|
I've been hearing about this from relatives who live in HK.
This whole thing according to what I have gathered seem to be blown out of proportion. National education is just a history course about China much like how other countries in the world promote history of their own country. It's based off the same curriculum in China so I don't see much problem with this. The arguments proposed in the protests were that China is trying to take away freedom off the people of HK via brainwashing methods. Which is absurd in itself.
I think this entire ordeal is just more crap the people of HK do every year.
Note: the people of HK protest a lot about every little thing almost every day of the year
Judging from HK relatives and friends of mine. The reaction pretty much says "/facepalm, not again... don't they have jobs to do?"
just my 2 cents
|
United States43188 Posts
On September 06 2012 19:08 Gnial wrote:
The Quebec students simply believe that it is the duty of society is to provide for post-secondary education. Thus, ANY increase is in violation of their right to education. They want it to be $0, and they are happy to pay for it with increased taxes when they are older.
For that reason, an argument comparing Quebec tuition to other tuition is not relevant. You must argue that the right to free education should end at grade 12 and not go further.
That is not an easy argument to make.
It seems pretty simple to me. A democratic society decides what its obligations are to its people by electing governments to pass laws based upon their manifesto promises. If the students would like the government to grant them what they view are their rights then they must elect a government to do so. Simply complaining to the current government that you think you have the right to something when they disagree is a fundamental misunderstanding of the way things work.
If they truly wish to repay the cost of education when they are older then I believe there is a system already in place whereby an individual can pay for something now and then make payments over time in the future.
This is not to say I disagree with them about public funding of education but rather that demanding rights that the government does not recognise is a waste of time. Instead you need to elect a government to enshrine those rights.
|
On September 06 2012 19:17 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On September 06 2012 19:08 Gnial wrote:
The Quebec students simply believe that it is the duty of society is to provide for post-secondary education. Thus, ANY increase is in violation of their right to education. They want it to be $0, and they are happy to pay for it with increased taxes when they are older.
For that reason, an argument comparing Quebec tuition to other tuition is not relevant. You must argue that the right to free education should end at grade 12 and not go further.
That is not an easy argument to make. It seems pretty simple to me. A democratic society decides what its obligations are to its people by electing governments to pass laws based upon their manifesto promises. If the students would like the government to grant them what they view are their rights then they must elect a government to do so. Simply complaining to the current government that you think you have the right to something when they disagree is a fundamental misunderstanding of the way things work. If they truly wish to repay the cost of education when they are older then I believe there is a system already in place whereby an individual can pay for something now and then make payments over time in the future. This is not to say I disagree with them about public funding of education but rather that demanding rights that the government does not recognise is a waste of time. Instead you need to elect a government to enshrine those rights.
Funnily enough protests are a perfectly good way to demonstrate your political wishes. Voting is not, like you try to make it sound, the only way to make your voice heard. Not in theory and not in practice.
In this case the students would be a minority of the voting population as a whole making it an impossibility in the first place to just vote on any particular goverment they themselves would actually want. That means that they will have to make their voice heard to whichever government is actually elected.
Edit: As far as this relates to the Hong Kong situation the students seem to be well in their right to protest this change. IT doesn't seem to have been part of any election platform to begin with. They should also write to politicians, write open letters in newspapers, try to appear on debates and so on. Again, voting is not the only option for political change in a democratic system.
|
On September 06 2012 19:07 epicanthic wrote:Show nested quote +On September 06 2012 18:01 Gnial wrote:
Is the position of Hong Kong residents legitimate enough to potentially escalate to serious student protests?
Could class cancellation ever be on the table, or would the government rather let the protesters fail their classes?
