The recent convictions of 14 activists under new security laws in Hong Kong are seen as the final end of political freedom in the territory. But could the erosion of democracy have been stopped? Or was it always unrealistic to expect the “one country, two systems” to last for the full fifty years? And how do you think all this will affect Hong Kong? Will it make it more stable, as Beijing believes? Or will it undermine it, as critics argue? As always, I look forward to your thoughts and comments below.
closed courts but trust us. One thing I am so sick of hearing is Authoritarians saying, you're overreacting. We hear it every day, every hour, here in the states about Trump.
@@SpicyTake , I know what you are trying to do! :-) May I refer you to Popper's Paradox of Tolerance? My support for democracy allows me to oppose the democratic success of groups that will then undermine democracy.
@@JamesKerLindsay You are getting ahead of yourself. From where did you the get the presumption the winning parties would undermine democracy? What exactly do the losing parties want to do? Turn Hong Kong into such successful cities such as San Francisco or Atlanta? Anyone with a brain would vote against that. There are no good cities under the late stage capitalist model of government.
I think it was fairly obvoius hope was lost the moment UK gave the territory back to China. The only question was how long it would take for mainland to harmonize the repression to the new area. Nothing is going to get better before CCP someday is ousted and that might take a while.
Hong Kong is such a relatively (compared to the late 90s) small portion of Chinese GDP that Beijing has seemingly decided the façade of democracy is no longer worth the economic benefit. Honestly this feels like a move I'd expect of any major power dealing with an internal region full of people ideologically opposed to its national government. China increasingly isn't required to appease foreign powers.
I agree with the assessment, but I'm not sure I'd agree with the analysis; if you see what I mean. Beijing has clearly decided that it doesn't need to do what it said it would. However, this does carry a cost since it underscores the message that it is not a partner that can be trusted to stick to its word. If nothing else, it makes a conflict over Taiwan more likely, especially as the Taiwanese won't trust China to stick to its word, and the United States has no reason to believe that Taiwan would be treated fairly under a similar system offered to Hong Kong.
@@JamesKerLindsayA bit off subject but China showed it was not a reliable partner when they covered up the SARS outbreak back in 2002/03. That was a wake up call for many people in HK. It was not a matter of ideology, different political systems or national interests but just of basic human decency
Indeed. One can only hope it wasn’t by natural inclination. But I can imagine they all came under very strong pressure. I suspect China would have a rather heavily enforced blacklist!
@@JamesKerLindsay Donnie Yen and Jackie Chan political appointees while the other celebrities did it due to pressure or financial needs. Chow Yun Fat just updated his social media profile to celebrate the CCP and said nothing else as he was already blacklisted for supporting the 2014 protests
I think the argument is wrong. Hong Kong’s democracy was never alive. Only in 1992 with HK’s last British governor, Chris Patten, there was a pathetic last minute rush to create a sort of democracy in the territory. For 150 years, Britain ruled by law, people had no saying in the way they were ruled. It has been the same in Singapore, just rule by law, not rule of law, no wonder the triad connected Lee family took over and democracy is a travesty there. Interesting now how HK has become similar to Singapore, the national security law is like Singapore’s Internal Security Act. It’s ironic that most of the activists in HK can trace their roots to the 1960s Chinese Leftish anti-British groups, who were pro-Beijing
in 1946, UK attempted to give HK higher degree of democracy and introduced "Young Plan" , but Chinese Communist party didn't allow and threat UK that they would invade HK if any constitutional reform was introduced
British HK is much more liberal on the aspect of freedom of speech than Singapore, at least majority of us during that time are viewing to discuss politics publicly and criticise on the government.
@@ericyuen5946That’s my point, after the CCP take over, HK has become like Singapore. Another dead society with authoritarian rule, basically ran as a family business where the triads operate with impunity
By reneging on its 50-year pledge of autonomy for Hong Kong, China pretty much shot itself in the foot in the long run. There is now absolutely no way that Taiwan would ever trust Beijing if the latter offered a similar agreement - if the PRC can't stand a democratic city under its authority, how will they ever allow an island with a thriving democracy? I find a peaceful conclusion to the One China policy to be less and less likely, I'm afraid.
Taiwan isn't currently part of China because they're against communism itself - it's why they exist. They aren't going to willingly get ruled by Communism without a fight so there wouldn't be any kind of agreements between them
Many if not most will agree. A lot of China's turn towards aggression looks self-defeating; had they kept every promise and governed Hong Kong with a light hand it could have been a persuasive argument for moderate voices in Taiwan that a peaceful reunification with the mainland could be negotiated that preserves Taiwanese domestic autonomy to include civil liberties and freedom from the more oppressive hand of the party. Now the Taiwanese know what they can expect should they ever capitulate to Beijing; the mainland can never again be trusted to keep any promise and will flood the island with Chinese immigrants broken to complete subservience to the state, all institutions will be taken over by mainlanders while the security services will arrest any voices of dissent - before long the island will turn into a clone of every other Han Chinese possession on the eastern part of the country. I would say it is not the only decision where China has shot itself in the foot and that this also the case with the Philippines and perhaps in the future, India. For that matter, it is the case with the US as well.
CCP at this point is convinced that peaceful reunification is impossible They will maintain the status quo for now but once reunification became the ultimate immediate goal they will achieve it at gun point
The real question is, did this change come about as a result of the protests, or did the protests come about as a result of the change of the political system of Hong Kong. One could argue for either side, protests started after slow changes made to Hong Kong's political system... others would say the changes happened as a response to protests and outside instigation... truth as always is somewhere in the middle... I believe the initial plan was to continue keeping Hong Kong at an arms length and slowly change its system.. one small legislation at a time but this was sped up as a result of protests.
@@LaluBhaiya1233 That doesn't really acknowledge though that the protests in Hong Kong were *about* the CCP's attempts to exert more control over Hong Kong, however. If the CCP could've tolerated dissent in Hong Kong and not interfered, we wouldn't have seen protests in the first place, so there would be no protests to "justify" further crackdowns. I find using the protests to justify a "security" response to be an extremely circular argument that begs the question.
I'll come back to this once i can get to a place where i can actually watch this in peace, but having living roots from there, I will say this: The PRC government lives to paint nationalism over everything, but the truth is, everyone is wary of the government. You hear about this getting painted over as an ethnic or cultural thing, that they want independence... Few wants actual independence, but with the way things are going, would you blame them? Nationalism is not a reason to be an a-hole. People haven't forgotten where they came from. They know they're Chinese. Otherwise, HK and Taiwan would not be the buddies that they are. There's just no trust in the government.
Thanks. Very good point. It would be good to hear a reasoned mainland Chinese position explaining why Beijing is cracking down so hard. Is it really that worried about what is happening in Hong Kong and that it can't be contained. Or does it feel powerful enough to simply turn its back on any agreement - almost as a matter of national pride? "Yes, we signed an agreement. But we always hated it. And now we are powerful enough that we just don't care." This would seem to match the nationalism you mentioned.
@@JamesKerLindsay I'll give a proper response after I watch the video. The premise for me is that I live in the US but my family is stretched on both sides of the internal border. Same province though. Same culture, but slowly turning into Bohemia and Moravia. Important things: media in the Mainland are heavily controlled. The news and perspectives you'd get are completely different. I can give you somewhat a Mainland perspective, but I'm Southern, and control comes from Beijing, as if England and Scotland are ruled from Helsinki. China is big. There will be disconnects.
We're not really "Chinese" I mean yes we are but also no we aren't. "Han" Chinese is more of a cultural thing, much like being European or American. Italian and French people are similar but different. That is the same thing with Chinese. I assume you're Cantonese like me based on your username. We're descendants of Baiyue people, our peoples mixed with Han Chinese when they started colonising the south. DNA wise, we're more genetically closer to Vietnamese people than we are to the northerners. They too are descendants of Baiyue peoples, except they migrated south rather than stayed to mix with the Han. The "Han" Chinese today is something that is relatively new and being pushed by the ccp to build a coherent identity they can bond their nationalism to and it largely seemed to work. But each region of China has its own culture/people/language and it is sad China does not recognise them as non Han to give them minority status that would help preserve culture more.
@@Devilishlybenevolent Yes and no. Yeah, we are mixed... But why does that mean we should completely disregard the non-Baiyue blood in us? Anyone who was Chinese under the Han Dynasty was basically Han. China is not shoving the word "Han" down everyone's throat. Their policies have shown that. They're trying to make everyone the same, but the "Han" Identity is not the tool being used. Yeah, China is kicking regional differences to the curb, and that's sad, but if everyone is accepting it as normal and good, your valid point is moot. No one is giving a care. All that being said though... The topic at hand is not a Cantonese one, but a HK one. If the entire region is angry, that's different... But everyone of our relatives who didn't go through HK is siding with Beijing! And that's regardless of the Cantonese, the Hakka, and the family of everyone who came to HK after WW2, Cantonese or not. If you make this a cultural or ethnic issue, we aren't going to win. Everyone in GD is drinking the government's Kool-Aid, even when watching the language die amongst the kids.
@@JamesKerLindsay Hey Professor, sorry for the delay. Traveling. I can give you the perspective typical of my parents. My family is Cantonese. How out-of-Staters feel? Their relative lack of intimacy will have an effect, and I have seen that "FU" national pride before amongst some... Working youth who I'm sure are rich party members LOL. I'm your average Ming, I'll say it as I see it. I'm not a professor who has to say "who appears to be" and back it up with statistics, etc. So a couple of claims/arguments that you'll typically see: The protestors are being paid. Everything is just backed by the West. The fear mongering is overblown. The government has no interest in you. The West is no better especially in terms of spying/privacy. And again, the protestors are being paid, cuz this claim is a hard-line one. And maybe there are a couple, doing things that now would obviously get them arrested, but when you have a big movement and a whole million people came out to protest... WeChat says "they're all being paid obviously!" POV/priorities: national unity. National unity. National unity. Everyone in China knows, the government can screw up sometimes, but no one is about to rebel in anyway or think of themselves as being not Chinese. The other commenter on this thread has a point, but it is pointless. We grew up eating "Chinese" food and speaking "Chinese", and to this day, even with Cantonese born overseas, "Chinese" is the default. So coming from that perspective, to see people from HK de-emphasizing or avoiding "China" and identifying as strictly HK, it does piss them off, although as an "insider", I definitely see differences, and I also cannot blame HKers for doing so. They see things they're not proud of. Do people in China believe that what's happening in HK cannot be contained? I was about to say 'no' because I didn't think China is at risk of falling apart, and the people are patriotic, though not in the gung-ho manner America is known for. But thinking about past talks and attitudes, yes, there are a significant amount of people who do worry that HK's mess will spill over. Nonsense IMO but that's the attitude. Also, people are taught that strong/strict rules are a good thing. Plus, China has cracked down in Tibet and Xinjiang, so this is not extraordinary anyway, especially given the cop attack pictures that they've seen. And there is definitely a monolith problem: assumptions like every protester is getting paid. Everyone in HK is ungrateful except for their own sibling who moved there, but the kids are all ungrateful, etc. And never underestimate the trash tier BS coming out of WeChat. Along the lines of what Ryan MacBeth said, they believe it because they don't know any better... I don't know about the youth, but it's definitely an issue amongst the elderly.
