Hong-Kong Protests


KYli

Senior Member
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

"In his 2007 Review of Citizenship, Lord Goldsmith recognised that to give BN(O)s full British citizenship automatically would be a breach of the commitments made between China and the UK in the 1984 Joint Declaration on the future of Hong Kong, and that to secure Chinese agreement to vary the terms of that treaty would not be possible."

Feel free to post a legal opinion that said the opposite.
If you believed for a second that British would grant British citizenship to 5 millions people, then I've got a bridge to sell you.


I'm not sure what you mean. HK residents have been able to travel to the UK without a visa whether or not they had a BNO passport. If you're talking about the right to come and live in the UK without restriction, only EEA citizens had that right. If the UK had offered a similar scheme to HK residents without the same being offered to British citizens who wanted to live and work in Hong Kong (same applies in reverse, British citizens can travel to HK for 6 months but need a visa to stay longer, study or work), the government would probably have been challenged in court by other nationalities who said that the policy was racial discrimination.
It means that British could have granted citizenship to much more than just 50,000 HK people. Just check the wiki link below if British wanted, then citizenship could be granted for much more than 50,000 HK people which is a joke. Don't try to hide behind dual-citizenship nonsense every HKers know they got abandoned by the British.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


I don't see why. Up until now there was hope that Hong Kong would do fine under Chinese rule and that 1C2S might even be extended (Deng said as much). Therefore normal HKers had every reason to stay. Now the situation is quite different because it's clear that the CCP wants to run Hong Kong like any other Chinese city.
Because you are not a HKer that is why you don't see why. There were already a million of HKers that have foreign passports. These are the people who were forced to return to HK because they were not doing well in the West.


It's something I mentioned previously. The only way to change policy in Hong Kong is to change the government. Beijing blocked direct elections for the Chief Executive unless it could hand-pick the candidates via its proxies in the Functional Constituencies. That means there can't be change, because all Chief Executives would endlessly be pushing the status-quo because status-quo = stability = CCP happy. There's been over 20 years of pro-Beijing Chief Executives selected by Beijing loyalists, and there's still no credible plan for dealing with housing in the city.
For over one century, no elections and not even any representatives at the high ranking HK officials. British ruled with iron fist and no complain whatsoever.

Would direct elections make everything better? Maybe not. But if Beijing wants to retain final control over Hong Kong politics it can't complain when it gets blamed for what happens in the city.
Did British get blamed for what happens in HK? Rarely and no one dare to do so. The ones who dare to speak up ended up either in jail or put on a boat to ship back to China.


Don't get me wrong. I don't think China managed things badly in the first couple of years. The CCP was content to wait on the national security legislation after the 2003 protests. It also moved quickly to get rid of Henry Tang when it turned out he was probably corrupt and deeply unpopular.

However, everything started going downhill afterwards, probably because Xi took over and introduced a national policy of "control, control, control". There was no chance he was going to allow real democracy in Hong Kong.
If CCP cracked down on 2003, then Hong Kong would be a much better place than now. It is sad that Xi were not in power in 2003.


Up until 2010, most HK people I met (and these were people under 40) said they were Chinese and being a HKer was part of that. There was maybe suspicion over the repeated statements from the CCP that it was "too early" to talk about electoral reform. But there wasn't fear or loathing of China/Chinese people. They saw themselves as being Chinese.

I'm not sure that playing the game of "who called who mean names first" really achieves much. Before 2014 I can recall plenty of Chinese people saying HKers were spoilt brats who complained too much. Also, the term "locusts" frequently referred to people who worked in the grey market reselling things like baby milk. Some of those were HKers as well, not just mainland Chinese. It's a term that's also used outside of HK to refer to the grey market reselling to China.
What a joke, I am a HKer. Many of my friends in HK or in the US never want to mention they are Chinese. A few times when I said that I am a Chinese and they would correct me by saying you are a HKer. Fear and loathing of China and Chinese were widespread. People who can't speak fluent Cantonese were ostracized and looked down to in 70s, 80s, 90s, 00s.

It is funny you don't even understand the meaning of the word locusts. The locusts are for new immigrants who use welfare system and have too many children. But it ends up to be a label for all mainlanders. Many Hong Kong people believe that these people come to HK just for the welfare and contribute little to the society. The truth is much more complicated. And many of these so called locusts are elder HK males who can't find a wife in HK and married someone in mainland and have children.