Any insight people have would be awesome. It's definitely a legitamite concern. Encouraging people to understand and appreciate your country is one thing, but forcing them to do so is something else entirely, especially if the curriculum is decided by the country, and not individual education boards. I mean, I completely understand where China's coming from, but you can't force acceptance of your history and culture, the history of which is already highly controversial (I mean seriously, the Cultural Revolution and the Great Leap Forward completely fucked the country over, both culturally and economically). They already stated that the curriculum is meant to make people appreciate China; that already implies that the material's going to be heavily biased towards favoring China and less towards actual facts, i.e. nationalistic brainwashing. Sadly, we don't have any power over what out own government does whatsoever, both due to the fact that our government's already in China's pocket and the fact that we're going to lose our sovereignty in 2047 anyway. China's basically got us by the balls. However, most crucially, China wants Hong Kong due to it's vast economic value; if they fuck us over too much, we're just going to mass exodus the fuck out of here and leave the place to rot. Stability is key in ensuring that HK stays economically beneficial, so (hopefully) they'll try and change their current plan. Show nested quote +On September 06 2012 18:18 zdfgucker wrote:
There have been many tensions, with Beijing enforcing Putonghua, so Hongkongers protest to keep Guandonghua; etc. These protests won't change anything, HK is part of China and won't be SAR forever. Incorrect, Hong Kong is a soverign (though arguable, considering that our politicians are basically China's bitches) nation, as was agreed by both Britain and China until 2047. It's a cultural issue; even when we join back with you guys, we won't be 'part' of China, because we don't want to assimilate and lose our identities. Saying that the protests won't change anything is true, but having the attitude that we're part of China period is what's causing the tension in the first place. You guys threw away Hong Kong to the British because you thought we were a valueless fishing village - a "barren rock" - , and we developed it together with the British to make it one of the freest and most successful economies in the world. Now you guys want us back because you want not just a piece of the pie, but the entire thing, and expect us to sacrifice our distinct national and cultural identities, our freedoms of religion, speech, and basic human rights? Surely you can understand why some of us don't want that? I'm all for unity with China, but the shit they're doing right now and the attitudes that seem to be held by a lot of mainland Chinese aren't helping the situation at all.
I disagree with your position. Name a single piece of history which isn't biased? There is no such thing as objectively sound history, because it is always going to be the interpretation of the person writing it. Secondly, it is hard to avoid other opinions of what happened in China, because information is as free in HK as it is in the rest of the Western world.
So your opposition of the scheme being brainwashing doesn't really make too much sense in a place like HK.
Also your prediction that people in HK will just flee China when the time came to completely convert the city into the Chinese system. It already happened prior to the 1997 handover, and what happened was people from the mainland coming down to fill the positions. Economic stability didn't change as Hong Kong is still the Asian centre for financial and accounting activities. You could argue that HK is worse off than it was prior to the handover, but I would point you towards the 1972 and 1988 stock crashes that severely lowered wages and increased unemployment that HK is still trying to recover from.
This is just news turned fox news turned pitchfork witching hunting
|
United States43188 Posts
On September 06 2012 19:21 HellRoxYa wrote:Show nested quote +On September 06 2012 19:17 KwarK wrote:On September 06 2012 19:08 Gnial wrote:
The Quebec students simply believe that it is the duty of society is to provide for post-secondary education. Thus, ANY increase is in violation of their right to education. They want it to be $0, and they are happy to pay for it with increased taxes when they are older.
For that reason, an argument comparing Quebec tuition to other tuition is not relevant. You must argue that the right to free education should end at grade 12 and not go further.
That is not an easy argument to make. It seems pretty simple to me. A democratic society decides what its obligations are to its people by electing governments to pass laws based upon their manifesto promises. If the students would like the government to grant them what they view are their rights then they must elect a government to do so. Simply complaining to the current government that you think you have the right to something when they disagree is a fundamental misunderstanding of the way things work. If they truly wish to repay the cost of education when they are older then I believe there is a system already in place whereby an individual can pay for something now and then make payments over time in the future. This is not to say I disagree with them about public funding of education but rather that demanding rights that the government does not recognise is a waste of time. Instead you need to elect a government to enshrine those rights. Funnily enough protests are a perfectly good way to demonstrate your political wishes. Voting is not, like you try to make it sound, the only way to make your voice heard. Not in theory and not in practice. In this case the students would be a minority of the voting population as a whole making it an impossibility in the first place to just vote on any particular goverment they themselves would actually want. That means that they will have to make their voice heard to whichever government is actually elected.
