211–220 of 376 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Better to be poor and free than economically sufficient at the pleasure and whim of a dictator Just how poor have you ever been?
How many years have you spent in jail as a political prisoner?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>If Hong Kong protestors just followed the path of non violence without attacking China's sovereignty or accepting that they are first Chinese citizen and showing their discontent, it would have been different. I don't think it's clear that the protestors started the violence. Most reports seem to indicate otherwise. I also don't know that it's reasonable to expect people who were born and raised in HK when the gover…
> I don't think it's clear that the protestors started the violence. Most reports seem to indicate otherwise. Its clear from the videos of protest supporters and media outlet without China's influence like BBC, CNN, The Guardian that there was violence in the protest (not small enough to be ignored). This is just deflecting the reality to create confusion. Hong Kong is China according to handover and follows "Chinese…
Well they tried. Shortly after the Chinese revolution, HK was receiving an influx of refugees from China. Mostly well educated and skilled people. Britain was moving to bring in democratic reforms in the 1950s. China threatened to invade to "liberate" the territory if such reforms continued.
https://qz.com/279013/the-secret-history-of-hong-kongs-still...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'd really worry for HK if the government agrees to all five points.
> They called for a complete withdrawal of the bill, the withdrawal of the “riot” characterisation of the June 12 protests, the unconditional release of all arrested protesters, the formation of an independent commission of inquiry into police behaviour, as well as universal suffrage. Which of those things would make you worry, and why?
Because if #2 and #3 come to be, then #4 will surely severely censure the police for firing tear gas, bean bag bullets and rubber bullets, which will demoralize the police, greatly damage their ability to maintain law and order and incentivize rioting as the proper form of making demands going forward. Supposedly Hong Kong's laws/ordinances governing the conduct of independent inquiries contain provisions against self-incrimination, which is possibly another means for rioters and their organizers to safeguard themselves against prosecution by presenting at the independent inquiry. I say "supposedly" because while chapter and verse were quoted, I haven't looked them up myself and IANAL anyway.
The "protestors" are demanding non-negotiable acceptance of all 5 demands.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You know, I wanted to contradict you, then I thought better and didn't want to bicker, but then saw you had gotten 3 downvotes in this short time, which I also don't like -- so I'll just say what for me is the main thing: > For the record, I'm not saying that Hong Kongers are wrong for protesting or wanting freedom. I'm just saying they'll fail, and the consequences won't be pretty. You may be correct, you may not. I…
I think looking at Macau is a good example. They are in the same political and cultural position as Hong Kong: 1 country 2 systems, colonized by a European country, speak Cantonese, etc. but there are no protests in Macau. Why? The economy is doing well and people there are relatively well off.
[1] https://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=d5bncppjof8f9_#...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I don't think it's clear that the protestors started the violence. Most reports seem to indicate otherwise. Its clear from the videos of protest supporters and media outlet without China's influence like BBC, CNN, The Guardian that there was violence in the protest (not small enough to be ignored). This is just deflecting the reality to create confusion. Hong Kong is China according to handover and follows "Chinese…
> Its clear from the videos of protest supporters and media outlet without China's influence like BBC, CNN, The Guardian that there was violence in the protest (not small enough to be ignored). This is just deflecting the reality to create confusion. That's not a fair characterization at all. The distrust for police goes deeper[1] and even just looking at this year's protest it's not clear cut. > British kept it the…
British were in Hong Kong for 150 years and only granted enough freedom to Hong Kong to align with their own interest of generating profits and economic dividends for Britain. This is how they treated all their colony including Hong Kong. This is not freedom, its like instead of a caged zoo, they gave an open zoo with a bit larger area and decides what freedoms to give.
Hong Kong never had democracy including during British time. If you have any written evidence in law or regulation on the contrary let me know. So far I couldn't find any evidence except the "Basic Law" which guarantees certain freedom.
In civil societies we have institution of marriage with regulations and laws. It exists on paper, although many will say love doesn't need a certificate. If there is a commitment it's not a problem to put it on paper, not granting Hong Kong freedom and democracy on paper shows Britain's treatment of Hong Kong as a colony.
