Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Well for starters it is supposed to be the Hong Kong legislature that is supposed to draft and pass the legislation, not Peking's unless Article 23 explicitly says that failure to pass the national security law within 20 years of the creation of the SAR will result in the Mainland Government unilaterally doing it for them. As to why HK has not passed the law yet, go ask their legislature. Perhaps they should have worded it differently. As I mentioned in a previous post, this whole mess could have been avoided if the two sides came together back before the 2014 Occupy Movement to talk it out and reach an agreement. That whole violent movement did not have to have happened. You are right that the HK legislature shoulders part of the blame but the Peking Government could have just come in as a mediator to listen to all voices instead of unilaterally taking the side of the big businesses. So now you have both sides combusting like oil and water and believe me, it's not going to end in a good way.
While what you write is true, I think its important that people remember that the Hong Kong Basic Law is a law of the People's Republic of China, passed by the National People's Congress. It is not some standalone law of the Hong Kong government.
All of this is to say that the Hong Kong Legislature simply cannot refuse to implement national law as required to by said law and not expect the national government to take steps of its own to ensure that the law gets implemented.
I just reread an English translation of the Joint Agreement by Britain and China Defining the Future of Hong Kong that is found in The Search for Modern China by Pei Kai Cheng and Jonathan Spence. You are right in that Hong Kong is exempt from paying taxes to Peking as is stated in Article #8 of the agreement.
Economic liberties are defined throughout all twelve articles but political and civil liberties are most definitely mentioned as well. It states clearly that Hong Kong's laws will remain basically unchanged and that judicial power will remain independent and free from Mainland interference. Free speech and assembly are also explicitly protected. So the question is does President Xi have the legal right to take away such liberties? It's almost like amending a nation's constitution without consultation of the legislature don't you think?
That might be the best book on modern history of China, the Jonathan Spence book. I read it in college and then bought it again and had it shipped to me when I lived in China 15 years later.
That might be the best book on modern history of China, the Jonathan Spence book. I read it in college and then bought it again and had it shipped to me when I lived in China 15 years later.
Yes agreed. I was reading it in a Chinese history class in college right around the same time the first decision to shelve the Article 23 legislation was first made. Might I add, the semester before, I was actually studying abroad in Hong Kong and got to witness the anxiety the Hong Kong Chinese were feeling about the security legislation. Many locals at that time truly feared that they would no longer be able to mock or criticize Mainland China or to hold protests and assemblies. I knew from that point on that Hong Kong would lose a great deal of its cultural identity and would not be as attractive anymore. Many people do not realize but Hong Kong is severely cramped and expensive to live in. People put up with living in Hong Kong because it has many political and social freedoms not available in the Mainland. If I were told that Hong Kong were to have the same system as the Mainland (which it will in 2047 regardless) I'd probably to choose to live in Guangzhou instead. The housing in Guangzhou is more spacious and the city is a lot flatter than Hong Kong. People do not choose to live in Hong Kong for comfort believe me.
Yes agreed. I was reading it in a Chinese history class in college right around the same time the first decision to shelve the Article 23 legislation was first made. Might I add, the semester before, I was actually studying abroad in Hong Kong and got to witness the anxiety the Hong Kong Chinese were feeling about the security legislation. Many locals at that time truly feared that they would no longer be able to mock or criticize Mainland China or to hold protests and assemblies. I knew from that point on that Hong Kong would lose a great deal of its cultural identity and would not be as attractive anymore. Many people do not realize but Hong Kong is severely cramped and expensive to live in. People put up with living in Hong Kong because it has many political and social freedoms not available in the Mainland. If I were told that Hong Kong were to have the same system as the Mainland (which it will in 2047 regardless) I'd probably to choose to live in Guangzhou instead. The housing in Guangzhou is more spacious and the city is a lot flatter than Hong Kong. People do not choose to live in Hong Kong for comfort believe me.
it seems like your understanding of the hong kong is only on the surface, it's truly deeper than that in all aspects. you see what they are fearing in while you was in HK? how many years from that time now? 15+?
are they no longer be able to hold protest or assemblies? or be able to mock or criticize anyone? the ones you cannot mock or criticize are the thugs. If you do it online they will expose your identify "human flesh search", if you do it in person they will beat you up.
Many people do not realized that hong kong has a "public housing" system either, you think the people that has public housing wants to leave? Of the four chieft executives, only Tsang is able to pushed through political reform, and not have major protests during his 10 years in office. He is also the only one that do not expand and building new public housing. See the coincidence here? Ironically, he also got convicted for corruption for receiving bribe from real estate tycoons.