You make it sound as though a minority interest never holds sway in a democratic contest. The opposite is generally true, that when two roughly equal political blocks form (as in most two party systems) it is a small number of contested votes that generally decide the election. By campaigning, lobbying political parties and raising awareness of the issue they could influence the manifesto of a political party.
Protesting that something that is not the case is the case is absurd. A claim of "I have a right to free education" can be denounced by a simple "no, you don't, I checked". "I should have a right to free education" is a much more useful thing to claim and that can be framed as an argument and an argument can be put to the people and to political parties.
|
China needs to back the fuck off. Nobody wants them here.
I'm sick of China calling us "British dogs", who have lost "our sense of what it means to be Chinese", yet at the same time every mainlander I know wants a piece of Hong Kong (for reference, mainlander is a Chinese from China). They buy tons of property from their "government-approved spending money", essentially turning the city into their own game of monopoly, without caring about what makes Hong Kong the city that it is.
If China really sees us as "paperdoll Chinese" (quoted from CCTV), then why are there hundreds of women crossing our border everyday, waiting to give birth so their children can have HONG KONG PASSPORTS? Why do so many mainland families want to move to Hong Kong, even today? Mind you, we're talking about the RICH and the ELITE families, the 1% (or in China, the 0.001%).
I haven't seen a single star in the sky for over 10 years in Hong Kong because of pollution from China. I haven't gone one day outside without seeing a mainlander spit in the street, or pick his nose and wipe it on bus/train railings. I haven't had one lunch or dinner at a restaurant where there's a mainlander and he or she isn't yelling over our table when he's on the freakin' phone. I haven't been able to shop at a EUROPEAN BRAND store without having to line up because all these mainlanders come to Hong Kong to spend all their dirty money. Sorry, but there's no way you can convince that the mainlanders I see every single fucking day aren't barbaric. They have no respect for people around them, they are uneducated, they have no shame, no tolerance, no common manners (like putting your hand over your mouth when you cough or sneeze), they don't follow public order whatsoever.
I challenge anyone who doesn't believe me to spend ONE day in Hong Kong, and you will see what I mean. I've had friends from all over the world (Africa excluded :\) and when they visit, they all say the same thing. "Hong Kong is a class A world city, like London, Paris, but the mainlanders are really fucking things up".
|
On September 06 2012 18:24 Newbistic wrote:Show nested quote +On September 06 2012 18:18 KwarK wrote:
They're in the unfortunate position of having sovereignty in their state essentially handed over to a foreign nation with a totalitarian government. They're fucked.
They're right to protest, their history is one of a liberal colonial western system and being told they need to learn to conform with the antithesis of that is horrible. A "foreign nation"? That's certainly a British way of looking at it lol. I don't support the HK government's decision but "handed back" would be a lot more accurate than "handed over" in this case.
Its like a slave exchange or something.
|
On September 06 2012 19:26 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On September 06 2012 19:21 HellRoxYa wrote:On September 06 2012 19:17 KwarK wrote:On September 06 2012 19:08 Gnial wrote:
The Quebec students simply believe that it is the duty of society is to provide for post-secondary education. Thus, ANY increase is in violation of their right to education. They want it to be $0, and they are happy to pay for it with increased taxes when they are older.
For that reason, an argument comparing Quebec tuition to other tuition is not relevant. You must argue that the right to free education should end at grade 12 and not go further.
That is not an easy argument to make. It seems pretty simple to me. A democratic society decides what its obligations are to its people by electing governments to pass laws based upon their manifesto promises. If the students would like the government to grant them what they view are their rights then they must elect a government to do so. Simply complaining to the current government that you think you have the right to something when they disagree is a fundamental misunderstanding of the way things work. If they truly wish to repay the cost of education when they are older then I believe there is a system already in place whereby an individual can pay for something now and then make payments over time in the future. This is not to say I disagree with them about public funding of education but rather that demanding rights that the government does not recognise is a waste of time. Instead you need to elect a government to enshrine those rights. Funnily enough protests are a perfectly good way to demonstrate your political wishes. Voting is not, like you try to make it sound, the only way to make your voice heard. Not in theory and not in practice. In this case the students would be a minority of the voting population as a whole making it an impossibility in the first place to just vote on any particular goverment they themselves would actually want. That means that they will have to make their voice heard to whichever government is actually elected. You make it sound as though a minority interest never holds sway in a democratic contest. The opposite is generally true, that when two roughly equal political blocks form (as in most two party systems) it is a small number of contested votes that generally decide the election. By campaigning, lobbying political parties and raising awareness of the issue they could influence the manifesto of a political party. Protesting that something that is not the case is the case is absurd. A claim of "I have a right to free education" can be denounced by a simple "no, you don't, I checked". "I should have a right to free education" is a much more useful thing to claim and that can be framed as an argument and an argument can be put to the people and to political parties.