Thank you. I had wanted to take a look at the situation for a while. It really is tragic to see what has happened, and all seemingly unnecessary. If it had been left well alone, I suspect we wouldn’t have seen the developments that Beijing then said necessitated the introduction of laws that then made everything worse. It was a vicious circle caused by short-sighted interference.
Thanks. Yes. I think China will just say that full integration is only twenty years away and that it needs to get on with it. And I can't see what can realistically be done to change anything. Ultimately, as I said, it is really about reputational damage, but I don't think Beijing really cares that much.
@@JamesKerLindsay The PRC does not care as long as it displays an impression of strength and if they are able to use HK as an example to deter dissent in the country. As an unintentional consequence, Singapore is now being "forced" to replace Hong Kong as a financial centre in the region, including the social baggage associated with rising real estate, issues with "entitled expats", and a more competitive job market.
@@JamesKerLindsaythe West is a full on Cold War and spends hundreds of millions of dollars to slander everything China. I think we’re BEYOND reputational damage.
Great video, and a very important topic. I think allowing China to remove Hong Kong from the UN list of non self governing territories was a moral failure, and what's happened since then just follows on from that. It's really tragic - HK has been such a vibrant, exciting and free place for so long. 😢
What exactly can anyone else could have done. Its foolish to think colonial powers who have humiliated China, that is UK, USA & other Western powers get to dictate terms or pose as moral arbiters, now the country can assert itself.
A moral failure when H.K was obtained after the opium war and that Britain gave democracy only some yrs before the rétrocession. propaganda is universal you are the proof
Professor, in your mind, what does the "1 country" part of the equation mean? It seems that most westerners ignore the 1 country part and cherry pick the Basic Law so that HK will continue to be Western-dominated and any Chinese influence kept out. I see from some of your comments that you are sympathetic to HK independence. As if HK should have been given "self-rule" designation by the UN despite the fact that HK was unambiguously part of China before the Brits took it by force. A disgraceful chapter in British colonial history. Yet, if it were up to you, you'd have HK permanently separated from the rest of China. What precedent would this set? Western countries could go take small bites out of bigger countries, then claim they should become "independent" once western colonial rule ends. This would find no support in the global south. And it's no wonder the West is losing the battle of global opinion with these kinds of positions. All this whilst supporting atrocities in Gaza (not you personally, but your government and that of the US), which is tantamount to violent Israeli conquest of Palestinian land. Then you turn around and tacitly support HK and Taiwan independence from China. There's no basis for these positions in the international community. There's consensus for a 2 state solution. Likewise there's consensus for HK, Taiwan, Macau, Tibet, Xinjiang etc being Chinese territory. But here you are, scratching away at the margins of Chinese sovereignty and standing back whilst Israel wholesale conquers more Palestinian land. But what can you do about Palestine... I know that will be your response. The truth is that Britain and the US have allowed this situation to unfold. Hey, freedom and democracy right? Slogans over substance.
Thanks. So, what does “two systems” mean to you? And I’m not sure why you think I am sympathetic to independence. Did I say that at any point? I raised it because it was never really an option and I wanted to highlight why. As for Palestine, I have covered this in lots of videos. But I am not sure what it has to do with this. It seems you just want to throw a whole a whole load of arguments into the pot. However, It helps to be more focused.
@JamesKerLindsay 2 systems means exactly what is taking place in hk. Hk is governed under a different system. To claim it isn't is simply being disingenuous. What you can't do is use the 2 systems doctrine to subvert the 1 china part. China was willing to allow 2 systems in hk. The west has not yet come to terms with the fact that china is sovereign over hk and that China has the right to intervene on matters of national security. You just haven't come to terms with this. You can tell this because you portray the mainland as some sort of dystopia when it clearly isn't. Hk under china will be just fine. Like many other chinese cities are just fine. In fact, many chinese cities are thriving. I'd encourage you to go see china for yourself. This is not some sort of failed state where people are repressed. Please have a chat to kishore mahbubani. His favourite come back to this line of thinking is to quote facts. Every year millions of chinese leave china on holidays or for work or for study. And you know what? The overwhelming majority of them go back. You must have a pretty low opinion of chinese people if you think they'll just cop being repressed. The truth is that they're not. They've seen unimaginable improvements in their lives in the last 40 years. The ccp should be praised for this.
China does not want to actively infringe on Hong Kong's political rights, let alone restrict Hong Kong's economic power. The cause of this incident is that someone in Hong Kong launched a Hong Kong independence movement, which is prohibited by China. In other words, China's 50-year special administrative power granting Hong Kong is based on the premise that Hong Kong will not launch a Hong Kong independence movement. And because Hong Kong launched a Hong Kong independence movement, China chose to shrink Hong Kong's political power. This is "legitimate defense"
Poignant upload on the week marking 25 years since the Tiananmen Square Massacre, Professor! I only hope that the US, Europe in its constituent nations and collectively, and mainland China listen in earnest to the wishes of the people of Hong Kong and Taiwan as events develop in the region.
Thank you. Yes, good point about the anniversary. I was aware of it. I remember when it happened. I was 17 at the time and remember watching the reports. It was truly tragic.
I think only mentioning the number of Hong Kongers that moved to the UK is a poor way to represent the exodus out of Hong Kong. The Hong Kongers I personally know are willing to move to any developed country to get out of HK if they can find work there. I think the statistic of emigration from HK would be more useful.
In a transition of 50y to self rule, half self rule at the 25y half way mark is to be expected. You cannot expect a sudden step change in exactly 50y mid-night. It's not how human beings, and society work.
They sort of did, but very late in the day. And this was meant to be extended after the handover. But it didn’t happen. Instead things went completely the opposite direction.
@Shadowslayer Why should I respond? He didn’t make any substantive point. Seriously, I get hundreds of comments a day. I am better than any other channel when it comes to responding to viewer comments. Most don’t reply at all to anything. But I can’t respond to every single one, especially when it is just a throwaway line. (And I’m not sure why your comment merited laughing emojis?)
in 1946, UK attempted to give HK higher degree of democracy and introduced "Young Plan" , but Chinese Communist party didn't allow and threat UK that they would invade HK if any constitutional reform was introduced
For the 150 years that Britain has ruled HK, all the time the HK Governor is APPOINTED by the British Crown, not elected by people. The Legislative councilors are APPOINTED by the Governor, not elected by people. There is no democracy in HK under British rule. Why, when HK is returned to China, Britain cries so loud about democracy! I hope you could give your viewers a fair explanation. I am a HK citizen. I am happy with the political system and peace and stability that we now have.
in 1946, UK attempted to give HK higher degree of democracy and introduced "Young Plan" , but Chinese Communist party didn't allow and threat UK that they would invade HK if any constitutional reform was introduced. But UK still gave Hong Kong greater democracy and we could elect our respective in regional councils since 1960s th-cam.com/video/4CW2kXCU__U/w-d-xo.html
James, a great topic again to have on the podcast. We all could write dissertations & books on all the wrong things that have happened between the CCP & Hong Kong, but the summation you provided covered all the salient points in an excellent fashion. Bottom line is that the CCP has shown its true intent in not adhering to international agreements it has made. It seems the international community willing engages in a form of "Kabuki Theater Diplomacy" where the reality of the PRC actions will be ignored so international diplomats can pat themselves on the back for accomplishing an agreement which the PRC never had an intention to follow. To me, the PRC is a "Con Artist" state, and efforts to engage positively with them will not be productive. Western liberal nations' engagment with the PRC betrays classical liberal values, which ultimately undermine our own societies in the West. History proves that diplomatically placating both Nazi Germany & Imperial Japan gave the world the most devastating conflict in history, and the confluence of politics now is deeply troubling & frightening. The foolish concept by Western liberal democracies that problems with the CCP could be diplomatically "managed" was and is a fantasy that only makes the PRC more bold. Bottom line again is that Hong Kong is sadly lost, and protecting, as well as defending, liberal democratic values must be paramount in all economic & political decisions made by policy makers in the collective West. Thanks for this topic. Highlighting the events in Hong Kong is helpful and should remind all of us that we must guard our liberal values from illiberal influences.
@@ABCantonese and the HKers only have themselves to blame. They had a good thing going, having the most freedom in China and they overplayed their hand. I am cantonese myself with family in HK.
@@leethal59 It was a fight they had to fight at a key time as China's grip tightened on HK. If China stood back and continued allowing them their autonomy then great, if they decided to crush dissent then it's only slightly accelerated their existing plans to subsume HK and the whole world has seen their true colours.
@@davidellis2182 Fight they had to fight based on your western gweilo perspective that has no skin in the game? This ain't your turf anymore buddy. Stop commenting on stuff that you know nothing about, only because the mainstream media dictates you should be a good little democracy warrior.
Is it not inevitable though? the 50 year transition seems to benefit Hong Kong's ruling elite coordination efforts to remain relevant once its done. They (HK ruling elite) must be satiated and don't care whether the SAR status is cut short.