> The recent protest started because China is not fulfilling the provisions of Basic Law
If China broke any provisions of Basic Law a case can be filed in courts of Hong Kong.
Indeed Hong Kong asked China to re-interpret Basic Law which contravenes basic human rights in 1999. No one protested at that time because although it was against basic human rights, it benefits Hong Kong people economically.
"On 26 June 1999, in line with the request of the HKSAR Government, the NPCSC issued its interpretation which makes it clear that children born outside Hong Kong will be eligible for the right of abode only if at least one of their parents has already acquired permanent residence status at the time of their birth. Also, those eligible for ROA need to comply with Article 22 of the Basic Law, i.e. they need to apply for the necessary approval from the relevant Mainland authorities before entry into Hong Kong.
The Chief Executive, Tung Chee Hwa, announced measures to be taken by the Government. Later rulings of the Court of Final Appeal confirmed that the Government had acted entirely constitutionally and legally.
Differences in opinion remain as to whether Hong Kong's judicial independence and the rule of law have been undermined. Criticism of the interpretation has originated largely from the legal sector."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I don't think it's clear that the protestors started the violence. Most reports seem to indicate otherwise. Its clear from the videos of protest supporters and media outlet without China's influence like BBC, CNN, The Guardian that there was violence in the protest (not small enough to be ignored). This is just deflecting the reality to create confusion. Hong Kong is China according to handover and follows "Chinese…
Ok, and what if the people of Hong Kong just don’t want to be part of China anymore? Independence movements are as old as the concepts colonialism and empire. Why not expand the right of self-determinism to Hong Kong?
I think a lot of people who were born in the west don't understand that, when you're very poor, economic circumstances matter more than political freedom. After all, having money (or not) affects what you can or cannot do far more than whoever's in charge. Chinese people today have lived through an economic miracle. If I lived there I doubt I'd criticize their system, especially considering people still can remember…
"For young Hong Kongers however, they didn't live during British rule. They were born into wealth, and now their own career prospects (like many millenials around the world) aren't great. So they protest." Almost everything in these sentences are wrong. It's not just the young people who are protesting in Hong Kong, and most people in Hong Kong have never been born into wealth. There's a great divide between the weal…
Most Indians never met and probably will never meet any Kashmiri but they think they know what’s good for Kashmiris.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I don't think it's clear that the protestors started the violence. Most reports seem to indicate otherwise. Its clear from the videos of protest supporters and media outlet without China's influence like BBC, CNN, The Guardian that there was violence in the protest (not small enough to be ignored). This is just deflecting the reality to create confusion. Hong Kong is China according to handover and follows "Chinese…
Ok, and what if the people of Hong Kong just don’t want to be part of China anymore? Independence movements are as old as the concepts colonialism and empire. Why not expand the right of self-determinism to Hong Kong?
Because no one outside of Hong Kong is going to fight a war with China over it, and that's what defending that right in any substantive way means.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In my personal experience as a person of Bangladeshi origin, a similar outlook and generational divide exists concerning the role of a job/career and the expectations one has of it with respect to an individual's happiness. Update: added my origin to narrow the scope of my comment.
This article paints 1.4 billion people with a broad brush. I have met personally highly talented and bright people in China like in many other nations. So I feel this is really not fine if you try to say they don't understand. The reason people in China do not agree with Hong Kong protestors is first about nationalism, they think Hong Kong protestors are attacking China's sovereignty and independence, indeed many put…
I think it's important to remember that the protesters began protesting in reaction to China's actions. Protesters are just ordinary people, and it's wrong to hold every protestor accountable to the actions of a tiny minority. China however is a single united and sovereign government; it's actions can't be so easily excused or dismissed.
If a government behaves in a way that breaks faith with it's people, are the people to blame?
I'll tell you this, if I was a CEO and a bunch of people in one of my departments walked out and protested because they felt the company wasn't keeping faith with them, I would place blame on whoever was running that department, not on the people protesting.