When was the last time you heard of this being a major factor in elections? I mean students specifically not other interest groups. Regardless, my point wasn't that voting was irrelevant, my point was that it's not the only option and in the case of Hong Kong it doesn't seem to be an option at all.
|
On September 06 2012 18:55 redviper wrote:Show nested quote +On September 06 2012 18:18 KwarK wrote:
They're in the unfortunate position of having sovereignty in their state essentially handed over to a foreign nation with a totalitarian government. They're fucked.
They're right to protest, their history is one of a liberal colonial western system and being told they need to learn to conform with the antithesis of that is horrible. You say colonial western system like its a good thing. As if colonialism was some gift from the great Brits. You know what? I hope China fucking crushes the protests from these faux fucking Brits. There isn't a country or culture in the world more scummy than the British and if it will take a massive act of oppression to destroy the British influence in a region, its completely worth it.
western colonialism, and specifically British colonialism, has done nothing but good for the world; out of all the nations to come from the Commonwealth/under British colonization, the only major country to falter has been Zimbabwe.
Canada, South Africa, India, and Malaysia/Singapore are all major economic powers, but the British didn't directly craft them into the financial strongholds they are today. Because all of these nations retained or modeled off their British-influenced educational, financial, judicial, and legislative systems, they were able to develop their nation well after they'd left the British sphere of influence.
The foundations that the British gave these nations is nothing to scoff at when you consider nations that have no official ties to the Commonwealth, but draw heavily from British influences such as the United States and Hong Kong, are central pillars of economy and culture in their respective parts of the world. This is why your blind hatred has no place, and why it's especially important for citizens in HK to recognize that an underlying portion in their formula for continued prosperity is being forcefully altered.
from what I hear, people are wary of the implications national education might carry, and that a milder form of the devastating Cultural Revolution might take place again. For a lot of citizens, excessive PRC influence or impression has been something that they've dreaded ever since the 1997 reunification. A lot of them would have preferred to stay under British sovereignty.
|
As someone who has spent quite a bit of time in China, and has truly been a part of the higher-level education system (that is, not as a foreign teacher, not as someone doing business, not even as someone just studying Chinese), I've seen and been a part of quite a few things here that worry me. And while anyone who's never been to China may view Hong Kong as a Chinese place, someone who has lived the way I have for a long time, visiting Hong Kong is like a breath of fresh air, a whole new world that, while Chinese, is free from many of the things that slowly eat away at you in the mainland. It's truly a great place, and despite whatever political agreements are in place, Hong Kong is anything but "Chinese" as we know China today.
I have a lot of faith in Hong Kong and the people there, and I would gladly support them in their protests. Hong Kong is a special place, and they're doing the right thing. Giving in without one hell of a fight would cause Hong Kong to lose much of what makes it so great and unique. They have a history far different from China, and it would truly be a shame for that to slowly disappear and meld with that of the mainland. I shudder to think of what could happen to Cantonese, as it's already being slowly pushed away even in Guangzhou. I shudder to think of what could happen to the citizens and their understanding of morals and manners, which are unquestionably more developed than those in the mainland. I don't want to think about those things, because for me, Hong Kong is a wonderful place. And by not protesting these changes, by not doing anything about it, Hong Kong would be on the start to some very far-reaching changes that would forever change such a unique place. Even if the protests may not accomplish much, they really owe it to themselves to at least try.
