The betrayal of Hong Kong and the myth of One China, Two Systems

That’s according to Apple Daily reporter Kin-ming Liu in a rather startling op-ed piece in the WaPo.

But perhaps nothing better illustrates the myth of “one country, two systems” than the way Beijing halted democratization in Hong Kong. According to the Basic Law — Hong Kong’s mini-constitution, drafted by Beijing — the “ultimate aim” is to elect both the chief executive and the entire legislature by “universal suffrage”; the earliest possible times for this would be 2007 and 2008, respectively.

But now Beijing has played its trump card — its power to interpret the Basic Law — by proclaiming that the relevant clauses didn’t mean what they said. The Tsang administration released an election proposal last week that suggested only a few meaningless gestures that amount to a slow inching forward. I have come to believe that I will not see true democracy established in my home town during my lifetime.

This should come as no surprise to those who can see through the tremendous social changes of the past two decades to discern the true nature of the Chinese regime: It remains a dictatorship, intolerant of democracy. Beijing issued a white paper last week reiterating its Orwellian definition of democracy: “China’s democracy is a democracy guaranteed by the people’s democratic dictatorship.”

It’s not Tsang’s fault that Hong Kong is not yet joining President Bush’s global community of democracies. I think he does his best to defend Hong Kong’s interests. But he faces one daunting obstacle: He cannot go beyond the point at which Beijing says no.

When Bush visits China to see President Hu Jintao next month, he could do a great service to Hong Kong by reminding Hu of the promises made in that Joint Declaration two decades ago, and by urging him to give more freedom to Donald Tsang to run Hong Kong.

Eight years after the Hong Kong handover, I miss the British. Oddly enough, I didn’t like them when when they ruled Hong Kong as a colony. But when I look back, I recall life as seeming more promising in those days than what we are facing today. And we are still a colony.

Emphasis added, but just about every line could be emphasized.

About his suggestions for Bush – don’t expect Bush to do any such thing. Shrub leaves it to Bad Cop Rummy to rattle the saber, while Bush, always carrying water for big business, continues to kiss Hu’s butt.

Via CTD.

The Discussion: 53 Comments

Well Richard, you knew as well as everyone else that the “one country, two systems” was nothing but a joke.

..and the Mainland expected to woo Taiwan in with such a fine example as it has provided with Hong Kong?


October 28, 2005 @ 11:35 am | Comment

But how come when HK was under British rule, those people did not “fight for their freedom”. Could they elect their govenor back then? Most of the every laws of HK were determined by UK, and I don’t believe ordinary citizens had the right to f**** unseat the then British governor.

If you say the CCP does not HK enough freedom, fine. But it’s not ANY WORSE than during the UK rule, is it?!!??! Then where the f**** were you when HK was under the British? So ridiculous.

Sometimes I think the CCP does not need to be so nice to the Honkies. So f*** ungrateful b***tches.

October 28, 2005 @ 12:06 pm | Comment

While Hong Kong was under British rule, everybody knew that this would end in 1997. Perhaps the reason they accepted the situation was because as patriotic Chinese they probably expected Chinese rule to be *BETTER* than British rule. Unlike some people who seem to think they should be grateful that it hasn’t turned out to be worse.

October 28, 2005 @ 2:58 pm | Comment

It’s never the right time, isn’t it? Too late for the people in one system and too early for the people in the other.

Sorry, the candy store is closed. It will open when we’re ready.

October 28, 2005 @ 3:50 pm | Comment

It is clear to me that some Chinese have a kind of slave mentality: althought they had no democracy whatsoever under the British rule, they felt happy and no complaints; and now they have lots of noices even if Hong Kong really has not change much after its return to the mainland.

The author recalls life as seeming more promising in those days than what we are facing today. Of course, but that’s because the world has changed and Hong Kong has not changed much with it. Being a gateway to the mainland, life was good and easy for people in Hong Kong in the old days. But it has slowly lost its appeal with the rapid development of the mainland. As Richard pointed it out the the other thread, the mainland has certainly helped Hong Kong a lot ecomoically in recent years.

