese republic wa himself supported by this clan in Japan; and very interestingly, Rash-Behari Bose who was key to the formation of the INA, and the subsequent independence of India (via the Sepoy Mutiny), was helped by Sun-Yat Sen during in his early years in Japan (when he was being hunted down by the pro-British Japanese govt.) It's also very likely that Subhash Bose fakes his death in Taiwan and escaped to Russia via then Manchuria, and was in contact with CCP heads. All said, it's unsurprising that today, 'India', a country often sneered at by the Caucasians (I say this measuredly), is suddenly being termed 'America's best friend' in line with Obama's 'pivot to Asia' (aka, the New Opium War).

aksss 6y ago
> I say this measuredly I should hope so. That’s a stunning generalization if I get your intent, and to boot, wholly inaccurate as Indians are (and many can/do identify as) Caucasians. Are you using The term as a proxy for the Occident as a whole? The United States specifically? Ignoring the technical inaccuracy, I think America remains a bit of an Indiaphiliac and has been that way for decades. It’s entirely compatible to hope the best for a nation, respect its intellectual achievements and regional challenges, value the alignment of interests while also remaining critical of its political and humanitarian shortcomings - as The US regards India and I’m sure the feeling is mutual. At the same time, I think the US is wise to stay out of the growing conflict in Northern Kashmir. When it comes down to dust though, I’ve no doubt the US would help India defend against existential threats. China on the other hand isn’t worried about existential threats except maybe from Japan, and is in fact demonstrating and expansionist (if not imperial) foreign policy - which is to say, they would not conceivably need help from the US in the present conflict. I don’t see India attempting to seize territory from China any time soon.

aksss 6y ago

> It exploited the colony and local residents of HK as much as China does now. This.. seems a bit strident. Or a reach, anyway. I don’t recall a similar situation in HK in the 90’s. I also recall the joint declaration’s intent was to maintain HK autonomy until about 2047, something the U.K. advocated for, not China. The liberties the people in HK are used to and fighting to retain are there specifically because of the what the U.K. set up.

hangonhn 6y ago
The UK granted those liberties and some measure of self governance only in the last years of its rule. The Governor of Hong Kong was never elected. The elected portion of the legislative council was implemented rather near the end of the UK’s time in HK. For most of British HK history, the governor picked the members of the council. Basic Law which gave certain guarantees to HK didn’t even exist until 1990! That said, British rule of HK, despite the UK having fairly authoritarian levels of power, was fairly restraint. I don’t recall many HK people feeling bitter towards the UK during that time I lived there — just prior to the handover.
- TheSpiceIsLife 6y ago
  Self-rule is sometimes, as would appear in the case of Hong Kong, orthogonal to wildly successful.
- billfruit 6y ago
  I thing there were large scale protests in the 60s, may be 1962 against British rule in HK. Also did Britain do enough to protect and to take back HK during WW2. If I remember correctly, HK was only given back to Britain after the final surrender of Japan in WW2. Japan had taken HK following the attack on the same day as Pearl Harbour attack.
- culturestate 6y ago
  > The UK granted those liberties and some measure of self governance only in the last years of its rule Hong Kong was nearly[1] granted effectively autonomous status by Britain in the 1960s. China threatened a military intervention should that happen. 1. https://qz.com/279013/the-secret-history-of-hong-kongs-stillborn-democracy/ https://qz.com/279013/the-secret-history-of-hong-kongs-still...

barry-cotter 6y ago

> It exploited the colony and local residents of HK as much as China does now. I’m not aware of the UK kidnapping anyone to stand trial in a foreign jurisdiction. On exploitation, in 1945 Hong Kong was bombed out rubble and in 1997 it was a first world city that had a higher GDP per capita than the United Kingdom. Some exploitation.

