6 ms·

Hong Kong is dead, and the CCP killed it. Daily reminder that the Chinese Government should never ever be trusted. China agreed not to touch Hong Kong's syste

Hong Kong is dead, and the CCP killed it. Daily reminder that the Chinese Government should never ever be trusted. China agreed not to touch Hong Kong's system politically or economically until at least 2047. They couldn't manage even half of that, and there are now many Hong Kongers sitting in jail for the "crime" of supporting democracy in Hong Kong (not even China!), which was made illegal by the CCP under "national security" laws. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_country,_two_systems https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_country,_two_systems

dragonsh 5y ago
> Hong Kong (not even China!) Hong Kong is China since 1997 with same nationality law that's the reason its called one country and two systems. Obviously the thin layer between two system is getting thinner, because like any law, basic law can be interpreted to suite the needs of how the two systems should be. I believe all of this is happening given China does not want to be another USSR. Hong Kong was used as a launch pad to do the same and ruling establishment learning from the past actions in cold war between US and USSR cracked down heavily using the interpretation of basic law to suite their needs. It was inevitable, just the time-line shortened due to the kind of chaos Hong Kong went through with violent protests.
- dcolkitt 5y ago
  China specifically agreed under the terms of the transfer to allow for Hong Kong's continued independence in domestic matters until 2047. Beijing is in flagrant violations of its international treaty obligations. The New Territories were under a 99 year lease, but Britain was under no obligation to transfer Hong Kong Island and Kowloon back at any time for any reason. They graciously agreed to return them for China, but in exchange Beijing made explicit promises, which it's openly disregarding.
  - whydoibother 5y ago
    > They graciously agreed to return them for China Sorry, but you can't 'graciously' return a colony. It was something they never should have had.
    - dcolkitt 5y ago
      The right to govern extends from the consent of the governed. It's not a question of who "should" own Hong Kong based on some centuries old history. It's a question of who the people of Hong Kong choose to govern them. Had an open referendum been held in 1997, it's almost certainly the case that the citizenry would not have voted to return to the tutelage of the dictatorship in Beijing.
      - whydoibother 5y ago
        Given most of the pro democracy groups are funded by the CIA/NED, I really doubt that.
      - neverminder 5y ago
        This is something I don't understand as well. Why didn't Hong Kong choose to become an independent state when they had the chance? They could have thrived like Singapore does.
        skhr0680 5y ago
        They didn't have a choice. It was either rejoin China or get their water cut off.
        kindatrue 5y ago
        Electricity too. That PRC nuclear plant that was in the news? Helps power HK.
        alau1218 5y ago
        CCP didn't allow Hong Kong people to choose. They didn't even allow Hong Kong people to participate in the hand over negotiation. Remember CCP is a group of savage dictators and does not embrace the Western values, such as respect, equality, that are familiar to us.
        _tik_ 5y ago
  - dragonsh 5y ago
    > China specifically agreed under the terms of the transfer to allow for Hong Kong's continued independence in domestic matters until 2047 Independence in domestic matters is still there in Hong Kong, as it was before 1997 (at that time also chief executive is not elected). Hong Kong earlier worked under common law system and it still has the same system (China system is continental law system). Nationality law was enacted using provisions of basic law which provided a thin layer between one country and two systems. Also this is in response to threats of using Hong Kong as launch pad for attack on China in cold war. > They graciously agreed to return them for China Lived long enough in Hong Kong to know it was anything but gracious. UK left because they milked enough from Hong Kong and risking a war with China for a small gains were not worthwhile.
- alisonatwork 5y ago
  What city in the USSR was equivalent to Hong Kong? I am not aware of any cities in the USSR that enjoyed freedom of the press and an independent judiciary at the level that Hong Kong did prior to the NSL crackdowns.
  - NegativeLatency 5y ago
    I have no idea but maybe west Germany?
    - kurthr 5y ago
      I think you mean East Germany, but I think you are right... and if Russia came back for East Germany now, there would be a war and it would likely go nuclear, because it is part of a powerful neighboring country. HK's neighbor is who took over.
    - FpUser 5y ago
      What does west Germany have to do with Russia?
  - 0x0nyandesu 5y ago
    No however ironically Russians today enjoy vastly more freedom than Chinese citizens.
  - acomjean 5y ago
    I think the post might have been referencing how the USSR fractured into a lot of smaller countries.
  - potatofarmer45 5y ago
    It's a common troll copy-and-past comment you see on any forums relating to China. TLDR: America Evil. Communists good. Anything communists do is good. Everything outside of China is an evil conspiracy to rid the Chinese of their beloved amazing government that is supported by 120% approval rating.
- jollybean 5y ago
  "basic law can be interpreted to suite the needs of how the two systems should be." There is no independent judiciary in China, the law is whatever the CCP wants it to be. In this case, they didn't like what some newspaper was doing, so they had it shut down, and put out the PR spin though thought would work best. That's it. FYI the 'violent protests' were not very violent, and definitely favourable to the loss of freedoms with the current regime. One option would be to let the citizens of HK make the decision on those things.