October 28, 2005 @ 6:01 pm | Comment

And asking Bush to talk to the Chinese leaders on Hong Kong? Even if Buch does, I think the Chinese leaders will pretend that they are listening (the simple fact is that they did not mess up Hong Kong). That’s the case when Rummy was in town some days ago. Only the Chinese are polite enough to be letured by Rummy like that. Sometimes, I really think China needs to have a few leaders like Chainman Mao and Deng Xiao Ping who have the backbone to stand up to bullies.

October 28, 2005 @ 6:20 pm | Comment

Yes, I agree, China needs more leaders like Mao.

October 28, 2005 @ 6:38 pm | Comment

It is clear to me that some Chinese have a kind of slave mentality: althought they had no democracy whatsoever under the British rule,

It is never a good thing to be colonized (at least not usually), but HK didn’t do so badly under the British, and like India, there were unquestionably some residual effects of colonization that ended up being beneficial, despite the inherent badness of being a colony of an empire.

October 28, 2005 @ 6:41 pm | Comment


Well for one thing, we (the British) didn’t issue death threats against radio jockeys that criticised our rule. We gave civil rights to the HK people long before we gave them democracy – and they actually meant something.

It isn’t too surprising that some people would be nostalgic. Almost every time I get into a taxi with a Pakistani driver, we somehow get on to the subject of colonial rule – how British justice was fair, how the bridges we built are still standing (and the ones built today last a few years), etc. Of course bad things happened too. But then again Pakistan isn’t in a very good state now. Last chap I talked to said he wished we’d send a team of administrators over to clean up the government and public services.

I feel rather sorry for the HK people. When the CCP starts to make statements like this, you know it isn’t serious about democracy:

“We are against the anarchic call for “democracy for all,” and against anybody placing his own will above that of the collective.”

Well that’s not really democracy, is it, Mr Hu?

October 28, 2005 @ 6:43 pm | Comment


there were unquestionably some residual effects of colonization that ended up being beneficial, despite the inherent badness of being a colony of an empire.

So one of the great cities of the world and the rule of law is a “residual effect”? Don’t forget Hong Kong was an unpopulated, disease-ridden pile of rocks before the British developed it.

As for the “inherent badness of being a colony”, tell that to Canadians, who think it’s so terrible that they still have the Queen of England (represented locally) as head of state.

October 28, 2005 @ 6:55 pm | Comment

Wow, HongXing, you sure could use a history lesson! Do you have any idea of HK’s prosperity during its years under the British compared to that of other countries (like, oh, China)? Read a few books, talk to some native HK people, then come back and tell us what you learned. I’m certainly against colonization, but don’t make up your own history about what it was like and what its end effects were.

October 28, 2005 @ 6:59 pm | Comment

boo – I disagree with your statements about Hong Kong being an unpopulated disease ridden pile of rocks before the British arrived.

And it is interesting given Darth Bowtie’s gladhanding in New York and DC {Breakfast with the Heritage kiddies and meetings with Cheney and the incompetent Ms. Rice and Henry the hypocritically philandering Hyde} that the first column inches in the US press is an editorial by an Apple Daily writer.

October 28, 2005 @ 7:18 pm | Comment

>Yes, I agree, China needs more leaders like Mao.


I know you were just kidding. Is not it good to have a few leaders with backbones to stand up to bullies like Rummy?

October 28, 2005 @ 7:27 pm | Comment

Tom – Daai Tou Laam, where do you disagree? It was a pirate cove until the British occupied it in 1839. As for the disease-ridden part, there was a malaria problem early on.

October 28, 2005 @ 7:32 pm | Comment

British rule is not the only reason for HK’s prosperity. British had many colonies and how many of them have the prosperity as Hong Kong does? I am afraid Hong Kong is quite uniqe in this regard.