terenceng2010 6y ago
Maybe the exploit is about: The nationality of HongKonger was the same as other UK citizen at the time called CUKC. For other UK ex-colony, they usually had a independent election to be an independent country or so, and these countries do not have the UK nationality anymore. But HKers never had such election taken place.
- barry-cotter 6y ago
  They were going to make it a democracy in the 60s until China said they’d invade if they did. > China's leaders explicitly wanted to "preserve the colonial status of Hong Kong".[21] Liao Chengzhi, a senior Chinese official in charge of Hong Kong affairs, said in 1960 that China "shall not hesitate to take positive action to have Hong Kong, Kowloon and New Territories liberated" should the status quo (i.e. colonial administration) be changed. The warning killed any democratic development for the next three decades. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_development_in_Hong_Kong https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_development_in_Ho... http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/28/world/asia/china-began-push-against-hong-kong-elections-in-50s.amp.html http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/28/world/asia/china-began-pus...
La1n 6y ago
Exploitation doesn't mean someone else can't gain anything, and you should know that the history of colonial Hong Kong started many, many, years earlier.
dntbnmpls 6y ago
> I’m not aware of the UK kidnapping anyone to stand trial in a foreign jurisdiction. That's because the UK kidnapped the entirety of hong kong. > On exploitation, in 1945 Hong Kong was bombed out rubble Isn't that because that's where the colonizing brits were? You know the ones the japanese wanted to remove from asia? > and in 1997 it was a first world city that had a higher GDP per capita than the United Kingdom. The rise of Hong Kong's GDP entirely tracks the opening of china. Meaning the UK had nothing to do with hong kong's rise. Also, it's a joke to compare a city ( hong kong ) to a country ( UK ). I see it done too many times in traditional and social media. Hong kong's GDP per capita is lower than london's. Using your logic, does it make that an exploitation?

kerng 6y ago

I think you statements about Taiwan are not accurate anymore - definitely not since recent elections, but even before that.

pmachinery 6y ago

> The UK should have offered citizenship to residents of Hong Kong prior to 1997. It exploited the colony and local residents of HK as much as China does now. Britain only started paying a bit of lip service to "freedom" and "democracy" when it became time to hand the territory back to China, and even now they aren't offering citizenship, they are simply saying they're considering allowing people to stay a few months longer in Britain. > Both the ROC and PRC claim that Taiwan is part of China, but differ (obviously) as to which government is "legitimate". We all know that if the "CCP" had lost the civil war and was reduced to ruling a tiny island off the coast, nobody would take the "PRC" any more seriously - as the true ruler of the whole country or as an independent state - than a "Confederate States of America" holed up on the Florida Keys.

gwd 6y ago
> We all know that if the "CCP" had lost the civil war and was reduced to ruling a tiny island off the coast, nobody would take the "PRC" any more seriously - as the true ruler of the whole country or as an independent state - than a "Confederate States of America" holed up on the Florida Keys. Perhaps not for the first 10 years. But 60 years and two generations later, it doesn't make any sense at all to refuse to recognize the independence of a self-governing group of over 20 million people.
- kelnos 6y ago
  It makes perfect sense. No one of any importance wants to be the first to piss off mainland China.
stale2002 6y ago
> holed up on the Florida Keys. Taiwan is made up of 70% of native Taiwanese people. It is disingenuous to say that the people living there, are made up of escaped refugees from the china mainline. The fact that 70% of the population living their, has ancenstry dating back hundreds of years, is what make their claim valid.
- throw55435 6y ago

hyko 6y ago

"It exploited the colony and local residents of HK as much as China does now." nope: https://www.economist.com/asia/2019/07/01/hong-kong-protesters-storm-the-legislative-council https://www.economist.com/asia/2019/07/01/hong-kong-proteste...

jialutu 6y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1967_Hong_Kong_riots https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1967_Hong_Kong_riots
freeflight 6y ago
HK spent over 150 years under British colonial rule [0]. The vast majority of that time without any real democratic participation of HK citizens as those were considered British subjects and did not have full rights nor citizenship [1]. [0] https://www.scmp.com/week-asia/opinion/article/2122508/hong-kong-india-needs-remember-truth-about-british-colonialism https://www.scmp.com/week-asia/opinion/article/2122508/hong-... [1] https://journals.openedition.org/rfcb/1613#tocto1n8 https://journals.openedition.org/rfcb/1613#tocto1n8
- thinkingemote 6y ago
  I think the key part was "as much"

jariel 6y ago

"It exploited the colony and local residents of HK as much as China does now." If by 'exploited' you mean 'foisted Hong Kong to an immeasurably higher standard of living than the mainland, and protected them from the brutal oppression of the CCP, and enabled HK to be an example Asian country, one of the most sophisticated nations, with one of the highest GDP/capita in the region and world' ... then ok. And of course 'The CCP now' will brutally oppress HK, bring them behind the curtain, throw away any legal process, watch their every move, subject them to any number of controls and censorship ... So that's one funny way to look at it.

krona 6y ago

> The UK should have offered citizenship to residents of Hong Kong prior to 1997. They did.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

Lio 6y ago

> The UK should have offered citizenship to residents of Hong Kong prior to 1997. Yes, they should of but realistically they couldn't, life just isn't that simple. China had explicitly blocked that. The hand over agreement to China was a very difficult and subtle balancing act. Since the '60s China had apposed further moves towards democracy or extension of HK citizen rights with the threat of invasion. However, as Thatcher pointed out in the 80s, China didn't even need to invade they could just cut the water supply off any time they felt like it.