3 ms·

> which can exert disproportionate influence on the locals without being accountable to the locals whose lives they control. Yes you're taking issue with a for

> which can exert disproportionate influence on the locals without being accountable to the locals whose lives they control. Yes you're taking issue with a form of government inside the charter city that you would disagree with, not charter city itself. Government structures of course may take locals into account, and they may not. > success threatens the brutal autocracy and will be crushed. Like HK. HK wasn't crushed until it was no longer a charter city. You're actually proving the point that at least there was some window of time when there was a charter city that things were better.

arcticbull 5y ago
HK is as much a Chinese charter city today as it was a British charter city before. PRC nationals need an entry permit to visit HK. [edit] They also have their own passports (HKSAR passports), speak their own language (Cantonese vs. Mandarin) and have their own script (Traditional vs. Simplified). [1] ... and their governance did not change. Basic Law has been the law of the land in HK since 1997 at the point of the handover. Sovereignty and nationality and so on are complicated things. At some point 20 years in, the guarantor decided they didn't like how things were going. HK folks weren't 'Chinese' nationals for over 150 years until 1997. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hong_Kong_Special_Administrative_Region_passport https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hong_Kong_Special_Administrati...
- notch656a 5y ago
  HK is definitely not a Chinese charter city, that doesn't even make sense. China is not 'foreign' to China. >HK folks weren't 'Chinese' nationals for over 150 years until 1997. Yes until they were no longer inside of a charter city. >They also have their own passports (HKSAR passports), speak their own language (Cantonese vs. Mandarin) Does that make American Samoa a charter city? > and their governance did not change Lol
- lmm 5y ago
  The point is that HK became much less of a charter city in 1997 (today it's not so much a "Chinese charter city" as a "Chinese regular city") and this is closely correlated with it becoming a lot worse for its residents.

arcticbull 5y ago

HK is as much a Chinese charter city today as it was a British charter city before. PRC nationals need an entry permit to visit HK. [edit] They also have their own passports (HKSAR passports), speak their own language (Cantonese vs. Mandarin) and have their own script (Traditional vs. Simplified). [1] ... and their governance did not change. Basic Law has been the law of the land in HK since 1997 at the point of the handover. Sovereignty and nationality and so on are complicated things. At some point 20 years in, the guarantor decided they didn't like how things were going. HK folks weren't 'Chinese' nationals for over 150 years until 1997. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hong_Kong_Special_Administrative_Region_passport https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hong_Kong_Special_Administrati...

notch656a 5y ago
HK is definitely not a Chinese charter city, that doesn't even make sense. China is not 'foreign' to China. >HK folks weren't 'Chinese' nationals for over 150 years until 1997. Yes until they were no longer inside of a charter city. >They also have their own passports (HKSAR passports), speak their own language (Cantonese vs. Mandarin) Does that make American Samoa a charter city? > and their governance did not change Lol
lmm 5y ago
The point is that HK became much less of a charter city in 1997 (today it's not so much a "Chinese charter city" as a "Chinese regular city") and this is closely correlated with it becoming a lot worse for its residents.