October 28, 2005 @ 7:43 pm | Comment

“how many of them have the prosperity as Hong Kong does? I am afraid Hong Kong is quite uniqe in this regard.”

Former colonies that are prosperous: Australia, Antigua, Bahamas, Barbados, Brunei, Canada, Malaysia, Ireland, New Zealand, Singapore…the list goes on.

October 28, 2005 @ 7:59 pm | Comment


I would not consider Malaysia properous at all. Brunei is rich simply because it has lot of oil. If you put countries like Ireland and Canada in the list, please also add those many countries in Africa and Asia; then you can tell the numbers on both sides.

October 28, 2005 @ 8:08 pm | Comment

The point is, in terms of prosperity of former colonies, it’s in the upper end, but not unique by any stretch.

October 28, 2005 @ 8:13 pm | Comment

and both boo and xing forgot the U.S.

Though it is clear that Hu Yaobang/Zhao Ziyang’s economic miracles in the 80s would not have been possible without the billions of dollars poured in by Hong Kongers and Taiwanese.

And the flow of money in the last 15 years has continued to fuel China’s economy, while producing profound economic displacement for Hong Kong’s blue collar workers.

If you want to think of it this way, Hong Kong suffered the effects from outsourcing to China long before the rest of the world and reverting to Chinese rule for 7 years has done NADA for those folks, while Cheung Kong and New World and their friends have gotten richer and richer.

October 28, 2005 @ 8:18 pm | Comment

Bullies like Rumsfeld? Have we slid back to primary school?

If you don’t like your leaders elect different ones when the current term expires…

October 28, 2005 @ 8:24 pm | Comment


I think you have overestimated the importance of money from Hong Kong and Taiwan on the China economoic development. Without that, the miracle would still occcur and probably be 5 or 10 years later.

October 28, 2005 @ 8:28 pm | Comment

As a Canadian, let me say to us the Queen is just a figurehead. She has absolutely no power except greeting us on special occasions. We dump the old gal except it’s tradition and the fact we don’t want to go to the trouble of finding another figurehead. Most Canadians (at least me) don’t actually have a lot of affection for Britain.

Britain’s colonial history is certainly quite mixed. Usually when Britain colonized or took over a land with lots of natives, the usual result is a lot of warfare and blood. Countries like India, Pakistan, China, lots of the African countries ended up quite badly. I know some Indians who are very bitter about Britain blaming her for their current problems. The British usually set out to loot their empire not to bring up the natives to a better standard of living. The real successful British colonies like Canada and Australia were counties where they move their own population over. Even today, half of Canada’s population has an English, Scottish or Irish background. It could be that these countries had a better education system or were simply trusted with political power. Hong Kong is unique that the colony is very successful and not filled with people of British Isles stock.

October 28, 2005 @ 8:31 pm | Comment


It is nice if people can choose their leaders. But, it still is not great if the tables in the room are just re-arranged.

October 28, 2005 @ 8:31 pm | Comment

So there is no one in the CCP that can stand up to the “school yard bullies”?

The CCP’s membership is twice the population of Canada and Canadian PM’s routinely tell the US to drop dead.

October 28, 2005 @ 8:42 pm | Comment

Am I having deja vu?

This seems to bear a remarkable likeness to people wondering why Taiwan looks back at Japanese rule with much better memories than that of the KMT; and certainly does not look forward to the CCP.

October 28, 2005 @ 10:48 pm | Comment

It’s true that the British record of colonization has had mixed results.
The worst results tended to have been where some bureaucrats in London drew arbitrary lines on a map and created artificially defined states like Iraq and Kuwait, etc

However, in comparison, wherever the Communists created colonies, they almost invariably caused more harm than good, and retarded progress:

Colonies of the Communist Russia, whose economic and political progress was damaged and retarded by the Russian Communists:

North Korea (at its inception anyway)
East Germany
….however, to be fair, I’m inclined to exempt Cuba from that list. Also Mongolia. Cuba has been done reasonably well in some ways, under Castro, and Mongolia’s infrastrucuture improved from zero to slightly more than zero under Russian overlordship.