@@TheWedabestDuring colonial period, millions of refugees from Mainland China fled to HK to escape the Chinese Communist party, it proves that China government treated their own people evan worse than British coloniser
Small bit of background. The mess started with an educational reformation. As an attempting to be more aligned with China, Hong Kong added civil education to the school curriculum, which was widely unpopular. To make things worse, Hong Kong used to be like the British system with 7 years of high school. In order to realign with China’s 6 year high school system, Hong Kong government simply picked one year and merged all the year 6 and 7 students into one, doubling the number of graduates for that year. Now you end up with a sizable number of youths facing heavy competition, unemployment, politically motivated, and holding strong resentment towards the government. Adding poor economy to the mix, what could have gone wrong? A sizable chunk of Hong Kong’s well educated and skilled population emigrated prior to the hand over. The mass protests resulted in two more waves of emigration. For a “city state” like Hong Kong, human capital is all it has. Whatever the ideology is, Hong Kong has lost its competitive edge and most likely, won’t get too far.
Thank you. That’s very interesting to hear. Overall, the picture one gets is that China just couldn’t help interfering, despite the commitment to let Hong Kong be. As this has led to problems, it has compounded the situation by increasing its involvement and introducing even more draconian measures. It’s a vicious circle. But sadly, I think you’re right. Hong Kong has lost a lot of its talent now. And I’m not sure that it can hope to attract outsiders anymore. All very sad, and unnecessary.
@@JamesKerLindsay Thank you Professor for your reply. Interestingly, a lot of Hong Konger’s resentment is more towards the Hong Kong government instead of towards China. While the more naive youth may believe Hong Kong can remain free from interference from China, even gaining independence from China, the more realistic Hong Konger see the influence as inevitable. China being China and CCP being CCP, probably won’t change any time soon. So instead, Hong Kong would have to adapt, create a profitable situation but yet tolerable for Chine, while bargaining for as much autonomy as possible. This was supposed to be the job of the Hong Kong government - balancing between the interests of Hong Kong, maintaining autonomy, while respecting the political agendas of China. So far the Hong Kong government is failing spectacularly, and it’s already past half of the 50 years. Well, probably they didn’t fail the last aspect. Creating the subject of civil education was one of such political stunt aimed at appeasing China. Contents could be easily slipped into existing subjects of social studies, literature, history and geography, but that would be too subtle as a show of loyalty. On the bright side, Hong Kong would probably won’t end up being just another city of China. In 2022, top CCP officials stated that “In reality, 50 years is just a figurative saying. There will not be changes after 50 years… the first 50 years cannot change. There is no need to change after 50 years” Xi Jinping later delivered a speech when he went to Hong Kong, stating: “There is no reason to change such a good system (one country two systems). It must be adhered to in the long run” “Hong Kong should consciously respect and safeguard the China’s sovereignty and security” Translate that politic speak to English, would probably be along the line of “Ok we gonna let you keep your autonomy even after 50 years, as long as you don’t do anything stupid or make us look bad, such as seeking independence” With this context, the arrests and trials would make a lot more sense. While the show of loyalty may sound like a setback for democracy, this may actually be the most significant political win for Hong Kong since the hand over. Probably also the biggest concession Xi Jinping ever made during his reign.
@tekinfomedi for a place that’s run by literally a CEO, that’s typical Hong Kong opportunist behavior. Especially those who left due to economy concerns rather than fear of the CCP. Tho most of the average HKer took a big hit during the 1998 financial crisis
Seems to me to be inevitable and appropriate that HK progressively align political systems and institutions with China. Is that such a bad thing, anyway? Though some aspects of China’s system and behaviour seem reprehensible (or at least we are being relentlessly taught that), there seems to be much to admire in their economic growth, technological progress, huge reduction of poverty, relative non-belligerence, long term strategic planning and apparent leadership integrity (versus Trump, Johnson, Sarcozi, Berlusconi for example). I fear we are being taught to fear and hate them in order to justify another war that will be cloaked in morality but driven by self-interest, like the Opium Wars of the past. 🤷♂️
Yes, China's system and behaviour are reprehensible and most of the 'benefits' you mentioned are either exaggerated, misattributed to the CCP's system of governance, or simply out of touch with reality.
@@anglaismoyen You may be right, and it is difficult to know whose propaganda is the greater lie, but I do see with my own eyes tangible proof of their remarkable progress in the last 30 years….their cities, companies, vehicles, computers, tourists etc. Friends who live or work there corroborate this. Thats why they’re now perceived and being portrayed as a threat, surely?
Please bring up Macau. Macau is even sadder than Hong Kong and no one speaks for Macau like no one has forgotten Macau's existence and it's issues with communist China. Speaking of Chinese, Chinese is not a race or a one monolithic race. The Cantonese, the Southerners clearly don't live well with other ethnics of " Chinese" like the north - the Pekingese . So don't blend the "Chinese" together. There are significant differences in terms of culture, tradition, heritage, language, custom and ways of doing things. Therefore, I find the word "Chinese" is a very ambitious term. Very often, the "Chinese" themselves or people not of that part of the world don't exactly what the " Chinese" is all about.
Thanks. Someone else mentioned Macau. You are absolutely right. It is the forgotten part of this story. I really should do something on it. (Sadly, though, this video has done really badly. I’m not sure I will revisit the topic for a while.)
This video was very informative! Good stuff. As a Hongkonger though, I find your focus on the 2012 elections to be a bit strange? The drop in the pro-democracy vote was entirely due to a split in the movement over the Democratic Party's support of the government's 2010 electoral reform proposal. Also, far more than 10% of Hong Kong's population is foreign born. Many ethnic Chinese in Hong Kong were born in western countries, or southeast Asia.
Thanks. I didn’t think I made 2012 a centrepiece of the argument. I just put it there to show how pro-Beijing forces were starting to gain strength. That’s all. And thanks for the point about the population in Hong Kong. I was working off internationally available figures.
What broken promise has been broken? Has the author read the Basic Law? The mainland has been adhering to the Basic Law quite well. It has been Hong Kong that has regened on enacting Article 23. Hong Kong remains highly autonomous. The West should read more and presume less.
The steps it took were unnecessary. It just couldn’t help but meddle. And in doing so it created problems that it now feels it needs to solve by introducing more draconian steps. It was all completely avoidable. It has reduced its reputation and made integrating Taiwan peacefully more difficult. It should have just let things be.
Why is the west so “weak”? More than half of global gdp, basically the only markets in the world that matter to countries that want to pursue China style economic growth, etc. It just seems like we’re unable to stand up for ourselves when our ideals are under attack. Whenever someone hits us we rarely hit back, we might send a strongly worded letter though. Why are we never proportional?
Very good question. Part of it is to do with what we call hybrid conflict. This is particularly important these days, and works brilliantly against open democratic societies. It is about weaponising democracy and free speech. We have seen it time and time again, including the credible allegations of interfering in elections and referendums and finding hate groups to disseminate divisive messages. The problem is that it is very hard to do the other way when you deal with authoritarian closed systems. They can stop the flow of information and close down public debate. And as Western states respect human rights we can’t engage in other hybrid activities, such as hacking hospitals (as just happened in the U.K.) or busing migrants to the border of one these states and pushing them across (as Belarus has been doing to Poland and Lithuania). This is the trouble the West faces. These countries are using our system against us and, rightly, we don’t want to respond by dismantling our systems.
@@JamesKerLindsay Thank you for taking the time to answer. Is there anything the west can do that’ll have a significant impact? In terms of countering this, without sacrificing the same ideals we’re trying to protect. But in my original comment I was also referring to more brazen acts by adversaries. Such as Chinese industrial espionage, international police stations, etc. Russians attempts at jamming air travel over Europe, russian claims on NATO territory in the gulf of finland, etc. The attempt at jamming civilian airplanes over the Baltic is especially egregious to me. If they had succeeded in bringing down the airplanes thousands of NATO “citizens” would have died. Seems to me like Russia is pushing to find the red line, but haven’t found it yet, so they keep pushing.
@@JamesKerLindsay Indeed, it works because too few people are sufficiently engaged to question the source of what they hear if it plays into their existing biases. It's a very difficult problem in open societies, and made all the worse by social media. Either we're going to have to evolve into more sophisticated consumers of media, or this will always be a problem. But I don't know if it's completely new. The USSR exploited the openness of Western societies and political systems through the Comintern, didn't they?
@@douglassun8456 Exactly. Social media is the weapon of mass destruction of hybrid warfare. So much more needs to be done to tackle this problem. The trouble is that many people automatically assume the anything to regulate social media is an attack on free speech, rather than realise that this could in fact protect their societies in the long run. It is a tough one.
@@Ea-pb2tu Thanks. Perhaps we should see things up. I think the starting point needs to be for politicians to acknowledge the extent of the problem and announce that in future any sort of hybrid attack will be seen as a direct threat to countries and will result in retaliation. We still see it as a second class form of threat. But it is increasingly becoming more destructive, including to Western societies. But the retaliation will need to be carefully considered. A lot more focus will also need to be given to social media. This is a real issue. For example, and I know this isn’t popular, but I have long thought that we should abandon anonymity - or make it that you can browse with an anonymous account, but you can’t post. I know this is controversial and raises difficulties in some areas. But I think we need to think about it. People don’t realise just how powerful social media is and how effectively it is used by malign powers. For example, many people don’t understand why bot farms are dangerous. But it uses psychology. If a Russian account posing as a far-right activist in Britain posts a false claim and it revives one like for a comment, people ignore it. But if it receives 20,000 likes and lots of supportive comments then other people start to take it seriously. This is where we are at now.
China dealing with Hong Kpng the way it has will just be to the UK's ultimate benefit as more & more of Hong Kong's best & brightest get their BNOs & come over
No one said it was. But that shouldn’t be the measure, should it. Britain ran a colonial regime. I think one would expect China to be rather different.
All clashes are foreseeable, the British Hong Kong left the liberal society, freedom of speech but no true democracy, it clash with the authoritarianism, so it just demonstrates both ideology can’t be co-existed in such a intensive city.
Majority of Hongkong people would be okay if UK could take back Hongkong and send the governor and colonial officers to rule Hong Kong same as the colonial period, they treated us much better than the CCP. British ruled Hong Kong very well, but rule their own country in mess
The national security law in HK is far less harsh than the one in the UK and ,of course,HK was swarmed with "Special Branch" officers when it was a colony and these officers would arrest anyone deemed a threat to the British including those who were against China as the British didn't want to offend them.Also international surveys ranked HK judiciary and press freedoms even higher than in the UK.So check your facts and be fair,Professor. Don't make a fool of yourself!
