Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

China has passed a national security law for Hong Kong

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 196 posts

Re: China has passed a national security law for Hong Kong

#31

Post by c3zh »

arcticbull wrote: post #28
c3zh wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The thing is the protesters are not wanting One Country Two Systems, but Two countries. They are weaving US and UK flags when protesting, telling everyone that they are not Chinese. And the list goes on. I don't think either US or UK can tolerant things like this for more than a year. Update: I can't reply any more because Hacker News thinks I'm posting too much. So please let me thanks you all for replying here. And…

I can also speak to some of the negativity as you've asked for folks to chime in. The foreign banner waving you're seeing is a response to the perceived and actual loss of freedoms and autonomy guaranteed under Once Country, Two Systems for a minimum of the next 20 years. Beijing is failing to honor the commitments it made to the Hong Kong people, to the UK and to the international community in 1997. The Hong Kong pe…

Thank you for responding also. I don't realize that I asked anyone to chime in. I just said what I thought and don't understand why I'm down voted and flagged immediately. TBH what I expected is some discussion (and maybe some down votes, but that's fair if I'm saying something different then others' thought).

If this comment is not flagged, I am interested that specifically what autonomy is taken from Hong Kong so that this "un-nationalism" happened?

Re: China has passed a national security law for Hong Kong

#32

Post by Teknoman117 »

chrischen wrote: post #12
ralph84 wrote: post #9

I thought China would wait to take Taiwan first, so they could limit resistance in Taiwan by saying "we'll let you have your own system like we did in Hong Kong." Now that China has reneged on Hong Kong, Taiwan won't believe them.

That's basically exactly what happened with the last presidential election. The pro-China (conservative) party was heavily favored to win and then suddenly the Hong Kong protests ignited and reminded Taiwanese about China and the pro-USA party (liberals) ended up winning in a landslide.

I hope we (the US) can clean up our act so we can go back to having at least some credibility in the world again. (other than just being rich and having a lot of guns) I'd love for us to be worthy of the praise we get from some places.

I can't say that I've been particularly "proud" to say that I'm an American when I started travelling abroad a few years ago. Hard for people to miss though, I sound like a stereotypical Midwestern radio announcer.

Well, maybe except for that one very plastered German guy who kept yelling at us for being English at Oktoberfest.

Re: China has passed a national security law for Hong Kong

#33

Post by fuoqi »

bobthepanda wrote: post #22
fuoqi wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's ironic that the convoluted Hong Kong "democracy" system was directly created by British colonial administration. And this system is largely responsible for limiting ability of Hong Kong citizens to control political power in their city and thus resist mainland power grabs.

This isn't true. The Urban Council was the colonial British council that was completely elected by universal suffrage: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urban_Council The system today only came about because of the handover. Also note: > The People's Republic of China government did not agree with reforms to the Legislative Council enacted in 1994. Therefore, it withdrew the previous so-called "through-train" policy that…

Urban Council powers were very limited and mostly covered municipal services, so it's far less important than the Legislative Council.

And how is my message not true? The current system is a direct descendant of the British colonial one and your link is pretty explicit about it. Of course, PRC would like to keep the opaque, convoluted and easily influenced system, which British had. No surprises here.

Re: China has passed a national security law for Hong Kong

#34

Post by arcticbull »

c3zh wrote: post #31
arcticbull wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can also speak to some of the negativity as you've asked for folks to chime in. The foreign banner waving you're seeing is a response to the perceived and actual loss of freedoms and autonomy guaranteed under Once Country, Two Systems for a minimum of the next 20 years. Beijing is failing to honor the commitments it made to the Hong Kong people, to the UK and to the international community in 1997. The Hong Kong pe…

Thank you for responding also. I don't realize that I asked anyone to chime in. I just said what I thought and don't understand why I'm down voted and flagged immediately. TBH what I expected is some discussion (and maybe some down votes, but that's fair if I'm saying something different then others' thought). If this comment is not flagged, I am interested that specifically what autonomy is taken from Hong Kong so t…

The CPC has long meddled in Hong Kong, not least when they disappeared a Chinese billionaire from the penthouse of the Four Seasons [1] who has been 'receiving medical care on the mainland' for 3 years now and 'is very sorry for the trouble he caused'. This is a clear violation of Basic Law and the handover agreement which enshrines a degree of autonomy in Hong Kong and the rule of law.

Then there's the case of the missing booksellers [2]. Another clear violation of Basic Law and the handover agreement which enshrines freedom of speech and of the press in Hong Kong (again, a violation of the rule of law).

Then there's the fact that the high-speed rail station in Kowloon which connects to the mainland is guarded by China Police, who are not allowed to operate in Hong Kong under, you guessed it, Basic Law. [3]

Not to mention the pro-democracy elected officials not being allowed to assume office. [4]

The list goes on, and on, and on. The fact is the PRC agreed to treat Hong Kong a certain way for a certain period of time, and it has failed to live up to its obligations. It has for years now been boiling the frog, so to say, whittling away at the freedoms guaranteed to the Hong Kong people for decades before, and decades to come. With this, they've lurched over the line.

[1] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/feb/01/chinese-billio...

[2] https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/03/magazine/the-case-of-hong...

