4 ms·

I have to point out that under British rule, there was no democracy. If they want things exactly like they have before, the central government would send a gove

I have to point out that under British rule, there was no democracy. If they want things exactly like they have before, the central government would send a governor to HK instead of having their own governor. China wanted HK to be special and successful, to use it as a showcase for the 'one country two systems' model. Now China just want to not lose HK. Huge change in thinking.

ashconnor 6y ago
You can blame Sir Alexander Grantham and successive incompetent Governors such as Chris Patten who failed to implement democratic reforms well ahead of the handover.
- Paradigma11 6y ago
  Well, they did not really have much choice. China had made their position quite clear: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_development_in_Hong_Kong#1950s https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_development_in_Hong... "1960s 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"
  - ashconnor 6y ago
    Democratic reform was cancelled before the communists took power. Read the paragraph before the one you just posted. > In 1946, shortly after the war, critical voices were raised against colonialism. Governor Sir Mark Young proposed a 48-member Municipal Council with significant competence to govern, one-third elected by non-Chinese, one third by Chinese institutions and one-third by Chinese individuals, known as the "Young Plan", believing that, "to counter the Chinese government's determination to recover Hong Kong, it was necessary to give local inhabitants a greater stake in the territory by widening the political franchise to include them."[9] The reform failed because of much resistance from expatriate companies, a new conservative and mistrustful governor, and London's fears of Hong Kong becoming a political battleground between the Kuomintang and the Communist Party of China (CPC).
    - Paradigma11 6y ago
      "The reform failed because of much resistance from expatriate companies, a new conservative and mistrustful governor, and London's fears of Hong Kong becoming a political battleground between the Kuomintang and the Communist Party of China (CPC)." That seems a sensible position for 1946. But things changed till 1960 and the UK were far more pliable to allow democratic self governance then.
      - ashconnor 6y ago
        I don't think it was a sensible position at all. It was a total abandonment of delivering autonomy that had been afforded to other colonies - Canada, Australia and New Zealand - based on Alexander Grantham's, frankly racist views, that Hong Kongers weren't British.
ksec 6y ago
>I have to point out that under British rule, there was no democracy. If they want things exactly like they have before, the central government would send a governor to HK instead of having their own governor. You miss out the last part, the British governor would actually listen to the people. HK had almost 95% of what defines as democracy, freedom of assembly and speech, inclusiveness and equality, membership, consent, right to life and minority rights. It is only missing some part of voting.

ashconnor 6y ago

You can blame Sir Alexander Grantham and successive incompetent Governors such as Chris Patten who failed to implement democratic reforms well ahead of the handover.

Paradigma11 6y ago
Well, they did not really have much choice. China had made their position quite clear: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_development_in_Hong_Kong#1950s https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_development_in_Hong... "1960s 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"
- ashconnor 6y ago
  Democratic reform was cancelled before the communists took power. Read the paragraph before the one you just posted. > In 1946, shortly after the war, critical voices were raised against colonialism. Governor Sir Mark Young proposed a 48-member Municipal Council with significant competence to govern, one-third elected by non-Chinese, one third by Chinese institutions and one-third by Chinese individuals, known as the "Young Plan", believing that, "to counter the Chinese government's determination to recover Hong Kong, it was necessary to give local inhabitants a greater stake in the territory by widening the political franchise to include them."[9] The reform failed because of much resistance from expatriate companies, a new conservative and mistrustful governor, and London's fears of Hong Kong becoming a political battleground between the Kuomintang and the Communist Party of China (CPC).
  - Paradigma11 6y ago
    "The reform failed because of much resistance from expatriate companies, a new conservative and mistrustful governor, and London's fears of Hong Kong becoming a political battleground between the Kuomintang and the Communist Party of China (CPC)." That seems a sensible position for 1946. But things changed till 1960 and the UK were far more pliable to allow democratic self governance then.
    - ashconnor 6y ago
      I don't think it was a sensible position at all. It was a total abandonment of delivering autonomy that had been afforded to other colonies - Canada, Australia and New Zealand - based on Alexander Grantham's, frankly racist views, that Hong Kongers weren't British.

ksec 6y ago

>I have to point out that under British rule, there was no democracy. If they want things exactly like they have before, the central government would send a governor to HK instead of having their own governor. You miss out the last part, the British governor would actually listen to the people. HK had almost 95% of what defines as democracy, freedom of assembly and speech, inclusiveness and equality, membership, consent, right to life and minority rights. It is only missing some part of voting.