October 28, 2005 @ 11:06 pm | Comment

Those who want to talk about how bad British rule was in Hong Kong, and how there was no democracy or civil rights, should perhaps look into the history. Civil rights and freedom of expression were there decades ago, and later Chris Patten introduced a number of democratic reforms, for which he was called a “sinner of a thousand years.” In a charming move, China dissolved the most-broadly-elected legco in HK history upon its return in ’97.
Really, the reason that Hk was such a success is simple… it was not run by China! I’m not ordinarily much of a colonialist, but in this case i’ve gotta say: lucky them!
Unfortunately, HK returned in 97, and what was supposed to be a model for Taiwan has instead turned into a circus of mismanagement and unaccountability. Although it may be kind of sad, I don’t think this op-ed is that far off from mainstream opinion.

October 28, 2005 @ 11:22 pm | Comment

why do we have all these experts analyzing HK, while I bet no one lived there for more than 2 full year?

1. HK’s success is a combination of factors. free port is one of them. geographic location and near to the mainland (large hinterland — even during the korean war there is a lot of trading/smuggling to mainland) is also a very important factor. also the british law and system. they are all important.

That makes HK stand out from other british colony.

honestly, i am not sure if India would fare better with or without the british. or for malaysia/nigeria.
singapore’s succes is entirely a result of one single person called lee kuan yew. he was educated in cambridge. but that is a very indirect result of british influence.

2. the british RESISTED all request for democratic reform until they knew they had to return it to china. in HK it was generally agreed (even within the democrats) that Patten did this for his own motive (though this is better than no doing it)
anyone who used Patten as an example of British granting democracy in HK is either mis-informed or naive. ask anyone in HK, ask the democrats.

October 29, 2005 @ 12:25 am | Comment

lau kinming’s article is pretty accurate about how HK people see these events.
this is a very old and well discussed topic in HK years ago. you can find a few hundred article saying the same thing from 1999-2003.
in fact, CCP has learned and improved significantly from the past sincing ridding of Tung.

Law was just recycling some very old stuff from HK.

btw, rumours has it that Lau Kinming was fired by Apple Daily. He was put in charge of the op-ed page. He started to censor all opinions that disagree with the pro-democratic theme, creating huge controversy and killing apple daily’s reputation as a free media.

October 29, 2005 @ 12:35 am | Comment

p.s. for those who quoted US, canada, oz, NZ as success of british colonies? have you recognized something in common? they are all anglo-saxon communities.

they brought the tradition, education, social system, science with them — they were run very differently compared with other colonies (HK, malaysia, nigeria, kenya, india, burma/etc)

October 29, 2005 @ 12:48 am | Comment


>the reason that Hk was such a success is simple… it was not run by China!

It seems to me that the China that is currently run by China is fairing pretty well, isn’t it?

October 29, 2005 @ 12:52 am | Comment

It seems to me that the China that is currently run by China is fairing pretty well, isn’t it?

That’s in no way thanks to the CCP, but only in spite of it. China could be doing so much better, and it could have avoided so many decades of misery and death. The CCP has been the greatest blight to China’s growth, and only “succeeded” once Deng decided to let them do things their own way. Read the book China Inc. – what an eye-opener. (Becker’s The Chinese makes the same points about how China’s economic miracle came as a total surprise to Deng, who, to his credit, allowed it to prosper and got out of his people’s way.)

October 29, 2005 @ 1:23 am | Comment

so richard agrees with with Xing and disagree with Kevin. 🙂 in fact xing did not mentioned CCP. he just said it is possible even when it is not run by non-chinese.

well, decentralization and let each person does his own job is certainly one of the reason.

however, it is still too early to call China a real success. It had certainly accomplished a very challenging job in the past 25 years, but there are still a lot of problems to be solved.
Deng is certainly a great visionary person, despite his mistakes in 1989.