Hong Kong may be Chinese in a sense, but truthfully it's a wonderful blend of Chinese and Western culture, and there's really nothing else quite like it. It should be preserved, in my opinion, and not forced to adhere to China's ways. Instead, China should be proud of the role they played and hopefully will play in making Hong Kong what it is and continuing to improve it, not destroying the very things that make it different and special from China in the first place. They should be teaching Chinese to appreciate Hong Kong, not Hong Kong to appreciate China. Hong Kongers will always be Chinese, and they're not blind. They know what to appreciate, it's in their blood and their history. It's the mainland Chinese that I worry about. Without a doubt, I support all those Hong Kongers who are willing to protest this.
|
Also, I'd like to leave this valuable quote here, just for reference sake:
Freedom of Assembly in Hong KongThe freedom of assembly is protected under Article 27 of the Basic Law and Article 17 of the Bill of Rights. Article 17 of the Bill of Rights provides: The right of peaceful assembly shall be recognized. No restrictions may be placed on the exercise of this right other than those imposed in conformity with the law and which are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security or public safety, public order (ordre public), the protection of public health or morals or the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.Although there are no official figures in the number of protests, an analysis of newspaper reports has shown that the reported number of protests increased from under 100 before 2000 to 210 in 2004, and stayed at around 200 cases up to 2006, signaling the maturation of civil society. It has also been argued that the 1 July march in 2003, in which half-a-million residents took to the streets to protest the proposed national security bill and express strong general dissatisfaction with the government, halted the legislation of the proposed bill and allowed civil society to recognize its strength and potential in the policy-making process. The 1 July march is organized every year. Taken from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Hong_Kong
And might I also remind people of what happens in China when students protest?
Tiananmen Square Massacre
![[image loading]](http://media3.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/photo/gallery/090601/GAL-09Jun01-2117/media/PHO-09Jun01-163975.jpg)
|
On September 06 2012 19:31 andyrau wrote:Show nested quote +On September 06 2012 18:55 redviper wrote:On September 06 2012 18:18 KwarK wrote:
They're in the unfortunate position of having sovereignty in their state essentially handed over to a foreign nation with a totalitarian government. They're fucked.
They're right to protest, their history is one of a liberal colonial western system and being told they need to learn to conform with the antithesis of that is horrible. You say colonial western system like its a good thing. As if colonialism was some gift from the great Brits. You know what? I hope China fucking crushes the protests from these faux fucking Brits. There isn't a country or culture in the world more scummy than the British and if it will take a massive act of oppression to destroy the British influence in a region, its completely worth it. western colonialism, and specifically British colonialism, has done nothing but good for the world; out of all the nations to come from the Commonwealth/under British colonization, the only major country to falter has been Zimbabwe. Canada, South Africa, India, and Malaysia/Singapore are all major economic powers, but the British didn't directly craft them into the financial strongholds they are today. Because all of these nations retained or modeled off their British-influenced educational, financial, judicial, and legislative systems, they were able to develop their nation well after they'd left the British sphere of influence. The foundations that the British gave these nations is nothing to scoff at when you consider nations that have no official ties to the Commonwealth, but draw heavily from British influences such as the United States and Hong Kong, are central pillars of economy and culture in their respective parts of the world. This is why your blind hatred has no place, and why it's especially important for citizens in HK to recognize that an underlying portion in their formula for continued prosperity is being forcefully altered. from what I hear, people are wary of the implications national education might carry, and that a milder form of the devastating Cultural Revolution might take place again. For a lot of citizens, excessive PRC influence or impression has been something that they've dreaded ever since the 1997 reunification. A lot of them would have preferred to stay under British sovereignty.
That's arguable. Many of the people are wanting British sovereignty ONLY because there are recent political scandles and the media are going all crazy about it. But in fact, when we were under British goverence, it was really bad as well but we didn't have that much of a concern simply because we had a great growth in economy.