During colonial period, millions of refugees from Mainland China fled to HK to escape the Chinese Communist party, it proves that China government treated their own people evan worse than British coloniser
@@yipzoe3865 One cannot deny UK is more democratic than China and China has never pretended to be a liberal democracy. But what cannot be denied is this Chinese government has brought 800 million people out of poverty and led the country from a backward place to be an industrialised country with the 2nd largest economy. A recent study done by Harvard University has shown that over 90% of the Chinese people support their government. Don't forget the UK killed millions of their colonised people and plundered their resources.So stop pretending to be virtuous and the world will appreciate more if UK stops helping Israel in the genocide of the Palestinians.
@@yipzoe3865 China has never pretended to be a liberal democracy but what cannot be denied is the Chinese government has lifted 800million people out of poverty and led the poor country to be a rich industrialised one.A recent survey by Harvard University shows over 90% of the Chinese support their government. UK cannot pretend to be virtuous when it has killed millions of their colonised people and plundered their resources.Stop pretending you care for human rights when you eagerly support Israel in Gaza .
@@yipzoe3865 China has never claimed to be a liberal democracy but what cannot be denied is the government there has lifted 800million people out of poverty and has the support of over 90% of the people according to a study by Harvard University. UK cannot pretend to be virtuous when it has killed millions of their colonised people and plundered their resources.
We must also consider a few things: 1) while not something that occupies the minds of the common person on a day to day basis, the very existence of Hong Kong is a living relic of the Century of Humiliation, this cannot stand in the eyes of any legitimate Chinese government. Had it been the KMT ruling the Mainland through the ROC, the idea would have been the same, HK must be reintegrated. 2) HK was not much of a democracy in the first place. Under the British it was governed as a crown colony like SG, with a legislative council whose electorate was limited to the landowners; it would only be made more democratic to counter the desire of a mainland government to decolonise HK, culminating in the limited democracy that exists during the handover; even now there exists “functional constituencies” that really puts to doubt if HK had a real democracy. 3) The entire basis for the city’s autonomy is based on a handover agreement with a colonial power, the very idea that a native government has to adhere to such promises is silly, but I suppose CFA is proof that colonialism is more alive and well than one might expect. 4) Anyone who has supported the violent rioters who flooded the streets with their homemade caltrops, and set people alight, have done well to leave. No one wants to leave in constant fear of a higher authority, but neither do they want extended chaos and siege in their homes.
How about Vladivostok? It was ceded to Russia under unequal treaty in Qing dynasty, but never returned Chinese Communist party claims that they don't recognize all the unequal treaties in Qing dynasty, why China doesn't ask Russia to return Vladivostok?
interesting to watch this as a hongkonger, although i'm watching this from vilnius lithuania :) and while i will go back to finish my university degree, i do think i will join the hundreds of thousands of hongkongers to leave hk and emigrate elsewhere after the fact. being in my early 20s, i've lived through both the 2014 and 2019-20 protests. didn't take part myself, but i did see them with my very own eyes on democracy though, my family has not once voted in legco (legislative council) elections, because we really dont think it makes a difference either way. another commenter i think puts it very well, in that there never really was "proper" democracy in hk, certainly not under the british. i dont really read local news either, so this video was genuinely the first time i learned that article 23 was passed either way, its a bit of a shame that i couldn't stay in my city of birth for longer, but sociopolitical participation really does feel useless, more so now than ever. not to mention i already have several friends that i've made in the past few months alone in europe, and my interests really do lie here in europe i think. and since i never really actively participated in civil society in hk, i dont think its a great loss to myself or hk to just up and go. don't get me wrong, i am politically active and i very much have strong opinions on certain political matters - hell i just attended vilnius pride a few days ago - but i just feel like trying to advocate for or against them in hk is about as effective as trying to fill a bathtub using a chopstick. and living in a family where half of us are pro-china, it does provide me with a more nuanced perspective than what many western media might portray and i think that's definitely a good thing in general. and here's the thing: i have known some of my classmates who took part in protests, went to study in the uk, but then came back because they realized the uk wasn't the utopia they were expecting. not to claim supremacy over these people, but i think younger post-handover generations amongst ourselves definitely put the british in too high of an esteem, because they didn't know things weren't necessarily hunky-dory to say the least pre-1997 do i have an answer to all of this? no. my solution of moving to europe sounds cowardly to some westerners i'm sure, but sometimes when you feel powerless to deal with something, it may be best to just walk away
it is alarming that this kind of phenomenon is happening in the entire west, except people are now revolting against it. i have been of the belief that the end of Hong Kong's Democracy is an important experiment for the western government of how they can do the same on all other countries.
Why should HK follow a political path "conceived" by the UK? I'd be utterly ashamed of being British and try to have a say in "HK's democracy". The UK has never apologised for the OWs and never will, and still practises the same rhetoric along with the US and its siblings. Is shrinking its population the only way China could be spelled out of the Anglo-Saxon submissive radar?
The west is known for duplicity and hypocrisy.. same as all countries tbh.. it's just how countries roll.. name me one country that has consistently stayed true to it's values or promises
Thanks. I am well aware that it was/is the Republic of China. However, in a short video like this, where the topic is something else, it was easier to use terms that are more readily understood.
@@JamesKerLindsay I understand the need for brevity when discussing China related topics that only tangentially brush cross strait relations. But, we must also try to be painfully precise in our language. Might I offer that the next time this topic needs to be dealt with in a brief manner you refer to “Beijing and Taipei?”
It's about time to acknowledge the superiority of the Chinese system. China has freedom from violence, America has freedom for violence. We have created a political system that polarizes the public. In no other aspect of our lives do we declare our intent to address challenges and pursue objectives by forming rival teams with the aim to destroy the others. It's an absurd proposition. It is a dumb way to try to run a government.
During colonial period, millions of refugees from Mainland China fled to HK to escape the Chinese Communist party, it proves that China government treated their own people evan worse than British coloniser
Expecting freedoms under a communist system is perhaps not the best approach. We should have considered such realities in 1984. Considering the backlash against the Gaza conflict and the mass murder by the Israeli forces, perhaps we ourselves need to look within as well.
This was always the CCP's plan, and it was actually a pretty ingenious one. They made the "one-country, two-systems" deal to prevent a civil war from happening in 1997, but it's set to expire after 50 years. "But isn't that just kicking the can down the road and postponing the civil war till 2047?" Not necessarily, because the plan was always to erode and subtract Hong Kong's freedoms little by little over these intervening 50 years, so when the "one-country, two-systems" deal expires in 2047, the transition to full CCP rule will be seamless. Hong Kong on Jan. 1, 2047, will be no different from what it was on Dec. 31, 2046. The "transition" will have already been made, it will just have been made slowly and gradually instead of immediately and shockingly. Thus greatly reducing the likelihood of a civil war.
As an African my perspective is as follows. The British took Hong Kong by force using guns and gun boats. In 1997 - the British imposed conditions on returning a piece of property it illegally obtained, why should China abide by conditions of an agreement obtained via coercion. Keep in mind that a limited form of democracy was only introduced to Hong Kong in 1985 before that all officials were appointed by the British.
Because that is how international law works. Britain signed an agreement in 1898 to lease a large section of land. It was handed back in 1997 as agreed. But China also agreed to terms to take back the rest of it. Don't forget that before 1945, a lot of borders changed by force. It wasn't just Britain that did this. It happened everywhere. And in the vast majority of cases, those lands were never returned. More broadly, don't let an understandable disdain for 19th-century Western colonialism get in the way of respect for contemporary international law. The current international system is built on respecting agreements. If that starts to break down, then we are all in trouble.
in 1946, UK attempted to give HK higher degree of democracy and introduced "Young Plan" , but Chinese Communist party didn't allow and threat UK that they would invade HK if any constitutional reform was introduced. Most China provinces are independent countries originally and united by force, Tibet and Xinjiang are conquered in Qing dynasty and still fighting for independence, why dont China give them independence? The land of Hongkong should belong to Hong Kong people and majority of us still prefer British rule after 27 years of handover to China,I think we should have the right to determine our fate
@@JamesKerLindsay Since the invasion of Iraq in 2003 the global South perspective of International Law is "I have bigger guns or i have more money. That is when the international system got broken". It seems as if International Law only applies when you are correct otherwise it is the rule of the jungle. Just the other month the US was saying that the UNSC Resolution on a ceasefire in Gaza was non binding.
In 1966, all anti China organisations were driven out from Macau by the Portuguese colonial government because the Portuguese couldnt handle the mass riots in 1966 and signed an agreement to accept everything requested by the pro China rioters. Macau was poor and underdeveloped under Portuguese rules, so they are more pro China than Hong Kong. In Hong Kong, there are pro China and anti China organisations co exist during colonial period, the British developed Hong Kong to a very rich and prosperous international city, so majority of Hongkong people are pro UK
I am not sure that this would be seen as correct under international law. More to the point, it would have sparked a very serious deterioration in relations between Britain and China - one that the U.K. could not have won. Had it decided to hold on to Hong Kong, China would almost certainly have introduced a blockade. This would have made holding onto the territory steadily more difficult. It would also have eroded its economic value. Everyone would have lost, but the UK would have been left holding on to a worthless asset that would have been horrifically expensive to maintain!
No. And I said as much. But it’s irrelevant. China promised to allow it. And I’m not sure that holding up China to colonial rule is a particularly good argument.
@@danielsamuel1995 in 1946, UK attempted to give HK higher degree of democracy and introduced "Young Plan" , but Chinese Communist party didn't allow and threat UK that they would invade HK if any constitutional reform was introduced
in 1946, UK attempted to give HK higher degree of democracy and introduced "Young Plan" , but Chinese Communist party didn't allow and threat UK that they would invade HK if any constitutional reform was introduced
An insightful report but it is one sided and lacks objectivity. In a democracy, the freedom to assemble and protest should be a fundamental right. But we also saw massive protests, large scale violence, lawlessness, destruction of personal and public property, and attacks by some of the protesters on others causing injury and death. These unlawful behavior were considered justified by some foreign governments as seen in Media reports. In conclusion, this report does not spell out the alleged crimes for which various people were convicted.
This is putting the cart before the horse, as we say. Many of the problems that emerged in Hong Kong did so as a result of China’s interference where it wasn’t necessary. And then when protests broke out against that interference, it decided to crack down. And many countries face large scale protests without devising to widen the definition of subversion (let alone calling it terrorism) to stop such protests in future. So, I’d say that all this is a problem of China’s own making.