October 29, 2005 @ 1:32 am | Comment

I agree Sun Bing, and have always said Deng was the best thing that could have happened after Mao. The experimenting peasants who decided they had nothing to lose and proved capitalism was the solution for China would have been promptly murdered by Mao. Deng realized and acknowledged that they broke the law, and he had the courage to make them national heroes. He himself said he had no idea what the implications of their gamble would have for China’s economy. So much for the theory that the post-Mao CCP “architected” the economic miracle, when all they really did was get out of its way.

October 29, 2005 @ 1:53 am | Comment

It’s widely agreed that “Patten did this for his own motive”. Would anyone tell me what this motive is? Why does the introduction of expanded democracy always have to have some kind of “secret motive” to it? The Chinese media continues to talk about this crap, as if the British laid a minefield before they left Hong Kong to sabotage Chinese pride or something. Give me a break.
Patten made concrete moves that pissed the Chinese off to no end, and caused them to lose face, since the British colonizers, in the end, ended up looking better than the CHinese colonizers.

October 29, 2005 @ 2:02 am | Comment

I would think that everyone would agree that Hong KOng attained its success by not having to be run by China. I mean, no Great Leap, less disaster in the Cultural Revolution (although even HK couldn’t completely avoid that), freedom of speech, free economic development, etc.
It might seem a little offensive, but I’d have to say it’s true.

October 29, 2005 @ 2:09 am | Comment

Sun Bin, could you perhaps enlarge on yr comments that Canada and other colonies with a ‘anglo-saxon’ population were run differently from that of non-‘anglo-saxon’ countries? aren’t hk laws and institutions based on those of the uk?

Surely part of Deng’s motives were to hold onto power – indeed after throwing aside the gang of four, where else could he take China and still hold onto power?

October 29, 2005 @ 3:45 am | Comment

That’s the case when Rummy was in town some days ago. Only the Chinese are polite enough to be letured by Rummy like that. Sometimes, I really think China needs to have a few leaders like Chainman Mao and Deng Xiao Ping who have the backbone to stand up to bullies.

What are you talking about? We Americans get lectured by Rumsfeld every friggin’ day. The man lectures everybody, quite often making no sense whatsoever in the process – which many see as a sign of contempt. As for the Chinese pretending to listen to Rumsfeld – how does that make them weak? Doing what he tells them would make them weak – humoring him doesn’t. I’d also point out Rummy has been much more respectful in his language when talking to China than he has with others; for example, the American people.

To say that a) the Chinese reception of Rumsfeld is a sign of weakness and b) the response to that should be to resurrect a crazed mass murderer, is to basically out yourself as suffering from a crippling bout of bitter nationalist low self-esteem. I believe it’s you, Xing, who has the slave mentality – not Hu Jintao.

October 29, 2005 @ 3:48 am | Comment

>only “succeeded” once Deng decided to let them do things their own way


Of course, I was talking about the China led by Deng. The one before Deng was hopeless.

October 29, 2005 @ 5:44 am | Comment


I was talking about this: when the Chinese leaders were lectured by Rummy as a guest on China’s defense spending in China the other day, I wish one of them dared to say this straight: we are not a threat to your country and nor will we be in the future; but we are going to keep the defense spending increase until our weaponaries are as dead accurate as yours. I don’t think that people should be offended by that. After all, most americans like to hear the words “I-am-for-strong-defense” by their candidates during every presidential election.

October 29, 2005 @ 5:56 am | Comment

>I would think that everyone would agree that Hong KOng attained its success by not having to be run by China.

I still disagree with you on this. Hong Kong has been doing reasonable well since its return to the mainland. So what’s your point then?

I basically agree with your other points in your last post. Althought I have to say, if you define success as prosperity on the economic term, then I think there no no absolute corelation between the liberal western ideas and success. Just look at Singapore which leaders are regularly called dictators and an opposite example Philippine where they do things in the American way.

