3 ms·

The Taiwanese people don’t seem to agree with your statement.

by jtdev 5y ago

amelius 5y ago
The people in Hong Kong didn't agree either ... :(
- rlanday 5y ago
  Hong Kong has been indisputably part of China since July 1, 1997.
  - jlokier 5y ago
    The consent of the Hong Kong people in 1997 was entirely dependent on the Hong Kong Basic Law and Sino-British treaty being honoured by China. China his indisputably reneged on both agreements since 1997. Virtually nobody in Hong Kong or associated with Hong Kong would have accepted the 1997 handover if they had known in advance. This should be borne in mind by anyone evaluating whether to trust China on any important agreement in future. "I am altering the deal. Pray I don't alter it any further" comes to mind.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - hnfong 5y ago
      What consent of the Hong Kong people? The "consent" of the UK government was obtained because it was cornered by treaty terms of 99 years. I don't think the UK government thought it expedient to obtain the consent of the HK people. Point me to a pre-97 poll of Hong Kongers with a majority supporting the handover and we'll talk about whether China actually reneged on their agreement (singular, mind you. The Basic Law is a domestic, national law of the PRC, not a treaty).
      - jtdev 5y ago
        You speak with what seems to be the perspective of someone who has lived under authoritarian rule and doesn’t grasp that although “consent” may not always be explicit, it is in fact required for any state to maintain legitimacy.
        hnfong 5y ago
        Funny, I didn't expect to hear the CCP's narrative here. You're so wrong I don't know where to start. What you seem to be implying is that, as long as the government stays in power and maintains a facade of stability, they can presume consent of the people for any policy they manage to implement. This doesn't sound like somebody from a democracy would say, this sounds like what the CCP says. (Which is fine, I've said this myself (with some reservations).) But it doesn't even make sense in this context. If you even had a inkling of knowledge of what happened during the 1980s when the talks were taking place: - The vast majority of Hong Kong people preferred keeping status quo (UK continue to govern HK). There were polls to this effect. You could not have lived in the 1980s and 1990s in Hong Kong and not notice that almost _everything_ in the media (films, TV shows, songs) expressed the anxiety of the Hong Kong people to the brave new world after 1997 - Many people started migrating away upon hearing news of handover in 1997. It resulted in a huge brain drain. - As such the Brits had to grant UK citizenship to a bunch of Hong Kong elites, middle class professionals and government officials, to placate them and convince them stay (because with UK citizenship they can leave any time they want, no hurry) - The ones who did not have means to leave were mostly skeptical about the whole situation, but since people with influence were "bought out" by the Brits with UK citizenship, and you can't "fight" a government to "force" them to govern you, nothing serious happened. I don't think _anyone_ who knows this part of Hong Kong history could even argue that there was consent among the Hong Kong people for the handover. It was a closed-doors deal between the UK and China with little regard to what Hong Kong people thought. In all fairness the UK did what it could do at the time, but claiming that Hong Kong people had "consent" is simply a misrepresentation of history. Using your weird arguments to negate historical fact is either ignorance, or willful negation of clearly recorded history. People under authoritarian rule know full well that the fact that the government maintains power is not evidence that they support their policies. People running authoritarian governments use your argument all the time. I really don't know where you got your ideas from. Also, it reeks of ad hominem - presuming where I have lived and my ignorance due to it. Perhaps you're just trolling and I shouldn't feed a troll, but this is one of the few topics where I'm obliged to keep the record straight.
AussieWog93 5y ago
Publicly, many of them do. A formal declaration of independence would force Beijing to either resume war with Taiwan or lose face domestically. Pretending that your homeland isn't technically a real country is a small price to pay to prevent insane Mainlander nationalists from launching a flurry of DF-41s into the heart of Taipei.

The Taiwanese people don’t seem to agree with your statement.

by jtdev 5y ago

The Taiwanese people don’t seem to agree with your statement.

amelius 5y ago

The people in Hong Kong didn't agree either ... :(

rlanday 5y ago
Hong Kong has been indisputably part of China since July 1, 1997.
- jlokier 5y ago
  The consent of the Hong Kong people in 1997 was entirely dependent on the Hong Kong Basic Law and Sino-British treaty being honoured by China. China his indisputably reneged on both agreements since 1997. Virtually nobody in Hong Kong or associated with Hong Kong would have accepted the 1997 handover if they had known in advance. This should be borne in mind by anyone evaluating whether to trust China on any important agreement in future. "I am altering the deal. Pray I don't alter it any further" comes to mind.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - hnfong 5y ago
    What consent of the Hong Kong people? The "consent" of the UK government was obtained because it was cornered by treaty terms of 99 years. I don't think the UK government thought it expedient to obtain the consent of the HK people. Point me to a pre-97 poll of Hong Kongers with a majority supporting the handover and we'll talk about whether China actually reneged on their agreement (singular, mind you. The Basic Law is a domestic, national law of the PRC, not a treaty).
    - jtdev 5y ago
      You speak with what seems to be the perspective of someone who has lived under authoritarian rule and doesn’t grasp that although “consent” may not always be explicit, it is in fact required for any state to maintain legitimacy.
      - hnfong 5y ago
        Funny, I didn't expect to hear the CCP's narrative here. You're so wrong I don't know where to start. What you seem to be implying is that, as long as the government stays in power and maintains a facade of stability, they can presume consent of the people for any policy they manage to implement. This doesn't sound like somebody from a democracy would say, this sounds like what the CCP says. (Which is fine, I've said this myself (with some reservations).) But it doesn't even make sense in this context. If you even had a inkling of knowledge of what happened during the 1980s when the talks were taking place: - The vast majority of Hong Kong people preferred keeping status quo (UK continue to govern HK). There were polls to this effect. You could not have lived in the 1980s and 1990s in Hong Kong and not notice that almost _everything_ in the media (films, TV shows, songs) expressed the anxiety of the Hong Kong people to the brave new world after 1997 - Many people started migrating away upon hearing news of handover in 1997. It resulted in a huge brain drain. - As such the Brits had to grant UK citizenship to a bunch of Hong Kong elites, middle class professionals and government officials, to placate them and convince them stay (because with UK citizenship they can leave any time they want, no hurry) - The ones who did not have means to leave were mostly skeptical about the whole situation, but since people with influence were "bought out" by the Brits with UK citizenship, and you can't "fight" a government to "force" them to govern you, nothing serious happened. I don't think _anyone_ who knows this part of Hong Kong history could even argue that there was consent among the Hong Kong people for the handover. It was a closed-doors deal between the UK and China with little regard to what Hong Kong people thought. In all fairness the UK did what it could do at the time, but claiming that Hong Kong people had "consent" is simply a misrepresentation of history. Using your weird arguments to negate historical fact is either ignorance, or willful negation of clearly recorded history. People under authoritarian rule know full well that the fact that the government maintains power is not evidence that they support their policies. People running authoritarian governments use your argument all the time. I really don't know where you got your ideas from. Also, it reeks of ad hominem - presuming where I have lived and my ignorance due to it. Perhaps you're just trolling and I shouldn't feed a troll, but this is one of the few topics where I'm obliged to keep the record straight.

AussieWog93 5y ago

Publicly, many of them do. A formal declaration of independence would force Beijing to either resume war with Taiwan or lose face domestically. Pretending that your homeland isn't technically a real country is a small price to pay to prevent insane Mainlander nationalists from launching a flurry of DF-41s into the heart of Taipei.