[3] https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2018/oct/04/high-speed-tr...

[4] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jul/14/hong-kong-pro-...

Re: China has passed a national security law for Hong Kong

#35

Post by fuoqi »

almost_usual wrote: post #24
fuoqi wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's ironic that the convoluted Hong Kong "democracy" system was directly created by British colonial administration. And this system is largely responsible for limiting ability of Hong Kong citizens to control political power in their city and thus resist mainland power grabs.

How about Hong Kong becomes autonomous Hong Kong and they decide what they want?

How about everyone becomes rich, smart and healthy?

Re: China has passed a national security law for Hong Kong

#36

Post by yung0 »

almost_usual wrote: post #24
fuoqi wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's ironic that the convoluted Hong Kong "democracy" system was directly created by British colonial administration. And this system is largely responsible for limiting ability of Hong Kong citizens to control political power in their city and thus resist mainland power grabs.

How about Hong Kong becomes autonomous Hong Kong and they decide what they want?

They are.

Re: China has passed a national security law for Hong Kong

#37

Post by [deleted] »

Teknoman117 wrote: post #32
chrischen wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's basically exactly what happened with the last presidential election. The pro-China (conservative) party was heavily favored to win and then suddenly the Hong Kong protests ignited and reminded Taiwanese about China and the pro-USA party (liberals) ended up winning in a landslide.

I hope we (the US) can clean up our act so we can go back to having at least some credibility in the world again. (other than just being rich and having a lot of guns) I'd love for us to be worthy of the praise we get from some places. I can't say that I've been particularly "proud" to say that I'm an American when I started travelling abroad a few years ago. Hard for people to miss though, I sound like a stereotypic…

[deleted]

Re: China has passed a national security law for Hong Kong

#38

Post by archibaldJ »

As someone who lives inside China I just hope this will encourage more direct and indirect confrontations with the system that defines the current central government i.e. among the intellects and influentials in China, now that a pillar of the freedom of Chinese expression is on its way to unnatural erosion under the paradigm introduced by this new law unto Hong Kong, that of which used to be where grey areas of Chinese politics surface themselves without cease, and where parts of the contemporary Chinese history are still being played on record, untampered.

Re: China has passed a national security law for Hong Kong

#39

Post by bobthepanda »

fuoqi wrote: post #33
bobthepanda wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This isn't true. The Urban Council was the colonial British council that was completely elected by universal suffrage: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urban_Council The system today only came about because of the handover. Also note: > The People's Republic of China government did not agree with reforms to the Legislative Council enacted in 1994. Therefore, it withdrew the previous so-called "through-train" policy that…

Urban Council powers were very limited and mostly covered municipal services, so it's far less important than the Legislative Council. And how is my message not true? The current system is a direct descendant of the British colonial one and your link is pretty explicit about it. Of course, PRC would like to keep the opaque, convoluted and easily influenced system, which British had. No surprises here.

Other than the part where the British changed it in 1994 and so the Chinese made their own one post-handover in 1998?

The 1994 changes were pretty substantial:

> When Chris Patten arrived, the Legislative Council (LegCo) was composed of only 18 directly elected seats from the Geographical Constituencies (GCs), 21 Functional Constituencies (FCs) mostly selected by the powerful elite groups in Hong Kong, 17 members appointed by the governor, 3 ex officio members (namely the chief secretary, attorney general, and financial secretary) and the governor himself as the President of the LegCo.

> The electoral method of the 1995 Legislative Council was fixed under the Basic Law, the mini constitution of Hong Kong after 1997, with only 20 directly elected seats from the geographical constituencies, 30 functional constituencies, and 10 seats elected by an election committee. To broaden the democratic structure of LegCo under such a framework, Patten had to find room under the Joint Declaration and the Basic Law.

> On 7 October 1992 during his inaugural policy address to the Legislative Council, Chris Patten announced his 1994-95 electoral arrangements. The proposal included:[3]

- "single seat, single constituency" measure should be applied in geographical constituency elections including the Legislative Council, Municipal Councils and District Boards;

-Lowering the minimum voting age from 21 to 18;

-Abolishing all appointed seats on the District Boards and Municipal Councils;

-Removing all the restrictions on local delegates to China's National People's Congress to stand for election;

-Broadening the franchise of certain existing functional constituencies by replacing corporate voting with individual voting;

-A total of 9 Contemporary functional constituency seats should be brought up so as to let about 2.7 million people have the right to vote; and

- Introducing an Election Committee of District Board members to return 10 members to the Legislative Council.

> In this way, Patten extended the definition of functional constituencies and thus virtually every Hong Kong subject was able to vote for the so-called indirectly elected members of the Legislative Council.

Even so, even if you say the current LegCo is descended from the pre-handover one, the pre-handover LegCo was one of the things that the British negotiated with China.

Re: China has passed a national security law for Hong Kong

#40

Post by yung0 »

ralph84 wrote: post #9

I thought China would wait to take Taiwan first, so they could limit resistance in Taiwan by saying "we'll let you have your own system like we did in Hong Kong." Now that China has reneged on Hong Kong, Taiwan won't believe them.

This reads like a child's understanding of international relations.
Post reply on HN