The main reason why so many Hong Kong people are missing the old times are mainly due to the:
economic environment:
Hong Kong was extremely fast growing, where if you are willing to put an effort, you will be successful (except you are extremely not likely to be as successful as the foreigners). Unlike nowadays where uni grads can barely find any jobs, not to mention land price etcetc
Hong Kong recent years has more Chinese tourists and immigration coming in and some are living on the unemployment benefits, or posing some serious poor reputation for Chinese people (such as letting the Kids shitting in front of a shop in one of the luxury shopping centre in Hong Kong)
other events such as rushing borders to born in Hong Kong region for citizenships, buying off all the milk powder because China brand had problem
I can clearly say the British colonization isn't all good.
The wealth that generated were mainly benefiting the british who lived in Hong Kong at the time.
There were lots of briding going on as well, especially within the police force (My granddad worked there, but he wouldn't take brides and eventually got kicked out)
And actually quite a lot of Hong Kong people are not aware of (or choose not to be awared of) the fact that the economy in Hong Kong is strong during the GFC is mainly due to its connection to China. Now that Chinese economy is slowing down and transforming (no longer only cheap manufacture focused) and price level rising, we are suffering from the higher living cost and we start to blame on China lol
|
On September 06 2012 19:07 epicanthic wrote:
However, most crucially, China wants Hong Kong due to it's vast economic value; if they fuck us over too much, we're just going to mass exodus the fuck out of here and leave the place to rot. Stability is key in ensuring that HK stays economically beneficial, so (hopefully) they'll try and change their current plan.
Are you serious? HK is highly dependent on mainland China already and the port of HK is losing the battle against the fast growing ports everywhere in mainland. Yes, HK is rich and has a strong economy but that empty threat of yours is not going to scare anyone.
On September 06 2012 18:18 zdfgucker wrote:
There have been many tensions, with Beijing enforcing Putonghua, so Hongkongers protest to keep Guandonghua; etc. These protests won't change anything, HK is part of China and won't be SAR forever.
Incorrect, Hong Kong is a soverign (though arguable, considering that our politicians are basically China's bitches) nation, as was agreed by both Britain and China until 2047. It's a cultural issue; even when we join back with you guys, we won't be 'part' of China, because we don't want to assimilate and lose our identities. Saying that the protests won't change anything is true, but having the attitude that we're part of China period is what's causing the tension in the first place.
First off, you are not disagreeing with me, you are a SAR just like Macao. And tell me about losing identity, have you heard about people in Shanghai trying to preserve their language? You are not alone in losing your language and identity. "We" can't change it and neither can you. C'est la vie.
I'm all for unity with China, but the shit they're doing right now and the attitudes that seem to be held by a lot of mainland Chinese aren't helping the situation at all.
That's coming from both sides. I've spent an exchange semester in HK and got quite a lot of flak for being from mainland, professors were making fun of "China" (HK is part of it but that they would not acknowledge) and Putonghua was not very welcomed by people. Likewise I met many nice and helpful people who treated me as a person.
|
Show nested quote +On September 06 2012 19:55 zdfgucker wrote:On September 06 2012 19:07 epicanthic wrote:
However, most crucially, China wants Hong Kong due to it's vast economic value; if they fuck us over too much, we're just going to mass exodus the fuck out of here and leave the place to rot. Stability is key in ensuring that HK stays economically beneficial, so (hopefully) they'll try and change their current plan. Are you serious? HK is highly dependent on mainland China already and the port of HK is losing the battle against the fast growing ports everywhere in mainland. Yes, HK is rich and has a strong economy but that empty threat of yours is not going to scare anyone. First off, you are not disagreeing with me, you are a SAR just like Macao. And tell me about losing identity, have you heard about people in Shanghai trying to preserve their language? You are not alone in losing your language and identity. "We" can't change it and neither can you. C'est la vie.
Show nested quote +
I'm all for unity with China, but the shit they're doing right now and the attitudes that seem to be held by a lot of mainland Chinese aren't helping the situation at all.
That's coming from both sides. I've spent an exchange semester in HK and got quite a lot of flak for being from mainland, professors were making fun of "China" (HK is part of it but that they would not acknowledge) and Putonghua was not very welcomed by people. Likewise I met many nice and helpful people who treated me as a person.
