5 ms·

> 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 t

> 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
        The British did not allowed them to choose either. The members of legislative created by the British is based on appointment not elections. The British only decided the reform the legislative after the handover sealed.
        kenneth 5y ago
        The CCP prevented the British from enacting democratic reforms and any self-determination in Hong Kong, under the thread of military invasion. This isn't on Britain, they tried decades prior.
  - kenneth 5y ago
    Hong Kong was built from nothing by the British. Before the British arrived and settled HK, it was but an empty jungle mountains sticking of an estuary on the Ocean. By comparison, the powerhouse of southern China, Guangzhou, was plenty populated. They ceded some empty land to the brits to build a trading port some distance away. Why would the Communist Party of China have more of a claim to this land than the brits? When HK was ceded and built, the CCP didn't even exist and wouldn't for a few more hundred years. A different power (the Qing empire) controlled the land from afar. They are from a different ethnic group (Manchurian), from modern day northern China / Russia, and have very little to do with the Cantonese people who inhabit southern China. (I live here)
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
- 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.

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
        The British did not allowed them to choose either. The members of legislative created by the British is based on appointment not elections. The British only decided the reform the legislative after the handover sealed.
        kenneth 5y ago
        The CCP prevented the British from enacting democratic reforms and any self-determination in Hong Kong, under the thread of military invasion. This isn't on Britain, they tried decades prior.
- kenneth 5y ago
  Hong Kong was built from nothing by the British. Before the British arrived and settled HK, it was but an empty jungle mountains sticking of an estuary on the Ocean. By comparison, the powerhouse of southern China, Guangzhou, was plenty populated. They ceded some empty land to the brits to build a trading port some distance away. Why would the Communist Party of China have more of a claim to this land than the brits? When HK was ceded and built, the CCP didn't even exist and wouldn't for a few more hundred years. A different power (the Qing empire) controlled the land from afar. They are from a different ethnic group (Manchurian), from modern day northern China / Russia, and have very little to do with the Cantonese people who inhabit southern China. (I live here)
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
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.