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.
But the USA would not have limited the electorate vote share to 20%, kidnapped booksellers, arrested the opposition politicians, implement a new national security law and forced the city to follow zero covid and other unpopular policies against their will.
China is clearly scared of the HK people, and the American agents is just a convenient excuse for their crackdown.
Well, you forgot about shutting down multiple media outlets and arrest reporters.
But hey, HK can keep having the fun of having no talents left (seriously which place tell its youth to seek oppotunities elsewhere?), continue to have that singular economy with the fake GDP numbers, and let's have a govt base on loyalty only instead of trying to solve the woes. Even CCP up north knows better than to pissed off too many people!
Well, you forgot about shutting down multiple media outlets and arrest reporters.
But hey, HK can keep having the fun of having no talents left (seriously which place tell its youth to seek oppotunities elsewhere?), continue to have that singular economy with the fake GDP numbers, and let's have a govt base on loyalty only instead of trying to solve the woes. Even CCP up north knows better than to pissed off too many people!
tell that to those that died/jailed for "insurrection". but yeah, they should have worked for the CIA instead.
hong kong has no hope of course. it's a much worse capitalistic society than the US (imagine if that's possible). why do I say that? do you find anywhere else in the world where most of the money/stock/economy belongs to the real estate corps?
did you know that the most popular hong kong chief executive was convicted of receiving benefits from real estate corp?
combine that with most of the people actually living in the smallest sq per person homes, it's truly a model capitalistic hell.
The most democratic time was right before PRC took over. Beijing argues that this was done to spite them, but they were also the ones who pressured UK to not implement democratic reforms in the first place.
Democracy is judged by more than legislative elections. And that one cycle of universal election to the HK legislature didn't change the fact that the governor was still selected by a foreign people and government nearly 6,000 miles away. While Hong Kong under PRC rule still doesn't have a truly representative form of chief executive selection, at least the indirect electorate is actually comprised of local Hong Kong citizens and institutions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Camlon
Also, China has changed. I never had a problem with how China treated Hing Kong until it started to crack down and in the process destroy HK's autonomy, press freedom, democracy and put HK on the path towards demographic disaster and economic decline.
True, which is why I noted until the recent PRC crackdown. I've always said that Hong Kong folks have really one of three options:
1) Overthrow the PRC government (fat chance of this happening, especially as most on the mainland seem to like it).
2) Move outside of Hong Kong.
3) Acquiesce to PRC rule.
I wouldn't want to live under PRC rule, but I firmly believe that the PRC has every right to rule Hong Kong as it sees fit without foreign interference.
Democracy is judged by more than legislative elections. And that one cycle of universal election to the HK legislature didn't change the fact that the governor was still selected by a foreign people and government nearly 6,000 miles away. While Hong Kong under PRC rule still doesn't have a truly representative form of chief executive selection, at least the indirect electorate is actually comprised of local Hong Kong citizens and institutions.
True, which is why I noted until the recent PRC crackdown. I've always said that Hong Kong folks have really one of three options:
1) Overthrow the PRC government (fat chance of this happening, especially as most on the mainland seem to like it).
2) Move outside of Hong Kong.
3) Acquiesce to PRC rule.
I wouldn't want to live under PRC rule, but I firmly believe that the PRC has every right to rule Hong Kong as it sees fit without foreign interference.
1. they finally have a law to prevent this (when hk is the only place in the entire world without such law)
2. many have done that before 97 and have came back. anyone who have the money is free to move outside of china
3. which actually happened in 1997. remember, the "promise" is for way of life, which means capitalism instead of whatever version of communism/socialism in the mainland.
it was "horse racing goes on, dance/party goes on", who said anything about "voting" or "democracy"?
Democracy is judged by more than legislative elections. And that one cycle of universal election to the HK legislature didn't change the fact that the governor was still selected by a foreign people and government nearly 6,000 miles away. While Hong Kong under PRC rule still doesn't have a truly representative form of chief executive selection, at least the indirect electorate is actually comprised of local Hong Kong citizens and institutions.