It would be rather strange for someone to be attacked in mainland China for speaking Cantonese given that there are tens of millions of people in China that speak it, and most of them are in mainland China. On the other hand, if you started making your political views clear such as by publicly talking about autonomy for Hong Kong (or Taiwanese independence) there'd be a significant chance of being attacked.

As for Mandarin in HK, no one should be attacked for speaking their native language. But it's hardly surprising that some thugs would do that especially given the current tensions - they're a good excuse to commit violence. There's also been longer-term irritation about Mandarin in HK due to perceived attempts at forcing it on the city. Even a few years ago Lam had to publicly deny that there were plans to start teaching primarily in Mandarin in schools.
Are you kidding? Even you speak perfect Cantonese, you could still be discriminated in HK. A few years ago, my sister was discriminated because they thought she is some kind of wealthy mainlander then they became super nice when they found out she is a HK returnee that coming back from the US. This pure discrimination and prejudice have left a bad taste for my family.

As for speaking Mandarin, it has been a taboo before the handover when the British official making Cantonese as one of the official language in HK. It is not a recent phenomenon. Don't try to twist facts and claim moral high ground and blame the HK government for the outright prejudice and superiority complex of many HK people.
 
Last edited:

ansy1968

Junior Member
Registered Member
The irony of the situation. Partially rooted in a need for greater socialism, but calling for opposition against a (more) socialist government.



I don't like to use victim mentality because it implies you don't have the power to help yourself.

However, troubles in HK (just like everything else) is not just one simple issue.

1. There is the obvious one of the corporate control of the city.
2. Also some legitimately desire to have more freedom in elections.
3. In the 80's to 90's, center of Chinese influence was HK. (For a brief period in the early 2000's, it was TW. Now, it is firmly PRC.), there are those that miss those days and misconstrue it with British Rule (really it is having more $$$ at that time) and/or inherent superiority over other Chinese.
4. Plus the people that are most adaptable to the change, are the most likely to have left (which is what some people were alluding to). It is not due to CCP mismanagement, but a natural order. Looking at it logically, as the fortunes of China increased, HK being the base of many companies' operations, HK staff end up posted elsewhere in China as needed. This means for the less ambitious, they are "left behind". Again, not because HK is bad, just it is a small city by Chinese standards.

Anyone who has a strong connection to HK knows all of these. They have been issues for a long time now. This is why the rioting is so upsetting. 1 & 2 you can change, 3 & 4, you can't. Will these rioters use 3 & 4 to always stir up trouble? This is why many support the NSL.

"Great revival of Chinese culture" will be interesting in the next 50 years. The effects of globalization are not fully vested yet. There are many overseas communities of Chinese now being reconnected to China. Long distanced communities like Jamaica, India, Peru. There are also many people of different nationalities moving to China as well. The impact of this remains to be seen.
hi supersnoop

Great summary ,agreed on all count, may I add one more. The HK government /institution had been regulatory capture by the elite, as you mention without industries , the job prospect for young people are slim, the skill set is focus on finance & services which is set up to support its business. The elites knew there is a pent up anger and the locals need to lashed out and they target the mainlanders as a scapegoat. I'm not a believer of HK laissez faire capitalism, it foster a modern day feudal system, a symbolism of what is happening in the west , especially the US.

The solution for me is for the CENTRAL GOVT to take control of the institution, the economic integration thru the pearl delta project and if possible manage or defanged the elite.
 

Bltizo

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
It's something I mentioned previously. The only way to change policy in Hong Kong is to change the government. Beijing blocked direct elections for the Chief Executive unless it could hand-pick the candidates via its proxies in the Functional Constituencies. That means there can't be change, because all Chief Executives would endlessly be pushing the status-quo because status-quo = stability = CCP happy. There's been over 20 years of pro-Beijing Chief Executives selected by Beijing loyalists, and there's still no credible plan for dealing with housing in the city.

Would direct elections make everything better? Maybe not. But if Beijing wants to retain final control over Hong Kong politics it can't complain when it gets blamed for what happens in the city.

Don't get me wrong. I don't think China managed things badly in the first couple of years. The CCP was content to wait on the national security legislation after the 2003 protests. It also moved quickly to get rid of Henry Tang when it turned out he was probably corrupt and deeply unpopular.