ayngg 5y ago
The writing was on the wall well before it was even handed over. England was in no position to defend the island after the lease on the New Territories ended, nor are they capable of doing anything to prevent the CCP from slowly eroding institutions in Hong Kong now. Everyone else has little to no skin the game to risk anything significant. Their only hope was the belief that the economic development of China would usher in democratic reforms, which hasn't happened. England never had any leverage in negotiations, so it makes sense that the CCP wouldn't care or honor anything because they correctly predicted that repercussions would be minimal. Over time, the importance of Hong Kong as a financial and economic hub/ gateway to China has waned substantially, so now the instability in the region isn't as costly anymore. The incentives were never there for the CCP to act in good faith. It is incredibly unfortunate what is happening, but realistically it was only a matter of time before these things happened, the terms they agreed upon weren't much more than window dressing to allow England to exit gracefully.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- digianarchist 5y ago
  Britain failed to enact democratic reforms well before the handover [0]. Chris Patton and successive British governments are partly to blame [1]. [0] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young_Plan_(Hong_Kong) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young_Plan_(Hong_Kong) [1] - https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jun/28/i-should-have-done-more-chris-patten-leaving-hong-kong-without-democracy-china https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jun/28/i-should-have-...
  - ayngg 5y ago
    You are right, that was probably the most significant path not taken, though at the time it probably wasn't attended to with 1997 in mind which is why it was left on the back burner. By the time sovereignty negotiations began in the 80s it was probably too late.
est 5y ago
> China agreed not to touch Hong Kong's system politically or economically until at least 2047. China just kept the good ol' colonial system rolling.
xvector 5y ago
What are the geopolitical implications of China breaking agreements like this? I figure governments will trust the word of China even less.
throwaway384028 5y ago
I dont really buy this. HK is apart of China, why should GB be able to dictate Chinese law based on a colony they took from China hundreds of years ago?
- blendergeek 5y ago
  > HK is [a part] of China Politically? Physically? Culturally? Morally? Currently Hong Kong is ruled by China. Many in Hong Kong might prefer something different. If the government in Beijing allowed them to, they might choose complete independence. > why should GB be able to dictate Chinese law based on a colony they took from China hundreds of years ago? Why should a government in Beijing be allowed to dictate policy for people in Hong Kong based on the fact that Hong Kong was under control of a different government in mainland China hundreds of years ago before the British (unlawfully) took it from them? Should the people of Hong Kong have a say in this? The people in Hong Kong have been asking for the right of self-determination. Is there some reason that the people of Hong Kong should not get this right?
  - yibg 5y ago
    Serious question. How common is it for a group of people to have this level of self determination? Eg if people in California decided not to be part of the US, can they?
    - trainsplanes 5y ago
      If the people of California decided to secede, they'd have the entirety of the US military giving them 24 hours to reconsider or else. If somehow California fought back and held out for a few years, maybe the US would give up and let them go, but probably not without intentionally destroying every single valuable asset that state has. As much as people like to paint China as a villain here, a very solid proportion would support similar actions in the US.
      - blendergeek 5y ago
        > If the people of California decided to secede, they'd have the entirety of the US military giving them 24 hours to reconsider or else Maybe. Maybe not. I personally think the US military would give them a couple of weeks just like they did last time when certain southern states tried to break away. However whether or not the federal government waits a few weeks isn't the main question. If the people of California held a vote on whether they should be allowed to secede, zero US military personnel would interfere in any way. After holding such a vote, if the California delegation to Congress wanted to, they could force a vote on whether to allow California to secede. While I would be very surprised if they were allowed to secede, I bet the people of California could win concessions from the other state governments. California elects nearly an eighth of the house of representatives. Combine their delegation with right-wing republicans who might be more than happy to eject California and the House might just vote to lose California. Through all of this, the military will do nothing. The Senate will be harder to convince, because every state has the same amount of representation. Texas discussed secession recently, as did a few other States. While we did militarily crush the states who tried to leave in the 1860s, they attacked us first. Then we invaded them and brought them back.
_tik_ 5y ago
British Hong Kong is not a democracy too. British rule. Hong Kong only have a limited election in 1985 only after the the handover was sealed. The CCP looks at the 1985 election as a British plot to sabotage the handover.