True, which is why I noted until the recent PRC crackdown. I've always said that Hong Kong folks have really one of three options:
1) Overthrow the PRC government (fat chance of this happening, especially as most on the mainland seem to like it).
2) Move outside of Hong Kong.
3) Acquiesce to PRC rule.
I wouldn't want to live under PRC rule, but I firmly believe that the PRC has every right to rule Hong Kong as it sees fit without foreign interference.
I consider legislative parliament more important than the governor as it is them that decides if a law should be passed or not.
Also, the HK chief executive is not electedby HK either. Many of the organizations directly represent Beijing and even the ones who don't can be pressured or bought by Beijing. Hence, there is not much difference between the governor and the chief executive
And we should also consider the trend. UK was making HK more democratic while China reversed course and made it less democratic, which led to the crackdowns we see today.
I consider legislative parliament more important than the governor as it is them that decides if a law should be passed or not.
Also, the HK chief executive is not electedby HK either. Many of the organizations directly represent Beijing and even the ones who don't can be pressured or bought by Beijing. Hence, there is not much difference between the governor and the chief executive
And we should also consider the trend. UK was making HK more democratic while China reversed course and made it less democratic, which led to the crackdowns we see today.
As I understand things, under British Hong Kong, the executive council (again, led by a foreigner appointed by British politicians who didn't actually live in Hong Kong), alone was responsible for passing primary legislation to the legislative council to consider; the legislature could not act on its own. And the executive council itself alone (not the legislative council) passed secondary legislation. Thus, even with direct full elections to the the legislative council for one year, things really weren't very democratic.
Even if I look at things your way, however, Britain showed no such desire to enact universal democratic legislative elections during its more than 150 year rule of the territory. Only once it was losing its governance over the territory did it feign to care about ensuring democratic outcomes.
Still, while I can appreciate your argument, I think that the governor/chief executive is extremely important. Even in a situation where the legislature passes laws, the executive is responsible for enforcing and implementing the law and has reserve executive powers separate and independent from the legislature. I acknowledged that even pre-most recent crackdown the chief executive wasn't directly elected, but its indirect election committee was still more representative (and, thus, more democratic) than it was under the British.
As I understand things, under British Hong Kong, the executive council (again, led by a foreigner appointed by British politicians who didn't actually live in Hong Kong), alone was responsible for passing primary legislation to the legislative council to consider; the legislature could not act on its own. And the executive council itself alone (not the legislative council) passed secondary legislation. Thus, even with direct full elections to the the legislative council for one year, things really weren't very democratic.
Even if I look at things your way, however, Britain showed no such desire to enact universal democratic legislative elections during its more than 150 year rule of the territory. Only once it was losing its governance over the territory did it feign to care about ensuring democratic outcomes.
Still, while I can appreciate your argument, I think that the governor/chief executive is extremely important. Even in a situation where the legislature passes laws, the executive is responsible for enforcing and implementing the law and has reserve executive powers separate and independent from the legislature. I acknowledged that even pre-most recent crackdown the chief executive wasn't directly elected, but its indirect election committee was still more representative (and, thus, more democratic) than it was under the British.
That's how I look at things, anyway
and to your point, the ccp pretty much tolerated 20+ years of BS until the US becomes the "enemy" and the CIA/NED works behind the scene in hk
As I understand things, under British Hong Kong, the executive council (again, led by a foreigner appointed by British politicians who didn't actually live in Hong Kong), alone was responsible for passing primary legislation to the legislative council to consider; the legislature could not act on its own. And the executive council itself alone (not the legislative council) passed secondary legislation. Thus, even with direct full elections to the the legislative council for one year, things really weren't very democratic.
Even if I look at things your way, however, Britain showed no such desire to enact universal democratic legislative elections during its more than 150 year rule of the territory. Only once it was losing its governance over the territory did it feign to care about ensuring democratic outcomes.
Still, while I can appreciate your argument, I think that the governor/chief executive is extremely important. Even in a situation where the legislature passes laws, the executive is responsible for enforcing and implementing the law and has reserve executive powers separate and independent from the legislature. I acknowledged that even pre-most recent crackdown the chief executive wasn't directly elected, but its indirect election committee was still more representative (and, thus, more democratic) than it was under the British.