However, everything started going downhill afterwards, probably because Xi took over and introduced a national policy of "control, control, control". There was no chance he was going to allow real democracy in Hong Kong.



Up until 2010, most HK people I met (and these were people under 40) said they were Chinese and being a HKer was part of that. There was maybe suspicion over the repeated statements from the CCP that it was "too early" to talk about electoral reform. But there wasn't fear or loathing of China/Chinese people. They saw themselves as being Chinese.



I'm not sure that playing the game of "who called who mean names first" really achieves much. Before 2014 I can recall plenty of Chinese people saying HKers were spoilt brats who complained too much. Also, the term "locusts" frequently referred to people who worked in the grey market reselling things like baby milk. Some of those were HKers as well, not just mainland Chinese. It's a term that's also used outside of HK to refer to the grey market reselling to China.



It would be rather strange for someone to be attacked in mainland China for speaking Cantonese given that there are tens of millions of people in China that speak it, and most of them are in mainland China. On the other hand, if you started making your political views clear such as by publicly talking about autonomy for Hong Kong (or Taiwanese independence) there'd be a significant chance of being attacked.

As for Mandarin in HK, no one should be attacked for speaking their native language. But it's hardly surprising that some thugs would do that especially given the current tensions - they're a good excuse to commit violence. There's also been longer-term irritation about Mandarin in HK due to perceived attempts at forcing it on the city. Even a few years ago Lam had to publicly deny that there were plans to start teaching primarily in Mandarin in schools.
From the very beginning there's been a mismatch in terms of what both sides expected from the results of the agreement handover and the execution of the Basic Law.

The allowance of "real democracy" in Hong Kong for the pro democracy camp was always spoken of in a manner whereby opposition to Chinese geopolitical interests and opposition to the central government and mainland overall was seen like it was a reasonable state of being.
China, on the other hand, viewed it as where HK could be allowed democracy so long as those same issues were not challenged on. In other words, having the ability to choose over local issues that do not violate key Chinese interests or seek to challenge the Chinese government on key issues that it considers important. But the evolution of HK into an enclave of foreign influence and groups and entities that were openly hostile to the Chinese government and seeking to use democracy to enact hostile policies, is something that obviously Beijing was not going to permit.

Basically it was an issue of giving HK "real power" in terms of the ability to influence or threaten Chinese government interests and geopolitical interests, and whether HK's system was "autonomous and equal" to the Chinese government or if HK's system was "autonomous and subordinate".


As for material goods like housing -- frankly this is one issue which I think the Chinese central govt could have done more on, but ironically IMO only if they had pushed harder to be able to manage the local affairs of HK in general to be more in the "one country" side of the spectrum than the "two systems" side. Instead, they chose a middle ground whereby local issues like housing were allowed to fester into something ugly but where locals still blamed the Chinese government for not doing anything.
 

KYli

Senior Member
Due to Asian Financial Crisis and Tung Chee-hwa's pledge to build 85000 flats per year within his term, Hong Kong housing market was on the downward spiral ever since the handover. SARS has made the turn down worsen. However, China's attempt to revitalize HK by allowing tourists to travel to HK was the beginning of a decade long supercharge housing circle. Hong Kong housing market became a magnet of speculative investment from China, Hong Kong, and international investors.

Why it is so difficult to quash the speculative investment in housing? Firstly, there are supply and demand imbalance. After abandoning the 85000 flats per year plan, HK government has since supplied very limited number of flats compare with Singapore. Land reclamation was abandoned due to the opposition from environmental groups which have the backing of HK tycoons. Most major housing projects run in oppositions by environmentalists and Pro-Dem camp by the same old conservation and protecting old landmark argument.

Secondly, as a laissez faire economy, HK is one of the most capitalist economies in the world. Hong Kong has no capital gains , no withholding, no estate, no dividend, no sales or value-added tax, and no tax on interest. The government revenue is not diversified enough and extremely rely upon land sales. Hong Kong government can't rock the boat unless it is willing to suffer tremendous slowdown in economy as wealth destruction of housing turn down would be catastrophe. That's why there is little incentive for the HK government to do anything.