The land of Hongkong should belong to Hong Kong people, we should have the right to determine our fate, Hong Kong was returned to China against the will of majority of Hongkong people, a referendum can end all the riots
While this episode has explained the history and changes over time in Hong Kong clearly and accurately, it needs to be put in a much broader picture of international context. First of all, if given a choice, maintaining Hong Kong as a perpetual crown colony under British rule probably is much preferred. Since that did not happen, it is necessary to live with its consequences. It needs to recognize that one country two systems is not absolute. It has limits in that maintaining two systems cannot undermine the one country. Open, democratic societies are often subjected to foreign influence and interference. Hong Kong is particularly vulnerable in this regard under Chinese rule, especially with China - US global competition as backdrop. This is something that cannot be foreseen in 1980-s when UK and Chinese negotiated the transfer of sovereignty. Talking Chinese government does not keep its promises overly simplifies the issue.
British colonisation has no moral say in HK since they gain the territory in very wrong way: drug trade. Democracy is an awful excuse hiding the bitterness of losing the territory
Seriously, this is not an argument. If we are to go down that route, then few, if any, countries are in a position to pronounce anything. Britain handed Hong Kong back, as agreed. China agreed to respect democracy. This is an international agreement.
Most China provinces are independent countries originally and united by force, then each provinces should have the right for independence, Tibet and Xinjiang are conquered in Qing dynasty and still fighting for independence, why China don't give them independence? The land of Hongkong should belong to Hong Kong people and majority of Hongkong people still prefer British rule evan after 27 years of handover to China
As much as i despise communism and human rights crack downs i cant deny china abided by the agreements that were forced upon her. Which is worse? Having your territory forcefully taken from you or rulling your own as the government sees fit? Theres a lot id like to see the ccp held accountable for but legally speaking they are within their rights though morally debatable.
Thanks Elias. I’d say that Beijing is contravening its legal responsibilities. There was a formal commitment still abide by the terms of the agreement. It hasn’t lived up to the terms of the deal. It has tried introducing various steps by the back door. But I’d argue that it was politically a very silly move. This was all unnecessary. It had an ideal chance to just leave Hong Kong well alone and use this as an argument to reintegrate Taiwan peacefully. That chance is now blown. There is no way that Taipei would accept any offer - and no Western state would encourage it to do so.
James I agree that china's dubious motives and posturing are unwarranted , one need only see the way China treats its own people and its minorities. From the agreements point of view they bid their time whereby those agreements expired and are now free to act as recklessly as they dare. I completely agree that the ccp has blown any chance in the foreseeable future of peacefully and mutually reuniting with Taiwan. Trust arrives on foot but leaves on horseback and the ccp has zero credibility in this regard. Imo the only way China can attain Taiwan peacefully is either by abandoning communism, re aligning with the west against Russia and placating the defenders of Taiwan. I just can't see it happening any other way. Militarily China can devastate Taiwan but can't grab and hold her In the end the cost isn't worth the reward nor risks..
No. I didn’t. Listen again carefully. I clearly said that Beijing was annoyed that Britain tried to introduce some democracy prior to the handover. Don’t twist my words.
most China provinces are independent countries originally and united by force, Tibet and Xinjiang are conquered in Qing dynasty and still fighting for independence, why don't China give them independence? The land of Hongkong is belong to Hong Kong people and majority of us still prefer British rule evan after 27 years of handover to China
This episode is extremely biased. He does not understand Hong Kong's Colonial legacy and what a Shame it means to Mainland Chinese. 1) He never mentioned in Macau One Country Two Systems has been running very well, unlike Hong Kong. 2) HE intentionally rarely mentioned One Country principle and only emphasized on autonomy/ the Two Systems part. The One Country is before Two Systems for good reason, Hong Kong is Part of China/PRC, not the other way around. So Macau has its One Country Two Systems working because it respect the "One Country". And Hong Kong weakened its autonomy/Two System by Challenging the One Country Principle. 3) CCP/PRC never accepted the unfair colonialism treaty that gave Hong Kong away. So the saying of CCP should respect British's right at Hong Kong by International Treaty is Deeply insulting to Chinese. 4) He did not realize CCP/PRC was very generous to negotiate with British about the Hong Kong reunification with Mainland China. In other rebelling against Colonialism, the Western power mostly were driven out by Force. They could simply take over HK by force. But one one in West acknowledging this FACT.
No. You are deliberately reinterpreting what I said. I made the colonial heritage absolutely clear, including the disgraceful way that Britain took control of Hong Kong. But Beijing made a commitment to handle Hong Kong in a particular way, and it then decided that it couldn't just leave it alone. It had to tinker with matters that were clearly defined as being under Hong Kong's control. But you are right on one thing: I didn't mention Macau. But that was only so as not to confuse things. The underlying basis of the two situations was rather different, as we both know. Perhaps I will come back to this in another video.
Macau has been under de facto PRC control since the 1960s, long before officially turning into a PRC territory. “Macau One Country Two Systems has been running very well” is a joke to begin with
@@JamesKerLindsay That is exactly one of my criticism. I was people in Hong Kong who first broke the agreement. Like I said HKers refused to enact the National Security Law themselves as clearly required by Basic Law, Article 23. You did mentioned it but you failed intentionally or not to point out the the huge implication of this Failure. You only emphasized this the Democratic Rights of Hong Kong people (This is also the another criticism: People in HK placed Two Systems, their own rights, above the One Country, the need of National Security Law demanded by Basic Law). After HK broke the Basic Law first, PRC was still very generous Because the purpose of the National Security Law for any country is the peace of the society. So as long as HK could maintain the peace, the Beijing would let it go the FACT HK failed to fulfil the end of agreement: enact the National Security Law. Then the violent protest happened in HK and HK government was powerless to stop it. To make the matter worse, some of the HK Democratic movement were publicly asking foreign intervention of HK affair, like Mr Lai etc went to US congress, and Few even openly promote HK Indepedence. So this is the Final straw that forced PRC to enforce a National Security Law from Central Government. So your argument that Beijing broke the promise without mention HK did FIRST is extremely misleading. Here are two very relevant comparisons: 1) Macau has enjoyed its peaceful and successfully One Country Two Systems. The question is Why? This clearly proves that PRC does allow Two Systems to run smoothly as along as you respect the One Country and is able to run your own affairs peacefully. 2) With all those rebellions against Colonialism, can you find a better Deal the Colonial master got when they were forced to leave than British got in Hong Kong? Can you find another example of this One Country Two Systems? You never mentioned the FACT this is a very Generous Offer by CCP to Hong Kong People first and to British too. This is very unfair. One Last thing: you do not understand how much shame the Loss of Hong Kong was and still is to Chinese People. This marks the Start of the Chinese Century of Humiliation. The same is True for Taiwan, especially because Japan used to be a small and backward Asian Country. So people in West always underestimate the powerful demand of Chinese People and tradition to reunite these loss territories during the Chinese Century of Humiliation to the Colonial Powers.
@@JamesKerLindsay You are entitled to your opinion. But you do not understand CCP and Chinese tradition: peaceful tranquility of society is number one priority of Government. So article 23 is a MUST for Beijing. Again Like I said, you do not understand the Chinese and totally biased using Western View. I do not ask you to agree with Chinese thinking. But from your talk, you clearly do not understand Chinese Thinking. In HK's case, they are now in much worse situation than Macau because they picked a Fight with Central Government. In Taiwan's case this fight could be a Real War. This is the direct result of your kind of thinking. My view is: either you insist your thinking AND preparing for a War with PRC in Taiwan OR you should start to respect Mainland China's nationalist motivation and negotiate with them. Current situation is the WORSE: challenging PRC's key interest without even preparing for the dangerous consequence. Ukraine war is the latest Example of this bad strategy!
😂😂😂😂 there was never any 'universal' sufferage under brit rules. english making any statements on Chinese soverignty when assange is prizon with zero charge and supplying tools for israils holocause in the country of palestine is a total joke😂😂
@@JamesKerLindsay it was never rule it's dictatorship but at least now there is law in Hong Kong which is more than Assange has. to compare anything with the current state of no standard to brit rules would be a lie, there is also the Palestine holocaust legally supported by brit weapons.
Why is China's national security law controversial but (western) democracy is not? Does the collective west represent the world? Western democracy is something consensus of the whole human being? Personally, I don't find having to vote between a stupid and crazy then complain for four years with nothing useful getting done particularly attractive.
Seriously!? I think we know the difference. People don't get locked up in Britain for calling for Scottish independence. In fact, we have political parties that support this in parliament. People are also free to engage with foreign groups and organisations without fear that they'll immediately be branded as subversives. People can freely congregate for mass protests against government policies. The list goes on and on.
@@JamesKerLindsay During the end phase of pandemic a lot of people want onro street and peotest, none arrest were made. If go to the campus of US shouting "free Palestin" you will be. And seriously, your political freedom is nothing more than a faked nipple. People peotest left and right for what? Brit can't even get a 100 mile HSR done. Please, we were lectured about western democracy and studied it for fouty years and by the end, reality is the best teacher.
a lot of Hong Kong TV shows and movies made back in 80s 90s has become "sensitive" these days. Ironic isn't it, HK enjoy more freedom during the British colonial days.
Why would anyone think it would end up any other way? The part that the west ALWAYS gets wrong about asia is this. They play the long game and in the short term they will put up with things, but in the end they get thing the way they want them.
Did I say that? I was quite clear that Britain only applied a degree of democracy in the 1990s. Listen again. (And what’s with the silly laughing emoji?)
In 1956, UK prime minister had announced that UK was willing to give up the colonies, Hong Kong people had never requested to leave the British empire, so we are ruled by the British until 1997. Majority of us still prefer British rule evan after 27 years of handover to China, the colonial officers treated us much better than the CCP and we enjoyed much higher degree of freedom during colonial period
Still, if we see it historically, they suffered because they wanted to be left alone. The west just couldn’t leave them alone because of the massive wealth they had. They were robbed, exploited, humiliated, and it continued for quite a long time. In the psyche of Chinese people, there is a lot of pressure to rather choose unity than being used and tore apart as they were. Remember that they teach them in school what the west did to them. The Chinese people have to free themselves, just like everyone else. Democracy didn’t come without a price, neither did any development of mankind.