That's how I look at things, anyway
It is not about relative power of the governor and the legislature. It is about the governor lack of incentive to go against the legislature. It was never put to the test in HK as the interests were aligned, but the experience from other countries is that the executive branch will work together with the legislative branch. This is why I think parliament elections are more important than presidential elections which in some democratic countries doesn't even exist.
It is also not like HK chief executive is elected by anyone in HK. Their executive branch is decided by groups directly or indirectly controled by Beijing, so the difference is negligible. Just like under UK there is no real competition and the territory is controlled by outside forces.
And despite this, HK was going the right direction and would have been a democracy today if there was no handover. We never expected this from China, but we hoped they would preserve the democratic institutions left from UK. But they couldn't even do that and cracked down and severely damaged HK in the process.
Without the various incidents of violence in 2019-2020, there would be no urgent need to have new laws. Hong Kong had been mainly peaceful for more than 50 years since the 1967 riots.
UK, Canada and Australia changed their policies of HK applicants. Now, HK people can move to them much more easier than to the US and before. Before, a HK immigrant would normally need to a large sum of money or good education and fluent in english to migrate. Now people can't speak an english word can move to the UK. In addition, unlike the past, HK students can stay in those countries after graduation. These policies lead to increasing investment, consumption, immigirants and students from HK. The HKSAR gov has measures to attract talents from elsewhere now when other countries are so officially welcoming the immigrants from HK. The official policies of the governments do not mean discrimination against immigrants or Asians by the people do not exist.
The promise about unchanged was before Chris Patten increased the democracy of HK politics. The Basic Law was finalized in 1990 before Chris Patten came to HK. You can do business, pay similarly low tax, trade many things freely in the financial markets and bet on the Jackpot and Horses before and after 1997. Dog owners don't have to worry about dogs being eaten or animals having sex or assaulted by humans because such acts remain illegal in HK. You can still make a film with people nude, obscene jokes, fighting between triads or swear words. That's what the "...party goes on" meant. One Country Two Systems is an official policy of China. The differences lead to foreigners and mainland chinese wanting to visit or invest in HK.
Quote:
Originally Posted by maomao
1. they finally have a law to prevent this (when hk is the only place in the entire world without such law)
2. many have done that before 97 and have came back. anyone who have the money is free to move outside of china
3. which actually happened in 1997. remember, the "promise" is for way of life, which means capitalism instead of whatever version of communism/socialism in the mainland.
it was "horse racing goes on, dance/party goes on", who said anything about "voting" or "democracy"?
The Exco was dominated by the White British until the final years before 1997 to ensure the policies and laws suit British interests. Pro CCP and KMT were allowed to live in Hong Kong as long as they did not break laws or harm British interests. The implementation of this policy make a smooth transition to Chinese rule possible.
Quote:
Originally Posted by prospectheightsresident
As I understand things, under British Hong Kong, the executive council (again, led by a foreigner appointed by British politicians who didn't actually live in Hong Kong), alone was responsible for passing primary legislation to the legislative council to consider; the legislature could not act on its own. And the executive council itself alone (not the legislative council) passed secondary legislation. Thus, even with direct full elections to the the legislative council for one year, things really weren't very democratic.
Even if I look at things your way, however, Britain showed no such desire to enact universal democratic legislative elections during its more than 150 year rule of the territory. Only once it was losing its governance over the territory did it feign to care about ensuring democratic outcomes.
Still, while I can appreciate your argument, I think that the governor/chief executive is extremely important. Even in a situation where the legislature passes laws, the executive is responsible for enforcing and implementing the law and has reserve executive powers separate and independent from the legislature. I acknowledged that even pre-most recent crackdown the chief executive wasn't directly elected, but its indirect election committee was still more representative (and, thus, more democratic) than it was under the British.
That's how I look at things, anyway
Last edited by Tomboy-; 05-05-2023 at 05:49 AM..
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.