dragonsh 5y ago

> Hong Kong (not even China!) Hong Kong is China since 1997 with same nationality law that's the reason its called one country and two systems. Obviously the thin layer between two system is getting thinner, because like any law, basic law can be interpreted to suite the needs of how the two systems should be. I believe all of this is happening given China does not want to be another USSR. Hong Kong was used as a launch pad to do the same and ruling establishment learning from the past actions in cold war between US and USSR cracked down heavily using the interpretation of basic law to suite their needs. It was inevitable, just the time-line shortened due to the kind of chaos Hong Kong went through with violent protests.

dcolkitt 5y ago
China specifically agreed under the terms of the transfer to allow for Hong Kong's continued independence in domestic matters until 2047. Beijing is in flagrant violations of its international treaty obligations. The New Territories were under a 99 year lease, but Britain was under no obligation to transfer Hong Kong Island and Kowloon back at any time for any reason. They graciously agreed to return them for China, but in exchange Beijing made explicit promises, which it's openly disregarding.
- whydoibother 5y ago
  > They graciously agreed to return them for China Sorry, but you can't 'graciously' return a colony. It was something they never should have had.
  - dcolkitt 5y ago
    The right to govern extends from the consent of the governed. It's not a question of who "should" own Hong Kong based on some centuries old history. It's a question of who the people of Hong Kong choose to govern them. Had an open referendum been held in 1997, it's almost certainly the case that the citizenry would not have voted to return to the tutelage of the dictatorship in Beijing.
    - whydoibother 5y ago
      Given most of the pro democracy groups are funded by the CIA/NED, I really doubt that.
    - neverminder 5y ago
      This is something I don't understand as well. Why didn't Hong Kong choose to become an independent state when they had the chance? They could have thrived like Singapore does.
      - skhr0680 5y ago
        They didn't have a choice. It was either rejoin China or get their water cut off.
        kindatrue 5y ago
        Electricity too. That PRC nuclear plant that was in the news? Helps power HK.
      - alau1218 5y ago
        CCP didn't allow Hong Kong people to choose. They didn't even allow Hong Kong people to participate in the hand over negotiation. Remember CCP is a group of savage dictators and does not embrace the Western values, such as respect, equality, that are familiar to us.
        _tik_ 5y ago
- dragonsh 5y ago
  > China specifically agreed under the terms of the transfer to allow for Hong Kong's continued independence in domestic matters until 2047 Independence in domestic matters is still there in Hong Kong, as it was before 1997 (at that time also chief executive is not elected). Hong Kong earlier worked under common law system and it still has the same system (China system is continental law system). Nationality law was enacted using provisions of basic law which provided a thin layer between one country and two systems. Also this is in response to threats of using Hong Kong as launch pad for attack on China in cold war. > They graciously agreed to return them for China Lived long enough in Hong Kong to know it was anything but gracious. UK left because they milked enough from Hong Kong and risking a war with China for a small gains were not worthwhile.
alisonatwork 5y ago
What city in the USSR was equivalent to Hong Kong? I am not aware of any cities in the USSR that enjoyed freedom of the press and an independent judiciary at the level that Hong Kong did prior to the NSL crackdowns.
- NegativeLatency 5y ago
  I have no idea but maybe west Germany?
  - kurthr 5y ago
    I think you mean East Germany, but I think you are right... and if Russia came back for East Germany now, there would be a war and it would likely go nuclear, because it is part of a powerful neighboring country. HK's neighbor is who took over.
  - FpUser 5y ago
    What does west Germany have to do with Russia?
- 0x0nyandesu 5y ago
  No however ironically Russians today enjoy vastly more freedom than Chinese citizens.
- acomjean 5y ago
  I think the post might have been referencing how the USSR fractured into a lot of smaller countries.
- potatofarmer45 5y ago
  It's a common troll copy-and-past comment you see on any forums relating to China. TLDR: America Evil. Communists good. Anything communists do is good. Everything outside of China is an evil conspiracy to rid the Chinese of their beloved amazing government that is supported by 120% approval rating.
jollybean 5y ago
"basic law can be interpreted to suite the needs of how the two systems should be." There is no independent judiciary in China, the law is whatever the CCP wants it to be. In this case, they didn't like what some newspaper was doing, so they had it shut down, and put out the PR spin though thought would work best. That's it. FYI the 'violent protests' were not very violent, and definitely favourable to the loss of freedoms with the current regime. One option would be to let the citizens of HK make the decision on those things.