@@anglaismoyen Haha, you’re joking right? Do you know that China was an empire long before any western nation came to power? Seriously read some history man. What caused the opium wars? Why did the west want China to buy opium? What did they trade to them prior to opium and what went wrong? You clearly haven’t done your homework and this is all open and free information that you can find online. Although I wish for Chinese democracy and freedom, it would be blind to not see how we have distanced them from it, or at least helped paint a terrible picture of it. It is our way, and our ways destroyed their culture for centuries.
@@AlOfNorway We were talking about Hong Kong, which was a little fishing village before the British built it into a global financial centre. Also... are you saying empires are a good thing now? but maybe only 'coloured' empires?
No one is apologising for British colonial rule. But that’s not the point. Hong Kong was returned to China after colonial rule. Surely their fellow Chinese should have treated them better? (Indeed, surely the Chinese Government should treat all its citizens better!?)
During colonial period, millions of refugees from Mainland China fled to HK to escape the Chinese Communist party, it proves that China government treated their own people evan worse than British coloniser
I still don't get why the global community didn't immediately just say 'there are two Chinas at the world stage now'... of sorts. I mean calling one Taiwan & the other the People's Republic of China would have seemed the most reasonable if they wished. If the P.R.C. couldn't agree with those concepts formally (maybe Taiwan didn't instead), then they just wouldn't be recognised.
That was the situation before 1971 everyone recognized ROC government in Taiwan but nobody recognized PRC in mainland China or had any diplomatic relations with them and even USA made it illegal for its citizens to travel to PRC But eventually the worlrealized that it was impractical and started to recognize PRC as China one by one including USA in 1978
If you feel that agreements and promises need to be fulfilled then there will be no Two China’s. If you feel that agreements are just a way to bluff your way through to get what you want now and the one following the agreements is just a fool then yes go ahead and recognise Two China’s. All countries around the world has agreed that there is only one China and all countries in the world recognises that Taiwan is an island belonging to China. Now to turn back on this agreement and the UN Resolution for this means you do not value your agreements.
I have done a number of videos on Israel and Palestine. And just two weeks ago, I made a video on France and colonialism in New Caledonia. I suspect this is an example of selective bias. You see me as you want to see me! It actually happens quite a lot. :-)
@@JamesKerLindsay Just because you made a video on Israel and France covering a few points does not make you a neutral and unbiased journalist. You put blame on Russia, Iran, and Palestine for unrest in the regions. You should mention in your video that the USA went back on its promise and kept expanding NATO eastward, provoking Russia to invade Ukraine and Georgia. If Russia hadn't done that, these countries would have ended up being USA military bases and would soon host USA nuclear weapons, just like Germany, Turkey, and Italy (even Poland is asking to host USA nukes). What would the USA have done if Russia planned to encircle the USA from all sides by maintaining military bases in Canada, Mexico, Cuba, and Venezuela? The same applies to Iran. Iran had democracy. The democracy was overthrown by the USA and UK so they could place a puppet Shah regime. I, too, am not a fan of the Islamic regime, but this was a direct result of USA and UK intervention in Iran. You never mentioned that Israel is an apartheid state and the only country in the Middle East that contains nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons. It's always above international law. They have annexed UN-recognized land belonging to Syria (Golan Heights). The radical Zionist ideology keeps annexing land in the West Bank. You call Hamas a terrorist organization, but when the Israeli settlers and troops keep burning Palestinian homes, kicking them out onto the streets, stripping women naked, and beating kids...the only organization that comes to their aid is Hamas, not the UN, not the USA, not Western journalists. I can keep going; there are many crimes that the USA and France have been committing even after the collapse of the Soviet Union. Maybe you can be unbiased and discuss all these topics and not just democracy in Eastern countries.
Why? This is a channel looking at international relations. I have a right to look at any situation I want. Seriously, this just underlines the whole problem.
Provide your checklist for democracy and let everyone check off. Let also see how US and EU. Of course if the democracy is people having the chance to go to poll once every 4 to 5 years then democracy is half dead. However ig also show the shallowness of the intellectualism of the this guy.
I am more than happy to have a polite debate. I engage far more with viewers than any other international affairs channel. But it helps if one is at least pleasant.
Not at all. Countries have to protect it's sovereignty. More and more Countries are taking these drastic measures Remember the colour revolutions and spring uprising? Governments are viewing these uprisings as a threat especially as the world is divulging as it is.
@@JamesKerLindsay China rescued Hong Kong from the economic crisis in the late 1990s by injecting huge amounts of money. Unlike you British who kept p1und4ring Hong Kong's fiscal surplus to the last penny during the c0lonial period.
Come to think of it, democracy, especially the british one which emphasize parliamentary sovereignty, is an infringement to the very concept of sovereignty of CCP. Expecting CCP will honor the deal is pretty silly😂
Please don't get me wrong, i am all for democracy. But i was so shocked by british naivety and lack of understanding of CCP before signing the joint declaration. If the british had done their research on tibet, they would probably knew CCP would turn their back on any promise of autonomy whenever they see fit.
That would be nice. Unfortunately, it is doing really badly at the moment. Well below where my videos usually are at this point. I have tried title and thumbnail changes. Nothing seems to be working.
@@JamesKerLindsayMost likely it’s a mass flagging from trolls, reporting it for some reason. It happens to most China focused channels which are critical of the CCP. And there are Singaporean trolls as well
So Chinese gained the land, the UK gained the population who fled from the land, the US gained Taiwanese favour over PRC, and Singaporeans gained attractiveness as the financial hub of the region. For now, it seems that everyone has their own gain. So, is it good?
Well, when you put it like that! You are right. I suppose everyone gets what they want - except for the Hong Kongers themselves. I am sure that many who have left have been sad to go, and probably realise that it could be hard to go back, especially if they speak out about what is happening. It has been fascinating to see a large influx of Hong Kongers to Britain in the past few years. It is really noticeable in some areas. And yet, it hasn't been politicised in the way it has been with other communities - at least, it hasn't been so far, and let's hope it isn't.
Certainly not good for the Hong Kongers, and China's growing expansionism into the South China Sea and constant threats to Taiwan aren't good things for the world.
@@JamesKerLindsay As a British Cantonese who's family migrated to the UK or US in the 80s, nearly everyone on both sides of my family supported the protestors. As the protestors got more violent/blocked roads/trains, beat people, every single person in my family switched sides and said "we just want HK to be stable again" this is ultimately why the movement failed. The youth had no real plan and they were just destructive and lashing out in the place where nearly everyone supported them, ultimately most HKers just wanted things to go back to "normal". I currently live in the US and am exploring options to leave, the levels of sinophobia is getting scary. I've heard from HKers who moved to the UK experienced racism simply because they were Chinese, expecting the UK to be some utopia but the UK has its own host of issues that they were ignorant to.
@@JamesKerLindsay I'm not Chinese, I'm not British, American, nor Singaporean neither. But what I can say from the bitter historical experience of the country I'm living in is that it will not end here. If one strikes water with a sword, nothing will happen. If he does it to a pound of gold, it would be divided but the commercial value would be the same. But if we do the same thing to a living human being, the wounds may be healed, but there would be a scar.... with a painful memory accompanying animosity. Oh my Lord oh my God, how much are we familiar with this kind of story, but how are we incapable of dealing with this kind of tragedy...
Democracy in HK? When the UK was colonising Hong Kong, there were no elections and the Governor was appointed from a foreign country. It must be difficult for them to let go .... so called democratic sovereign countries have their own subversion laws to ensure peace for the majority. Countries around the world does not have to adopt the same forms of governance from the West, which has a relative short history.
I believe the distance between Hong Kong and Britain should be far enough for UK to mind their business, and let the Chinese on either side of the divide to settle their differences, I don't really know western countries can't mind their business.
Would you make the same argument in other cases? For example, surely South Africa is too far from Palestine. Shouldn’t it mind its own business on what Israel is doing and not being a case before the ICJ? And should we just forget about human rights abuses in Iran because it isn’t close to where we might be? We can say the same for many other situations.
The article 23 is pretty much a national security law, every country has it, I don't understand whats the big deal with HK. Why can't HK have it? As far as I can see the one country two system means there need to be a one country first then they can have the two system. If a small number of HK people only want the two system not the one country, then what does that tell you James Ker-Lindsay? I support HK's democratic process, however I do not support western interference in the matter, the HK people should choice their own path. After the US and UK interference which lead to uprising in HK is just unacceptable, HK is part of China, let the Chinese figure it out. Destabilized HK to hurt China, that's the real aim. There are countless evidence pointing to US and UK direct manipulating the event and have CIA on the ground calling the shot, have you not seen them James? HK had a chance to move toward Democracy, but the western interference killed their dream. Now people in the west spoke of how sad it is for HK that they can no longer have a western style Democracy, but why no one talk about what you did to HK. HK's Democracy is dead was not because of Beijing, it is the result of western interference. Stop destabilized other country ffs, just leave them alone, leave the global south alone.
I think the argument is wrong. Hong Kong’s democracy was never alive. Only in 1992 with HK’s last British governor, Chris Patten, there was a pathetic last minute rush to create a sort of democracy in the territory. For 150 years, Britain ruled by law, people had no saying in the way they were ruled. It has been the same in Singapore, just rule by law, not rule of law, no wonder the triad connected Lee family took over and democracy is a travesty there. Interesting now how HK has become similar to Singapore, the national security law is like Singapore’s Internal Security Act. It’s ironic that most of the activists in HK can trace their roots to the 1960s Chinese Leftish anti-British groups, who were pro-Beijing
Thanks. Great argument. You’re right. I did point out that Britain only introduced a degree of democracy in the 1990s. But the principle of democracy was there when Hong Kong was handed over. That hasn’t been respected.
You're making nonsensical comments, linking HK n Singapore as similar. PM Lee Kuan Yew demolished the triad in Sg, while HK 's strived. Open your eyes and see the difference Sg and HK now. Do your homework before opening your gap.