October 29, 2005 @ 6:32 am | Comment

I find it sickening that Britain and America are scrabbling around in Iraq to install a so called democracy, and yet neither of them have been willing to lift a finger to protect Hong Kong’s right to democracy for the last 10 years as Beijing encrouaches ever further.

This is as big an act of hypocracy as denying British Citizens from Hong Kong the right to have British passports.

October 29, 2005 @ 7:56 am | Comment

I was talking about this: when the Chinese leaders were lectured by Rummy as a guest on China’s defense spending in China the other day, I wish one of them dared to say this straight: we are not a threat to your country and nor will we be in the future; but we are going to keep the defense spending increase until our weaponaries are as dead accurate as yours.

Funny, Xing, because as far I can tell thats the message the entire CPC state apparatus has been pushing from the beginning (though maybe they elide the “deadly accuracy” part, its implied rather strongly).

From Xinhua:

The US defense secretary has drawn a clear idea in his three-day China visit that it is “natural” for China to develop its armed forces, improve armaments and carry out military modernization, said Zhang Bangdong, director of the ministry’s Foreign Affairs Office…

Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Kong Quan also gave his viewon Rumsfeld’s China visit, hoping it could help the two sides to have an all-round and objective understanding of each other…

“It is legitimate that China strengthen national defense, and it should arouse no doubt or worry,” he said.

Isn’t this exactly what you’re saying they should be saying? Or does it not have enough “tough guy” for you? If it was tougher, wouldn’t it be subject to the same criticism you level against Rumsfeld, a.k.a. bullying? I mean, they even put this message in Rumsfelds mouth in the above quote – and I don’t see him arguing with it.

You seem to be wishing the Chinese government wasn’t as smartly diplomatic in their language. Perhaps you’d rather something more like North Korea’s “sea of fire” rhetoric? Again, I think you’re the one laboring under a delusion of Chinese weakness and capitulation – Hu Jintao’s government clearly held their own with Rumsfeld, who returned from his trip no longer criticizing Chinese spending, but had to switch tactics to warning China not to use that military in “threatening ways”. He’ll continue to pick away at them, and they’ll continue to say “we’re not doing anything wrong”.

Until they actually do use that military, that is.

October 29, 2005 @ 8:46 am | Comment

“bitter nationalist low self-esteem” … bwah ha ha ha!

Xing, you’re doing a heckuva job convincing us, with your defense of un-democracy and your reactionary cravings for “leaders with backbone” like Mao, that China’s rise will be peaceful and that it’ll never be a threat to us. Because why the West should find a nuclear-armed country of billions who view life through an Orwellian prism of “truth by what Xinhua tells me” and believe distortions of history like “Mao was 80% right, 20% wrong” potentially threatening is beyond you.

The US and Western countries certainly have not always lived up to their lofty ideals, but if you look at the way countries in East Asia have developed over the last 50 years, I think I’d rather be in any of the ones that were aligned with the West (Japan, S. Korea, Taiwan, etc.) than, oh, China, North Korea, Vietnam …

October 29, 2005 @ 9:07 am | Comment


you don’t have to take my words. Maybe ask ACB or Tom.
How HK people feel about the hypocrisy of the Brits on HK.

I said, any progress is still appreciated. But Brits only did it before they don’t care about HK any more (they are going to lose control of it).
If HK will remain under British control, there is NO WAY Patten would have done what he did.

In other word, it is giving other other people’s cheese as gift. Of course, as a pragmatist, I think HK people still welcome such cheese.

October 29, 2005 @ 9:37 am | Comment


please be more specific in your terminologies.
china DOES NOT equal CCP!

October 29, 2005 @ 9:39 am | Comment

and Mao’s CCP, Deng’s CCP, Hu’s CCP are not the same.

October 29, 2005 @ 9:39 am | Comment


What you had in your comments is the reply from Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman when he was asked by reporters. In that siuation, what else could he say.