ayngg 5y ago

The writing was on the wall well before it was even handed over. England was in no position to defend the island after the lease on the New Territories ended, nor are they capable of doing anything to prevent the CCP from slowly eroding institutions in Hong Kong now. Everyone else has little to no skin the game to risk anything significant. Their only hope was the belief that the economic development of China would usher in democratic reforms, which hasn't happened. England never had any leverage in negotiations, so it makes sense that the CCP wouldn't care or honor anything because they correctly predicted that repercussions would be minimal. Over time, the importance of Hong Kong as a financial and economic hub/ gateway to China has waned substantially, so now the instability in the region isn't as costly anymore. The incentives were never there for the CCP to act in good faith. It is incredibly unfortunate what is happening, but realistically it was only a matter of time before these things happened, the terms they agreed upon weren't much more than window dressing to allow England to exit gracefully.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
digianarchist 5y ago
Britain failed to enact democratic reforms well before the handover [0]. Chris Patton and successive British governments are partly to blame [1]. [0] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young_Plan_(Hong_Kong) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young_Plan_(Hong_Kong) [1] - https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jun/28/i-should-have-done-more-chris-patten-leaving-hong-kong-without-democracy-china https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jun/28/i-should-have-...
- ayngg 5y ago
  You are right, that was probably the most significant path not taken, though at the time it probably wasn't attended to with 1997 in mind which is why it was left on the back burner. By the time sovereignty negotiations began in the 80s it was probably too late.

est 5y ago

> China agreed not to touch Hong Kong's system politically or economically until at least 2047. China just kept the good ol' colonial system rolling.

xvector 5y ago

What are the geopolitical implications of China breaking agreements like this? I figure governments will trust the word of China even less.

throwaway384028 5y ago

I dont really buy this. HK is apart of China, why should GB be able to dictate Chinese law based on a colony they took from China hundreds of years ago?

blendergeek 5y ago
> HK is [a part] of China Politically? Physically? Culturally? Morally? Currently Hong Kong is ruled by China. Many in Hong Kong might prefer something different. If the government in Beijing allowed them to, they might choose complete independence. > why should GB be able to dictate Chinese law based on a colony they took from China hundreds of years ago? Why should a government in Beijing be allowed to dictate policy for people in Hong Kong based on the fact that Hong Kong was under control of a different government in mainland China hundreds of years ago before the British (unlawfully) took it from them? Should the people of Hong Kong have a say in this? The people in Hong Kong have been asking for the right of self-determination. Is there some reason that the people of Hong Kong should not get this right?
- yibg 5y ago
  Serious question. How common is it for a group of people to have this level of self determination? Eg if people in California decided not to be part of the US, can they?
  - trainsplanes 5y ago
    If the people of California decided to secede, they'd have the entirety of the US military giving them 24 hours to reconsider or else. If somehow California fought back and held out for a few years, maybe the US would give up and let them go, but probably not without intentionally destroying every single valuable asset that state has. As much as people like to paint China as a villain here, a very solid proportion would support similar actions in the US.
    - blendergeek 5y ago
      > If the people of California decided to secede, they'd have the entirety of the US military giving them 24 hours to reconsider or else Maybe. Maybe not. I personally think the US military would give them a couple of weeks just like they did last time when certain southern states tried to break away. However whether or not the federal government waits a few weeks isn't the main question. If the people of California held a vote on whether they should be allowed to secede, zero US military personnel would interfere in any way. After holding such a vote, if the California delegation to Congress wanted to, they could force a vote on whether to allow California to secede. While I would be very surprised if they were allowed to secede, I bet the people of California could win concessions from the other state governments. California elects nearly an eighth of the house of representatives. Combine their delegation with right-wing republicans who might be more than happy to eject California and the House might just vote to lose California. Through all of this, the military will do nothing. The Senate will be harder to convince, because every state has the same amount of representation. Texas discussed secession recently, as did a few other States. While we did militarily crush the states who tried to leave in the 1860s, they attacked us first. Then we invaded them and brought them back.

_tik_ 5y ago

British Hong Kong is not a democracy too. British rule. Hong Kong only have a limited election in 1985 only after the the handover was sealed. The CCP looks at the 1985 election as a British plot to sabotage the handover.