I also think it's hong kong people's interest that some of them choose to live in the "greater bay area", there are a lot that already do this mainly the retirement crowd and the entrepreneurs that works in the mainland. But if you think about it, what does this and the mass building of public housing do the the real estate tycoon's bottom line? they are the true ruler of hong kong.
also the 2047 concept, I think there is a misunderstanding of what hong kong fears in 1980s and 1990s up to 1997. The fear of communism is for the economy side, way more than government system side. And when they say 50 years doesn't change, it doesn't mean it will change after 50 years.
If you think about democracy in hong kong, what do they know about that in 1990s up to 1997? they were never given any by the british. So I don't think they have any right to ask for any more freedom/democracy than those that were given to the macau people under the same basic law no less.
it seems like your understanding of the hong kong is only on the surface, it's truly deeper than that in all aspects. you see what they are fearing in while you was in HK? how many years from that time now? 15+?
are they no longer be able to hold protest or assemblies? or be able to mock or criticize anyone? the ones you cannot mock or criticize are the thugs. If you do it online they will expose your identify "human flesh search", if you do it in person they will beat you up.
Many people do not realized that hong kong has a "public housing" system either, you think the people that has public housing wants to leave? Of the four chieft executives, only Tsang is able to pushed through political reform, and not have major protests during his 10 years in office. He is also the only one that do not expand and building new public housing. See the coincidence here? Ironically, he also got convicted for corruption for receiving bribe from real estate tycoons.
I also think it's hong kong people's interest that some of them choose to live in the "greater bay area", there are a lot that already do this mainly the retirement crowd and the entrepreneurs that works in the mainland. But if you think about it, what does this and the mass building of public housing do the the real estate tycoon's bottom line? they are the true ruler of hong kong.
also the 2047 concept, I think there is a misunderstanding of what hong kong fears in 1980s and 1990s up to 1997. The fear of communism is for the economy side, way more than government system side. And when they say 50 years doesn't change, it doesn't mean it will change after 50 years.
If you think about democracy in hong kong, what do they know about that in 1990s up to 1997? they were never given any by the british. So I don't think they have any right to ask for any more freedom/democracy than those that were given to the macau people under the same basic law no less.
Doesn't matter. No one should be forced to live under the CCP. Its an authoritarian regime that harvests uigher organs.
Xi's a trouble maker and should be tried for crimes against humanity. he's Cao cao.
it seems like your understanding of the hong kong is only on the surface, it's truly deeper than that in all aspects. you see what they are fearing in while you was in HK? how many years from that time now? 15+?
are they no longer be able to hold protest or assemblies? or be able to mock or criticize anyone? the ones you cannot mock or criticize are the thugs. If you do it online they will expose your identify "human flesh search", if you do it in person they will beat you up.
Many people do not realized that hong kong has a "public housing" system either, you think the people that has public housing wants to leave? Of the four chieft executives, only Tsang is able to pushed through political reform, and not have major protests during his 10 years in office. He is also the only one that do not expand and building new public housing. See the coincidence here? Ironically, he also got convicted for corruption for receiving bribe from real estate tycoons.
I also think it's hong kong people's interest that some of them choose to live in the "greater bay area", there are a lot that already do this mainly the retirement crowd and the entrepreneurs that works in the mainland. But if you think about it, what does this and the mass building of public housing do the the real estate tycoon's bottom line? they are the true ruler of hong kong.
also the 2047 concept, I think there is a misunderstanding of what hong kong fears in 1980s and 1990s up to 1997. The fear of communism is for the economy side, way more than government system side. And when they say 50 years doesn't change, it doesn't mean it will change after 50 years.
If you think about democracy in hong kong, what do they know about that in 1990s up to 1997? they were never given any by the british. So I don't think they have any right to ask for any more freedom/democracy than those that were given to the macau people under the same basic law no less.
That sounds like your own personal opinion and not shared by everyone in Hong Kong and outside of Hong Kong. I get it that you value economic liberties more than political ones. Providing more economic liberties, making Hong Kong safer and more affordable, and providing more housing is one part of the equation but you must also uphold the fundamental political liberties such as freedom of thought as well. You're taking a positive stance on the rule of law, I am taking a normative stance. Maybe I am a pessimist but I am not convinced that Hong Kong will become any freer than it is right now and actually quite the opposite but to you, that is a moot point because you believe the Hong Kong Chinese do not even have the right to ask for any more freedoms than what is allowed. Well, I guess we shall see how this new security law is interpreted by the Hong Kong government. Meanwhile, I suggest you read the aforementioned book The Search for Modern China and look up the chapter featuring the famous Chinese writer Hu Shi voicing his concerns about Chiang Kai Shek and the Guomindang's rule of law during the 1930's. I think you will see many parallels here and if you feel safe and comfortable iving under such a system, then so be it. I cannot change your opinion on that.