>you’d rather something more like North Korea’s “sea of fire” rhetoric?

That’s from your mouth, Dave. I don’t have rhetorics remotely close to this.

October 29, 2005 @ 11:03 am | Comment


You have taken my comment out of the context. When did I ever say that China would be better under Mao?

But please don’t talk as if your guys are the savior of the Chinese people.

October 29, 2005 @ 11:08 am | Comment


It rather depends on what you ask Canadians. If you ask “do you fee all nostaligic about Britain”, most will shrug their shoulders or say “no, not really”.

As them if they think generally positively about Britain, they’ll say “yeah, guess so”. Whenever I’ve met Canadians on holiday, we always get on a lot better than either of us do with the Americans (for example).


HK is a special case because, like Singapore, it was a small place that could be easily developed and managed, compared to places like India. What we offered HK was stable land rights and, as I and kevin said before, civil rights were offered a lot earlier than democracy. The same applied to most of the other colonies.

If you look at what happened in HK and India, you can see the impact of British rule through the fact they themselves campaigned for democracy, because they became used to the democratic mechanisms that affected their lives. If British rule had been the terrible experience some ultra-nationalists would have us believe in those places, then they wouldn’t have campaigned for democracy and self-rule, they would have launched a guerrila war of the kind that forced France out of places like Vietnam and Algeria.

The British Empire was an empire, just like all the others human history has ever known. But those people that try to whinge that nothing good came out of it are just as bad as those people (well, can’t say as there are many) that maintain it was a good thing that shouldn’t have ended. The Indians are finally coming to terms with British rule, and are comfortable to praise its achievements as well as criticise its failings.

There’s no reason why HK can’t do the same.

October 30, 2005 @ 7:29 am | Comment

Well, someone above made some comment about everyone making comments about HK not ever having been there for longer than two years … so I better throw my two cents in, having lived there for 4 years altogether, from 1995-1998, and again a few years later.

A) Lead up to the handover. Feelings among HK people were mostly a combination of i) I’m trying my best to feel happy about the return to China, because I think I should be. Shouldn’t I? and ii) Well, things are good now aren’t they? Why can’t they just stay the same?

B) You don’t have to ask the HK people how they feel about the return to China, because people already poll this kind of thing. When asked if they consider life to be better now, or better before 1997 … take a wild guess which one they choose.

C) It’s a rare HK person who wants to be associated with people from mainland China. They’re usually VERY insistent that they are HKers.

D) Plenty of HK people have family who suffered terribly at the hands of the communists. They haven’t forgotten.

E) Was HK a free society under the British? There was only one aspect that ever struck me as odd … the way you’d often see police hanging around to demand people’s ID. HK people didn’t mind this though, because the purpose was always to catch mainlanders who were in HK illegally.

F) There’s a lot of self-censorship in HK. This started before 1997, and only got worse as time went by. You can take it as a rule of thumb that distrust for Beijing and feelings against China are ALWAYS stronger than they appear to be in HK media. Even in this story.

November 1, 2005 @ 11:41 pm | Comment

Why bother talking to a mainland propaganda mouthpiece nicked Xing/Sinbin/whatever? Every tiny step in political reform of HK under british rule had to be consulted with Beijing. You might as well blame Beijing.

For those mainlanders who question why HKer want universal sufferage now, are you simply suggesting that a citizen of a country named China should not have more rights than a colonial subject under british rule?

HK is better off? How so? Not to mention economy. Self-censorship? Chinese intervention? Reinterpretation of basic law? 500,000 people on streets to protest against a national security law and poor governance? Useless debate about who is patriot and who’s not? Tourist spot crowded by rude mainlanders?

Chris Patten has been in HK these few days to promote his book. It’s like the second british invasion, TV, radios, citizens that praised him. Why?

November 12, 2005 @ 12:51 am | Comment


June 21, 2006 @ 9:14 pm | Comment

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.