@@AndrePHKYou obviously haven’t lived in Singapore. The laws in Singapore are designed to protect the triads, look at the July 2019 Orchard Towers murder case. The open secret in Singapore is that Lee Kuan Yew was a prominent member of the triads and a Japanese collaborator during WW2. Basically the country is ran as a family business. Everybody’s spouses and children are in government positions. Kind of ridiculous. Anyone openly talking about it would be sued to death. In 1959, the PAP ran on the promise to remove the ISA. 66 years later is still there. Lee Kuan Yew used to go after dissidents, opposition or anyone with half a brain. Originally the ISA was enacted by the British to combat a communist insurrection in the Malaya Peninsula. I’m amazed how fast HK became like Singapore under the CCP rule, same Dullness, Superficiality, Materialism. Same Han supremacy, privilege, racism and xenophobia. Truly dead societies in the most basic sense because Singapore for all its claimed achievements cannot hide the fact that young people don’t have children
@@JamesKerLindsayThe Chinese government point of view and actually many in White Hall was that HK system would be kept as it was in 1984 when they had the negotiations. Regardless, the Chinese government has shot itself on the foot because now there’s no way Taiwan will accept the One Country Two Systems model
@@AndrePHKIt’s an open secret in Singapore that Lee Kuan Yew was a prominent member of the triads and a Japanese collaborator. The country is basically ran as a family business where everybody’s spouses and children are in government positions. If anyone talks openly about it, would get sued to the last penny or worse. I’m amazed how fast HK became like Singapore, same dullness, materialism, Han supremacy, racism and xenophobia where young people don’t have children
It's definitely not the end of HK's democracy, as it was never a democracy to begin with. However, we can quite sure this marks the end of civil liberty in Hong Kong.
The recent convictions of 14 activists under new security laws in Hong Kong are seen as the final end of political freedom in the territory. But could the erosion of democracy have been stopped? Or was it always unrealistic to expect the “one country, two systems” to last for the full fifty years? And how do you think all this will affect Hong Kong? Will it make it more stable, as Beijing believes? Or will it undermine it, as critics argue? As always, I look forward to your thoughts and comments below.
closed courts but trust us. One thing I am so sick of hearing is Authoritarians saying, you're overreacting. We hear it every day, every hour, here in the states about Trump.
7:32 Don't you hate it when pro-democracy forces lose elections?
@@SpicyTake , I know what you are trying to do! :-) May I refer you to Popper's Paradox of Tolerance? My support for democracy allows me to oppose the democratic success of groups that will then undermine democracy.
@@JamesKerLindsay You are getting ahead of yourself. From where did you the get the presumption the winning parties would undermine democracy?
What exactly do the losing parties want to do? Turn Hong Kong into such successful cities such as San Francisco or Atlanta? Anyone with a brain would vote against that.
There are no good cities under the late stage capitalist model of government.
I think it was fairly obvoius hope was lost the moment UK gave the territory back to China. The only question was how long it would take for mainland to harmonize the repression to the new area. Nothing is going to get better before CCP someday is ousted and that might take a while.
Closed Trials? Sounds like a kangaroo type of court proceeding.
💀💀💀
Hong Kong is such a relatively (compared to the late 90s) small portion of Chinese GDP that Beijing has seemingly decided the façade of democracy is no longer worth the economic benefit. Honestly this feels like a move I'd expect of any major power dealing with an internal region full of people ideologically opposed to its national government. China increasingly isn't required to appease foreign powers.
I agree with the assessment, but I'm not sure I'd agree with the analysis; if you see what I mean. Beijing has clearly decided that it doesn't need to do what it said it would. However, this does carry a cost since it underscores the message that it is not a partner that can be trusted to stick to its word. If nothing else, it makes a conflict over Taiwan more likely, especially as the Taiwanese won't trust China to stick to its word, and the United States has no reason to believe that Taiwan would be treated fairly under a similar system offered to Hong Kong.
@@JamesKerLindsayA bit off subject but China showed it was not a reliable partner when they covered up the SARS outbreak back in 2002/03. That was a wake up call for many people in HK. It was not a matter of ideology, different political systems or national interests but just of basic human decency
@@JamesKerLindsay us don't care thy only want control and want to keep china from the sea
How about the west sticks to their word and stops arming a "country" that they dont even recognize@@JamesKerLindsay
@@rpgbb Not to mention, how they handled COVID-19 offers no reassurance, either.
The biggest disappointment was Jackie Chan speaking against the protests
Donnie Yen too and most HK celebrities
Indeed. One can only hope it wasn’t by natural inclination. But I can imagine they all came under very strong pressure. I suspect China would have a rather heavily enforced blacklist!
@@JamesKerLindsay Donnie Yen and Jackie Chan political appointees while the other celebrities did it due to pressure or financial needs. Chow Yun Fat just updated his social media profile to celebrate the CCP and said nothing else as he was already blacklisted for supporting the 2014 protests
@@jameschou888 Donnie Yen is from mainland China. Jackie However is a born and bred Hong Konger; which is perplexing.
Jackie Chan didn't have many points left for intelligence or wisdom.
I think the argument is wrong. Hong Kong’s democracy was never alive. Only in 1992 with HK’s last British governor, Chris Patten, there was a pathetic last minute rush to create a sort of democracy in the territory. For 150 years, Britain ruled by law, people had no saying in the way they were ruled. It has been the same in Singapore, just rule by law, not rule of law, no wonder the triad connected Lee family took over and democracy is a travesty there. Interesting now how HK has become similar to Singapore, the national security law is like Singapore’s Internal Security Act.
It’s ironic that most of the activists in HK can trace their roots to the 1960s Chinese Leftish anti-British groups, who were pro-Beijing
in 1946, UK attempted to give HK higher degree of democracy and introduced "Young Plan" , but Chinese Communist party didn't allow and threat UK that they would invade HK if any constitutional reform was introduced
@@yipzoe3865 The Young Plan was stopped by unelected Hong Kong officials. Keep in mind that the Communist didn't come to power in China until 1949.
British HK is much more liberal on the aspect of freedom of speech than Singapore, at least majority of us during that time are viewing to discuss politics publicly and criticise on the government.
@@ericyuen5946That’s my point, after the CCP take over, HK has become like Singapore. Another dead society with authoritarian rule, basically ran as a family business where the triads operate with impunity
By reneging on its 50-year pledge of autonomy for Hong Kong, China pretty much shot itself in the foot in the long run. There is now absolutely no way that Taiwan would ever trust Beijing if the latter offered a similar agreement - if the PRC can't stand a democratic city under its authority, how will they ever allow an island with a thriving democracy? I find a peaceful conclusion to the One China policy to be less and less likely, I'm afraid.
Taiwan isn't currently part of China because they're against communism itself - it's why they exist. They aren't going to willingly get ruled by Communism without a fight so there wouldn't be any kind of agreements between them
Many if not most will agree. A lot of China's turn towards aggression looks self-defeating; had they kept every promise and governed Hong Kong with a light hand it could have been a persuasive argument for moderate voices in Taiwan that a peaceful reunification with the mainland could be negotiated that preserves Taiwanese domestic autonomy to include civil liberties and freedom from the more oppressive hand of the party. Now the Taiwanese know what they can expect should they ever capitulate to Beijing; the mainland can never again be trusted to keep any promise and will flood the island with Chinese immigrants broken to complete subservience to the state, all institutions will be taken over by mainlanders while the security services will arrest any voices of dissent - before long the island will turn into a clone of every other Han Chinese possession on the eastern part of the country.
I would say it is not the only decision where China has shot itself in the foot and that this also the case with the Philippines and perhaps in the future, India. For that matter, it is the case with the US as well.
CCP at this point is convinced that peaceful reunification is impossible
They will maintain the status quo for now but once reunification became the ultimate immediate goal they will achieve it at gun point
The real question is, did this change come about as a result of the protests, or did the protests come about as a result of the change of the political system of Hong Kong. One could argue for either side, protests started after slow changes made to Hong Kong's political system... others would say the changes happened as a response to protests and outside instigation... truth as always is somewhere in the middle...
I believe the initial plan was to continue keeping Hong Kong at an arms length and slowly change its system.. one small legislation at a time but this was sped up as a result of protests.
@@LaluBhaiya1233 That doesn't really acknowledge though that the protests in Hong Kong were *about* the CCP's attempts to exert more control over Hong Kong, however. If the CCP could've tolerated dissent in Hong Kong and not interfered, we wouldn't have seen protests in the first place, so there would be no protests to "justify" further crackdowns. I find using the protests to justify a "security" response to be an extremely circular argument that begs the question.
I'll come back to this once i can get to a place where i can actually watch this in peace, but having living roots from there, I will say this:
The PRC government lives to paint nationalism over everything, but the truth is, everyone is wary of the government. You hear about this getting painted over as an ethnic or cultural thing, that they want independence...
Few wants actual independence, but with the way things are going, would you blame them? Nationalism is not a reason to be an a-hole. People haven't forgotten where they came from. They know they're Chinese. Otherwise, HK and Taiwan would not be the buddies that they are.
There's just no trust in the government.
Thanks. Very good point. It would be good to hear a reasoned mainland Chinese position explaining why Beijing is cracking down so hard. Is it really that worried about what is happening in Hong Kong and that it can't be contained. Or does it feel powerful enough to simply turn its back on any agreement - almost as a matter of national pride? "Yes, we signed an agreement. But we always hated it. And now we are powerful enough that we just don't care." This would seem to match the nationalism you mentioned.
@@JamesKerLindsay I'll give a proper response after I watch the video. The premise for me is that I live in the US but my family is stretched on both sides of the internal border. Same province though. Same culture, but slowly turning into Bohemia and Moravia.
Important things: media in the Mainland are heavily controlled. The news and perspectives you'd get are completely different. I can give you somewhat a Mainland perspective, but I'm Southern, and control comes from Beijing, as if England and Scotland are ruled from Helsinki. China is big. There will be disconnects.
We're not really "Chinese" I mean yes we are but also no we aren't. "Han" Chinese is more of a cultural thing, much like being European or American. Italian and French people are similar but different. That is the same thing with Chinese.
I assume you're Cantonese like me based on your username. We're descendants of Baiyue people, our peoples mixed with Han Chinese when they started colonising the south. DNA wise, we're more genetically closer to Vietnamese people than we are to the northerners. They too are descendants of Baiyue peoples, except they migrated south rather than stayed to mix with the Han.
The "Han" Chinese today is something that is relatively new and being pushed by the ccp to build a coherent identity they can bond their nationalism to and it largely seemed to work. But each region of China has its own culture/people/language and it is sad China does not recognise them as non Han to give them minority status that would help preserve culture more.