That sounds like your own personal opinion and not shared by everyone in Hong Kong and outside of Hong Kong. I get it that you value economic liberties more than political ones. Providing more economic liberties, making Hong Kong safer and more affordable, and providing more housing is one part of the equation but you must also uphold the fundamental political liberties such as freedom of thought as well. You're taking a positive stance on the rule of law, I am taking a normative stance. Maybe I am a pessimist but I am not convinced that Hong Kong will become any freer than it is right now and actually quite the opposite but to you, that is a moot point because you believe the Hong Kong Chinese do not even have the right to ask for any more freedoms than what is allowed. Well, I guess we shall see how this new security law is interpreted by the Hong Kong government. Meanwhile, I suggest you read the aforementioned book The Search for Modern China and look up the chapter featuring the famous Chinese writer Hu Shi voicing his concerns about Chiang Kai Shek and the Guomindang's rule of law during the 1930's. I think you will see many parallels here and if you feel safe and comfortable iving under such a system, then so be it. I cannot change your opinion on that.
of course everyone or most in hong kong don't share that belief because they think they are better and deserve better than people in macau and the rest of the chinese. They have the best of everything in china so the rest of china must look up to them like it was last century
I don't think political liberties such as freedom of thoughts is being taking away anywhere? are you saying that people in macau or china don't have political liberties such as freedom of thoughts?
well, the thing that made hong kong successful for a long time is not political freedom, it's the rule of law, that's the only gift given by the british. that's how hong kong became so successful over the rest of china in the last century. China did not really have same standard of rule of law for a long time until the last 10 years or so I would say (still not perfect) due to its size and corruptions of public officials.
yes, because I think hong kong has more freedom than the USA, and the things that they are allowed to do currently and in the past won't fly any where else in the world.
wait till it's finish writing in 2 months first, we can discuss how it affects the political freedom at that time.
I think I know history well enough about the chiang family. The "rule of law" at that time is laughable comparing to what we have today. but "rule of law" doesn't get you any where until after the people have food. No one cares about rule of law when people can't feed themselves and their family.
Yes agreed. I was reading it in a Chinese history class in college right around the same time the first decision to shelve the Article 23 legislation was first made. Might I add, the semester before, I was actually studying abroad in Hong Kong and got to witness the anxiety the Hong Kong Chinese were feeling about the security legislation. Many locals at that time truly feared that they would no longer be able to mock or criticize Mainland China or to hold protests and assemblies. I knew from that point on that Hong Kong would lose a great deal of its cultural identity and would not be as attractive anymore. Many people do not realize but Hong Kong is severely cramped and expensive to live in. People put up with living in Hong Kong because it has many political and social freedoms not available in the Mainland. If I were told that Hong Kong were to have the same system as the Mainland (which it will in 2047 regardless) I'd probably to choose to live in Guangzhou instead. The housing in Guangzhou is more spacious and the city is a lot flatter than Hong Kong. People do not choose to live in Hong Kong for comfort believe me.
That's pretty cool that you were in Hong Kong at that time.
There is a movie called Chinese Box with Jeremy Irons and Gong Li and most of it it filmed right around 1997 in HK and dealing with the handover and the unknown afterwards. Check it out. It's a solid flick.
It is not true that British did not plan to give Hong Kong any political freedom before '97.
In 60s, Britain had granted political freedom to most of its colonies, i.e. Singapore, Malaya, Uganda, Fiji, Kenya,.....etc. It was China that opposed Britain to place Hong Kong into the UN Decolonization list.
Every time the British Hong Kong government tried to implement political reform, i.e. partial direct election of legislature in '88, it was China that blocked it.
The present grievance in Hong Kong stemmed from the fact that China has gone back on its promise. For example, Beijing promised that people in Hong Kong can choose its own leader in the Basic Law. But when Beijing finally said yes, it added that the candidates must get its approval first. Such "approval" is nowhere found in the Basic Law.
Anyway, after Beijing forced such draconian national security law in Hong Kong, don't expect that the unrest will quiet down. It only scares those who are the backbones in HK society to emigrate. But those demonstrators, who basically have nothing to lose, will be acting more violently, with or without the law.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
