51–60 of 63 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because they were ( partially ) left alone, as was originally agreed till 2050. How can you (already?) forgot the massive protests against Mainland China? A country is made of civilians, not corporations.
Under the rule of British, the people of HK could never protest like they're doing now.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Towards the end of British rule in Hong Kong the Brits sought to make HK more democratic but were rebuffed by Beijing, as in the 1960s [1]. [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/28/world/asia/china-began-pu...
The original source of this narrative is VJMedia.hk [1], popularized by QZ in English web [2]. VJMedia is operated by RongLeQi who was a member of the League of Social Democrats at the time, aka pro-democrat party who participated in the LegCo oath-taking controversy. Unsurprisingly, it's a fairly biased and disingenuous interpretation of FCO40/327 and the Thatcher memo that border on propaganda. The primary sources…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The problems of Hong Kong started with colonization by the British. But of course only now the western journalists are worried.
Most HKers would not see that as a problem. The city thrived under British rule.
It culminated in the ‘67 protests, where the British killed over 50 protesters.
It was only after the 80s, when decolonization was popular and the return of HK inevitable, did things change for the average Hong Kong citizen.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Under the rule of British, the people of HK could never protest like they're doing now.
What are you talking about? Hundreds of thousands of Hongkongers were protesting about Tiananmen Square massacre in 1989. That was eight years before the hand-over of HK.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, since when America practicing functional constituency [0]? It was invented long before 1997 when HK was still under British rule, nothing to do with China, so I think you can take easy with whataboutism. [0] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Functional_constituency_(Hong_...
The problems of Hong Kong started with colonization by the British. But of course only now the western journalists are worried.
They even ignore the fact that for much of Hong Kong history, the people were treated as second class citizens.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Most HKers would not see that as a problem. The city thrived under British rule.
That’s because the British killed all the HKers that resisted. Most HKers lived as second class citizens for decades. It culminated in the ‘67 protests, where the British killed over 50 protesters. It was only after the 80s, when decolonization was popular and the return of HK inevitable, did things change for the average Hong Kong citizen.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What are you talking about? Hundreds of thousands of Hongkongers were protesting about Tiananmen Square massacre in 1989. That was eight years before the hand-over of HK.
During the ‘67 protests, the British killed over 50 Hong Kong protesters.
And you said that the British had killed over 50 Hong Kong "protesters"? I don't know how many Chinese terrorists were killed, but I am sure that tens of Hongkongers had been murdered by the Chinese terrorists. Some were killed by the bombs planted by the terrorists. Some were killed by Chinese militants (equipped with firearms) near the border. A famous broadcaster, Lam Bun, who criticised the Chinese terrorists, was even burnt to death inside his car.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The original source of this narrative is VJMedia.hk [1], popularized by QZ in English web [2]. VJMedia is operated by RongLeQi who was a member of the League of Social Democrats at the time, aka pro-democrat party who participated in the LegCo oath-taking controversy. Unsurprisingly, it's a fairly biased and disingenuous interpretation of FCO40/327 and the Thatcher memo that border on propaganda. The primary sources…
Is there a problem with a de jure independent HK like Singapore, if so I can’t see one. I’m not saying Beijing would agree to be sure.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is there a problem with a de jure independent HK like Singapore, if so I can’t see one. I’m not saying Beijing would agree to be sure.
The greater context according to FCO40/327 (1960s source), "self-government" was actually suggested by the US, probably in context of cold-war containment, the Chinese viewed it as US imperialism. More importantly in the Thatcher memo, I think Deng pretty much states the legitimacy of the CPC rests on it's ability to reunite HK and if that didn't happen the CPC should just disband. There's also no geopolitical benefi…
I think that can be true, but it's a difficult needle to thread. I don't know there's huge geopolitical benefit in holding onto a tiny outcrop of land that actively rebels against you on the regular and causes trouble. It's pretty insignificant these days in the bigger picture of the PRC except to your point the CPC's ego rests on it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Towards the end of British rule in Hong Kong the Brits sought to make HK more democratic but were rebuffed by Beijing, as in the 1960s [1]. [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/28/world/asia/china-began-pu...
The original source of this narrative is VJMedia.hk [1], popularized by QZ in English web [2]. VJMedia is operated by RongLeQi who was a member of the League of Social Democrats at the time, aka pro-democrat party who participated in the LegCo oath-taking controversy. Unsurprisingly, it's a fairly biased and disingenuous interpretation of FCO40/327 and the Thatcher memo that border on propaganda. The primary sources…