Thirdly, Hong Kong government even the central government rely too much upon the HK tycoons to keep things calm in HK. These tycoons are too powerful and have too much influence. They control the media, fund the environmental groups, aid the NGOs and religious entities. Hong Kong government has no will to confront them and any attempt to change the status quo were rejected and defeated.

Lastly, a permanent solution like Lantau Tomorrow Vision needs a lot of will and commitment from the government to start and continue. the oppositions and Tycoons have strongly opposed such project and would kill them in its inception. Zhuhai's Guishan Island is an alternative to Lantau Tomorrow Vision which could avoid any interference from the HK oppositions. However, it is located a bit far and needs a long bridge and high speed rail to connect to HK islands which would still run into opposition.



See nothing and do nothing mindset is so inbred in the government that it just doesn't have the will to challenge the status quo.
 

EtherealSmoke

New Member
Registered Member
Due to Asian Financial Crisis and Tung Chee-hwa's pledge to build 85000 flats per year within his term, Hong Kong housing market was on the downward spiral ever since the handover. SARS has made the turn down worsen. However, China's attempt to revitalize HK by allowing tourists to travel to HK was the beginning of a decade long supercharge housing circle. Hong Kong housing market became a magnet of speculative investment from China, Hong Kong, and international investors.

Why it is so difficult to quash the speculative investment in housing? Firstly, there are supply and demand imbalance. After abandoning the 85000 flats per year plan, HK government has since supplied very limited number of flats compare with Singapore. Land reclamation was abandoned due to the opposition from environmental groups which have the backing of HK tycoons. Most major housing projects run in oppositions by environmentalists and Pro-Dem camp by the same old conservation and protecting old landmark argument.

Secondly, as a laissez faire economy, HK is one of the most capitalist economies in the world. Hong Kong has no capital gains , no withholding, no estate, no dividend, no sales or value-added tax, and no tax on interest. The government revenue is not diversified enough and extremely rely upon land sales. Hong Kong government can't rock the boat unless it is willing to suffer tremendous slowdown in economy as wealth destruction of housing turn down would be catastrophe. That's why there is little incentive for the HK government to do anything.

Thirdly, Hong Kong government even the central government rely too much upon the HK tycoons to keep things calm in HK. These tycoons are too powerful and have too much influence. They control the media, fund the environmental groups, aid the NGOs and religious entities. Hong Kong government has no will to confront them and any attempt to change the status quo were rejected and defeated.

Lastly, a permanent solution like Lantau Tomorrow Vision needs a lot of will and commitment from the government to start and continue. the oppositions and Tycoons have strongly opposed such project and would kill them in its inception. Zhuhai's Guishan Island is an alternative to Lantau Tomorrow Vision which could avoid any interference from the HK oppositions. However, it is located a bit far and needs a long bridge and high speed rail to connect to HK islands which would still run into opposition.



See nothing and do nothing mindset is so inbred in the government that it just doesn't have the will to challenge the status quo.
It’s just tragic. Imagine if people poured into the streets in support of Tung chee-hwa back in the day, or the recent protestors focused their attacks on the HK oligarchy and real estate cartel. We’d have concrete positive changes in the lives of most Hong Kongers by now.

Unfortunately, that’s all water under the bridge at this point. Looks like Beijing’s resigned to empowering the HK bureaucracy while tolerating the tycoons. Not like there’s much alternative, the young and middle class are pretty far gone at this stage.

And I agree with you on Beijing pushing greater Bay Area integration. With politics as it is, it’s untenable for the central government to attack tycoon interests head on, so Beijing’s going to have to work around them through integrating Hong Kong with surrounding territories. Ideally, efficient integration will eventually allow Hong Kongers access to goods and services like housing at better values. Fingers crossed!
 

Hendrik_2000

Brigadier
I couldn't said it better Regina Ip why the need for security law
Every country has the right to protect itself. The U.S. has at least 20 statutes targeting espionage, national security interception and external interference. The violent protests in Hong Kong last year clearly indicate the need to enact a national security law. Any opposition to the law is totally unreasonable.
They romanticized the law breaker like Joshua Wong, Nathan law, Martinelee as freedom fighter, democracy advocat when in reality they sow chaos and promote Hongkong independence instead working to better their fellow citizen life.
The british never promote democracy in 165 years until they about to leave Hongkong and China give them autonomous government Hongkong people rule Hongkong
 
Last edited:

Top