Riiiight, so how about you tell all these mainland families rushing their pregnant women to our already-full hospitals, taking advantage of our healthcare (unlike China, doctors in Hong Kong get their salaries from the government, not by squeezing the families of the injured dry), just so their children can have HONG KONG IDENTITIES AND PASSPORTS. Tell them to give birth in a Chinese city with a "growing port".
And I'm truly sorry for the good folks in Shanghai, but those Shanghainese don't share a border with the rest of China. They don't have Shanghainese passports, or Shanghainese identity cards.
Again, I might sound hostile, but you have to realize, China is the big dog. I'm sorry that you had bad experiences in Hong Kong, but can you blame us? You sound like an intelligent individual, put yourself in our shoes.
|
On September 06 2012 18:24 Newbistic wrote:Show nested quote +On September 06 2012 18:18 KwarK wrote:
They're in the unfortunate position of having sovereignty in their state essentially handed over to a foreign nation with a totalitarian government. They're fucked.
They're right to protest, their history is one of a liberal colonial western system and being told they need to learn to conform with the antithesis of that is horrible. A "foreign nation"? That's certainly a British way of looking at it lol. I don't support the HK government's decision but "handed back" would be a lot more accurate than "handed over" in this case.
The PRC of 1997 has no claim to Hong Kong, except territorially. Thing is, Hong Kong is a worthless little island without the people living on it. Thus the only people who had any claim to Hong Kong were the citizens of Hong Kong.
Handing it back/over to the PRC is the worst travesty the UK has committed in about a century now.
|
Man sometimes I wish China will just let HK go and develop Shanghai to be the commercial entry way into China, maybe set up a special business zone in Shanghai with it's own mini government with lower taxes and waive the partnership with local Chinese firms condition to enter the market if they set up offices there.
They clearly don't like us, I've been given much more respect by Australians than by fellow Asians in HK. I've been to HK in the past and boy do they look down on you if you speak Mandarin but instant respect when you start speaking fluent English, it would be funny if it wasn't so pathetic. Granted it's changed now but they only want the revenue, the attitude hasn't changed.
|
On September 06 2012 20:04 yeint wrote:Show nested quote +On September 06 2012 18:24 Newbistic wrote:On September 06 2012 18:18 KwarK wrote:
They're in the unfortunate position of having sovereignty in their state essentially handed over to a foreign nation with a totalitarian government. They're fucked.
They're right to protest, their history is one of a liberal colonial western system and being told they need to learn to conform with the antithesis of that is horrible. A "foreign nation"? That's certainly a British way of looking at it lol. I don't support the HK government's decision but "handed back" would be a lot more accurate than "handed over" in this case. The PRC of 1997 has no claim to Hong Kong, except territorially. Thing is, Hong Kong is a worthless little island without the people living on it. Thus the only people who had any claim to Hong Kong were the citizens of Hong Kong. Handing it back/over to the PRC is the worst travesty the UK has committed in about a century now.
China was willing to invade to take Hong Kong over and threatened Thatcher at the time so I would think handing it over is better than losing it in an invasion.
|
United States43188 Posts
On September 06 2012 20:04 yeint wrote:Show nested quote +On September 06 2012 18:24 Newbistic wrote:On September 06 2012 18:18 KwarK wrote:
They're in the unfortunate position of having sovereignty in their state essentially handed over to a foreign nation with a totalitarian government. They're fucked.
They're right to protest, their history is one of a liberal colonial western system and being told they need to learn to conform with the antithesis of that is horrible. A "foreign nation"? That's certainly a British way of looking at it lol. I don't support the HK government's decision but "handed back" would be a lot more accurate than "handed over" in this case. The PRC of 1997 has no claim to Hong Kong, except territorially. Thing is, Hong Kong is a worthless little island without the people living on it. Thus the only people who had any claim to Hong Kong were the citizens of Hong Kong. Handing it back/over to the PRC is the worst travesty the UK has committed in about a century now.
If we'd handed it to Taiwan and argued that they technically were the government of the nation from whom we leased it the PRC would have sulked forever.
|
On September 06 2012 20:07 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On September 06 2012 20:04 yeint wrote:On September 06 2012 18:24 Newbistic wrote:On September 06 2012 18:18 KwarK wrote:
They're in the unfortunate position of having sovereignty in their state essentially handed over to a foreign nation with a totalitarian government. They're fucked.
