5 ms·

I remember my friend laughing at protesters in Hong Kong waving the British flag; they had experienced more democracy under Chinese rule than they ever had unde

by Stevvo 5y ago

I remember my friend laughing at protesters in Hong Kong waving the British flag; they had experienced more democracy under Chinese rule than they ever had under the British.

hnfong 5y ago
It's a complicated topic. When Britain took over Hong Kong, it was a small town with maybe a couple thousand inhabitants. The vast majority of Hong Kong people are immigrants (or their descendants). They knew what they were getting when they voluntarily entered British territory. In a sense this situation fits the Hobbes narrative perfectly -- British subjects in Hong Kong voluntarily chose to live with the government and accept the social contract in order to escape the harshness of the situation in China, which at many times in the past century was "poor, nasty, brutish, and short". And as thus despite the various faults with British rule, in general it did rule with the people's consent as people continued immigrating from mainland China. It doesn't really necessarily speak to good governance on the part of the Brits than the self-selection of pro-British people. Of course the other reasons in this thread are valid as well. It's a complicated topic.
arcticbull 5y ago
Importantly, that was because of the PRC not because of the Brits. The Brits had long sought to increase democratic freedoms in Hong Kong however the Chinese flatly refused to permit it in anticipation of the handover. This began shortly before the Cultural Revolution, actually, in the 50s. I'm not saying the sentiment is wrong per se, but Hong Kong is a bad example. [1] 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" [by the People's Liberation Army] should the status quo (i.e. colonial administration) be changed. The warning killed any democratic development for the next three decades. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_development_in_Hong_Kong#1990s_until_the_handover https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_development_in_Hong...
- bllguo 5y ago
  1950s: >Grantham convinced London to scrap all plans for political reform on the basis that it did not "interest the British electorate". Later, when confronted by the Hong Kong public, he blamed London. 1980s: >British Foreign Secretary Geoffrey Howe further promised the democratic process would start "in the years immediately ahead", but they stalled due to opposition from Beijing, local business interests as represented by Executive Council, and the British Foreign Office under the pretext that it would bring chaos to Hong Kong. Not nearly as simple as you are portraying it either..
  - arcticbull 5y ago
    You are definitely correct. However, in the 90s: ... in 1992, Chris Patten the new governor of Hong Kong, began moves to unilaterally democratise the territory by allowing for the election of half the Legislative Council by universal suffrage, and in the process incurring the wrath of the People's Republic of China (PRC). Patten had judged that: "People in Hong Kong are perfectly capable of taking a greater share in managing their own affairs in a way that is responsible, mature, restrained, sensible" [edit] If I had to speculate I'd say the 50s were primarily due to the aftermath of WWII and reconstruction in Europe and that PRC influence was basically all of the subsequent reluctance. After all, the UK was already taking steps to divest itself of the colonies at that point and had little interest in maintaining Hong Kong one way or the other. Was Hong Kong not to be a halo territory for democracy in the region? Given the state of freedom in Hong Kong vs the PRC one could take the position that substantially all the 'western' freedoms enjoyed in Hong Kong are in fact enjoyed thanks to the British.
    - bllguo 5y ago
      yeah it's complicated, "Britain would have instituted constitutional democracy in HK but China opposed it" is just too reductive. After all there was (and still is) opposition among HKers themselves to the idea, too. And there were British parties resistant as well, ex. Governor MacLehose, it wasn't unanimous by any means
Incerto 5y ago

by Stevvo 5y ago

I remember my friend laughing at protesters in Hong Kong waving the British flag; they had experienced more democracy under Chinese rule than they ever had under the British.

hnfong 5y ago

It's a complicated topic. When Britain took over Hong Kong, it was a small town with maybe a couple thousand inhabitants. The vast majority of Hong Kong people are immigrants (or their descendants). They knew what they were getting when they voluntarily entered British territory. In a sense this situation fits the Hobbes narrative perfectly -- British subjects in Hong Kong voluntarily chose to live with the government and accept the social contract in order to escape the harshness of the situation in China, which at many times in the past century was "poor, nasty, brutish, and short". And as thus despite the various faults with British rule, in general it did rule with the people's consent as people continued immigrating from mainland China. It doesn't really necessarily speak to good governance on the part of the Brits than the self-selection of pro-British people. Of course the other reasons in this thread are valid as well. It's a complicated topic.

arcticbull 5y ago

Importantly, that was because of the PRC not because of the Brits. The Brits had long sought to increase democratic freedoms in Hong Kong however the Chinese flatly refused to permit it in anticipation of the handover. This began shortly before the Cultural Revolution, actually, in the 50s. I'm not saying the sentiment is wrong per se, but Hong Kong is a bad example. [1] 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" [by the People's Liberation Army] should the status quo (i.e. colonial administration) be changed. The warning killed any democratic development for the next three decades. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_development_in_Hong_Kong#1990s_until_the_handover https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_development_in_Hong...

bllguo 5y ago
1950s: >Grantham convinced London to scrap all plans for political reform on the basis that it did not "interest the British electorate". Later, when confronted by the Hong Kong public, he blamed London. 1980s: >British Foreign Secretary Geoffrey Howe further promised the democratic process would start "in the years immediately ahead", but they stalled due to opposition from Beijing, local business interests as represented by Executive Council, and the British Foreign Office under the pretext that it would bring chaos to Hong Kong. Not nearly as simple as you are portraying it either..
- arcticbull 5y ago
  You are definitely correct. However, in the 90s: ... in 1992, Chris Patten the new governor of Hong Kong, began moves to unilaterally democratise the territory by allowing for the election of half the Legislative Council by universal suffrage, and in the process incurring the wrath of the People's Republic of China (PRC). Patten had judged that: "People in Hong Kong are perfectly capable of taking a greater share in managing their own affairs in a way that is responsible, mature, restrained, sensible" [edit] If I had to speculate I'd say the 50s were primarily due to the aftermath of WWII and reconstruction in Europe and that PRC influence was basically all of the subsequent reluctance. After all, the UK was already taking steps to divest itself of the colonies at that point and had little interest in maintaining Hong Kong one way or the other. Was Hong Kong not to be a halo territory for democracy in the region? Given the state of freedom in Hong Kong vs the PRC one could take the position that substantially all the 'western' freedoms enjoyed in Hong Kong are in fact enjoyed thanks to the British.
  - bllguo 5y ago
    yeah it's complicated, "Britain would have instituted constitutional democracy in HK but China opposed it" is just too reductive. After all there was (and still is) opposition among HKers themselves to the idea, too. And there were British parties resistant as well, ex. Governor MacLehose, it wasn't unanimous by any means

Incerto 5y ago