They're right to protest, their history is one of a liberal colonial western system and being told they need to learn to conform with the antithesis of that is horrible. A "foreign nation"? That's certainly a British way of looking at it lol. I don't support the HK government's decision but "handed back" would be a lot more accurate than "handed over" in this case. The PRC of 1997 has no claim to Hong Kong, except territorially. Thing is, Hong Kong is a worthless little island without the people living on it. Thus the only people who had any claim to Hong Kong were the citizens of Hong Kong. Handing it back/over to the PRC is the worst travesty the UK has committed in about a century now. If we'd handed it to Taiwan and argued that they technically were the government of the nation from whom we leased it the PRC would have sulked forever.
Perfect solution.
|
On September 06 2012 19:25 Williammm wrote:
I disagree with your position. Name a single piece of history which isn't biased? There is no such thing as objectively sound history, because it is always going to be the interpretation of the person writing it. Secondly, it is hard to avoid other opinions of what happened in China, because information is as free in HK as it is in the rest of the Western world.
So your opposition of the scheme being brainwashing doesn't really make too much sense in a place like HK.
Also your prediction that people in HK will just flee China when the time came to completely convert the city into the Chinese system. It already happened prior to the 1997 handover, and what happened was people from the mainland coming down to fill the positions. Economic stability didn't change as Hong Kong is still the Asian centre for financial and accounting activities. You could argue that HK is worse off than it was prior to the handover, but I would point you towards the 1972 and 1988 stock crashes that severely lowered wages and increased unemployment that HK is still trying to recover from.
This is just news turned fox news turned pitchfork witching hunting
You're right, there is not such thing as truly objectively sound history, but there's value in having information as objective as possible, isn't there? History is meant to be objectively seen and interpreted by the recipient - it's only been manipulated by both individuals and governments to be used for their own agendas, which in this case is to ensure favorable unity with China. Arguing that history shouldn't be objective just because it generally isn't is not exactly solid.
Yes, it is hard to avoid other opinions of what happened in China, but those opinions aren't being forced upon us. We don't have to go on wikipedia or google to see what really happened, we do so out of choice. In this case however, there will be no choice - and that is what is the problem here.
Imagine this situation: Hong Kong is forced to learn about China from information that will obviously be entirely pro-China. We then get handed over to China in 2047 and then we suddenly fall under the same censorship laws - censoring of the media, literature, and of the internet, thanks to the Great Firewall of China and direct government involvement in forums and search engines. Where then can we learn about the truth? Nowhere. That's where this all leads to. And don't claim it won't happen, it's still happening within China as I type this very sentence.
The thing is, the 1997 handover wasn't actually a full transfer of sovereignty, it was just the creation of an SAR, to be left alone for 50 years. Laws were created in tandem with the British to ensure continued economic and social freedom. The situation here is different; we're going to be handed back to China and our current SAR laws are going to be scrapped in favor of the Chinese government's, because we'll officially, legally, be a part of China. Our economy will change. China isn't even on the list of the top 30 in the Index of Economic Freedom. We don't like government intervention in our economy; it's what's made us so successful. When we rejoin, shit will hit the regulatory fan, businesses will fall under the laws and regulations of the Chinese government. Like I said, the situation is different - instead of heading to an era of economic uncertainty, we're headed towards an era of economic certainty; certain in terms of the fact that businesses are not going to be able to conduct business in the way they have been for the past century, free and (mostly) government free.
This is news that has been turned into opposition to such news, that's it. I don't see any witch-hunting taking place, nor any sensationalism. It's just our opinion of what is going to happen, supported with evidence so gracious given by China's lack of freedom and legacy of propaganda and censorship, both historical and ongoing.
And to clarify, I'd love for there to be a day where the people from both Hong Kong and China can get along. It's just that it's impossible given the inevitability of assimilation,with a government that is absolutely fucking batshit insane. The people are great, everyone living in China are amazing individuals, but the Chinese government itself can go fuck itself (and then censor it out!). No offense to the people, plenty of offense to the government.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