@@Devilishlybenevolent Yes and no. Yeah, we are mixed... But why does that mean we should completely disregard the non-Baiyue blood in us? Anyone who was Chinese under the Han Dynasty was basically Han.
China is not shoving the word "Han" down everyone's throat. Their policies have shown that. They're trying to make everyone the same, but the "Han" Identity is not the tool being used. Yeah, China is kicking regional differences to the curb, and that's sad, but if everyone is accepting it as normal and good, your valid point is moot. No one is giving a care.
All that being said though... The topic at hand is not a Cantonese one, but a HK one. If the entire region is angry, that's different... But everyone of our relatives who didn't go through HK is siding with Beijing! And that's regardless of the Cantonese, the Hakka, and the family of everyone who came to HK after WW2, Cantonese or not.
If you make this a cultural or ethnic issue, we aren't going to win. Everyone in GD is drinking the government's Kool-Aid, even when watching the language die amongst the kids.
@@JamesKerLindsay Hey Professor, sorry for the delay. Traveling. I can give you the perspective typical of my parents. My family is Cantonese. How out-of-Staters feel? Their relative lack of intimacy will have an effect, and I have seen that "FU" national pride before amongst some... Working youth who I'm sure are rich party members LOL. I'm your average Ming, I'll say it as I see it. I'm not a professor who has to say "who appears to be" and back it up with statistics, etc.
So a couple of claims/arguments that you'll typically see: The protestors are being paid. Everything is just backed by the West. The fear mongering is overblown. The government has no interest in you. The West is no better especially in terms of spying/privacy. And again, the protestors are being paid, cuz this claim is a hard-line one. And maybe there are a couple, doing things that now would obviously get them arrested, but when you have a big movement and a whole million people came out to protest... WeChat says "they're all being paid obviously!"
POV/priorities: national unity. National unity. National unity. Everyone in China knows, the government can screw up sometimes, but no one is about to rebel in anyway or think of themselves as being not Chinese. The other commenter on this thread has a point, but it is pointless. We grew up eating "Chinese" food and speaking "Chinese", and to this day, even with Cantonese born overseas, "Chinese" is the default. So coming from that perspective, to see people from HK de-emphasizing or avoiding "China" and identifying as strictly HK, it does piss them off, although as an "insider", I definitely see differences, and I also cannot blame HKers for doing so. They see things they're not proud of.
Do people in China believe that what's happening in HK cannot be contained? I was about to say 'no' because I didn't think China is at risk of falling apart, and the people are patriotic, though not in the gung-ho manner America is known for. But thinking about past talks and attitudes, yes, there are a significant amount of people who do worry that HK's mess will spill over. Nonsense IMO but that's the attitude. Also, people are taught that strong/strict rules are a good thing. Plus, China has cracked down in Tibet and Xinjiang, so this is not extraordinary anyway, especially given the cop attack pictures that they've seen.
And there is definitely a monolith problem: assumptions like every protester is getting paid. Everyone in HK is ungrateful except for their own sibling who moved there, but the kids are all ungrateful, etc.
And never underestimate the trash tier BS coming out of WeChat. Along the lines of what Ryan MacBeth said, they believe it because they don't know any better... I don't know about the youth, but it's definitely an issue amongst the elderly.
Pains me to see my home city on this channel. Thanks for the video Professor and bringing attention to your audience 🙏🏻
Thank you. I had wanted to take a look at the situation for a while. It really is tragic to see what has happened, and all seemingly unnecessary. If it had been left well alone, I suspect we wouldn’t have seen the developments that Beijing then said necessitated the introduction of laws that then made everything worse. It was a vicious circle caused by short-sighted interference.
Yes it is going to decline until 2047 when it is officially reintegrated into the PRC.
Thanks. Yes. I think China will just say that full integration is only twenty years away and that it needs to get on with it. And I can't see what can realistically be done to change anything. Ultimately, as I said, it is really about reputational damage, but I don't think Beijing really cares that much.
@@JamesKerLindsay The PRC does not care as long as it displays an impression of strength and if they are able to use HK as an example to deter dissent in the country. As an unintentional consequence, Singapore is now being "forced" to replace Hong Kong as a financial centre in the region, including the social baggage associated with rising real estate, issues with "entitled expats", and a more competitive job market.
@@JamesKerLindsaymake a video about Goa
@@JamesKerLindsaythe West is a full on Cold War and spends hundreds of millions of dollars to slander everything China. I think we’re BEYOND reputational damage.
Great video, and a very important topic. I think allowing China to remove Hong Kong from the UN list of non self governing territories was a moral failure, and what's happened since then just follows on from that. It's really tragic - HK has been such a vibrant, exciting and free place for so long. 😢
Thanks, Fredo. I completely agree. By the way, I am really looking forward to watching your Somaliland video. I hope the trip went well!
Thanking you from Somaliland
What exactly can anyone else could have done. Its foolish to think colonial powers who have humiliated China, that is UK, USA & other Western powers get to dictate terms or pose as moral arbiters, now the country can assert itself.
A moral failure when H.K was obtained after the opium war and that Britain gave democracy only some yrs before the rétrocession. propaganda is universal you are the proof
Hong Kong is a province of China. How could they represent themselves at the UN
Professor, in your mind, what does the "1 country" part of the equation mean? It seems that most westerners ignore the 1 country part and cherry pick the Basic Law so that HK will continue to be Western-dominated and any Chinese influence kept out. I see from some of your comments that you are sympathetic to HK independence. As if HK should have been given "self-rule" designation by the UN despite the fact that HK was unambiguously part of China before the Brits took it by force. A disgraceful chapter in British colonial history. Yet, if it were up to you, you'd have HK permanently separated from the rest of China. What precedent would this set? Western countries could go take small bites out of bigger countries, then claim they should become "independent" once western colonial rule ends. This would find no support in the global south. And it's no wonder the West is losing the battle of global opinion with these kinds of positions. All this whilst supporting atrocities in Gaza (not you personally, but your government and that of the US), which is tantamount to violent Israeli conquest of Palestinian land. Then you turn around and tacitly support HK and Taiwan independence from China. There's no basis for these positions in the international community. There's consensus for a 2 state solution. Likewise there's consensus for HK, Taiwan, Macau, Tibet, Xinjiang etc being Chinese territory. But here you are, scratching away at the margins of Chinese sovereignty and standing back whilst Israel wholesale conquers more Palestinian land. But what can you do about Palestine... I know that will be your response. The truth is that Britain and the US have allowed this situation to unfold. Hey, freedom and democracy right? Slogans over substance.
Thanks. So, what does “two systems” mean to you?
And I’m not sure why you think I am sympathetic to independence. Did I say that at any point? I raised it because it was never really an option and I wanted to highlight why. As for Palestine, I have covered this in lots of videos. But I am not sure what it has to do with this. It seems you just want to throw a whole a whole load of arguments into the pot. However, It helps to be more focused.
@JamesKerLindsay 2 systems means exactly what is taking place in hk. Hk is governed under a different system. To claim it isn't is simply being disingenuous. What you can't do is use the 2 systems doctrine to subvert the 1 china part. China was willing to allow 2 systems in hk. The west has not yet come to terms with the fact that china is sovereign over hk and that China has the right to intervene on matters of national security. You just haven't come to terms with this. You can tell this because you portray the mainland as some sort of dystopia when it clearly isn't. Hk under china will be just fine. Like many other chinese cities are just fine. In fact, many chinese cities are thriving. I'd encourage you to go see china for yourself. This is not some sort of failed state where people are repressed. Please have a chat to kishore mahbubani. His favourite come back to this line of thinking is to quote facts. Every year millions of chinese leave china on holidays or for work or for study. And you know what? The overwhelming majority of them go back. You must have a pretty low opinion of chinese people if you think they'll just cop being repressed. The truth is that they're not. They've seen unimaginable improvements in their lives in the last 40 years. The ccp should be praised for this.
China does not want to actively infringe on Hong Kong's political rights, let alone restrict Hong Kong's economic power. The cause of this incident is that someone in Hong Kong launched a Hong Kong independence movement, which is prohibited by China. In other words, China's 50-year special administrative power granting Hong Kong is based on the premise that Hong Kong will not launch a Hong Kong independence movement. And because Hong Kong launched a Hong Kong independence movement, China chose to shrink Hong Kong's political power. This is "legitimate defense"
Poignant upload on the week marking 25 years since the Tiananmen Square Massacre, Professor! I only hope that the US, Europe in its constituent nations and collectively, and mainland China listen in earnest to the wishes of the people of Hong Kong and Taiwan as events develop in the region.
Thank you. Yes, good point about the anniversary. I was aware of it. I remember when it happened. I was 17 at the time and remember watching the reports. It was truly tragic.
*35
Let's not be mock shocked here. This was a foregone conclusion at hand off.
Yes, you are right.
I think only mentioning the number of Hong Kongers that moved to the UK is a poor way to represent the exodus out of Hong Kong. The Hong Kongers I personally know are willing to move to any developed country to get out of HK if they can find work there. I think the statistic of emigration from HK would be more useful.
Is thé UK and Canadq Göring to have to take thousands or millions when China assumes complète control?
"Is thé UK and Canadq Göring"
I don't think they are. (Sorry, I just had to do this.)
In a transition of 50y to self rule, half self rule at the 25y half way mark is to be expected. You cannot expect a sudden step change in exactly 50y mid-night. It's not how human beings, and society work.
I thought the brits never gave HK a democracy
They sort of did, but very late in the day. And this was meant to be extended after the handover. But it didn’t happen. Instead things went completely the opposite direction.
@@JamesKerLindsayhow convenient of them to do right before hand over
@@edwardsnowden8821Funny how he chose not to respond back to your comment 😂😂😂😂.
@@JamesKerLindsay the brits has no say in hk after the handover, stop thinking its the opium wars period
@Shadowslayer Why should I respond? He didn’t make any substantive point. Seriously, I get hundreds of comments a day. I am better than any other channel when it comes to responding to viewer comments. Most don’t reply at all to anything. But I can’t respond to every single one, especially when it is just a throwaway line. (And I’m not sure why your comment merited laughing emojis?)
A defeated colour revolution
Btw HK was never a democracy under UK it became democracy under Chinese rule
in 1946, UK attempted to give HK higher degree of democracy and introduced "Young Plan" , but Chinese Communist party didn't allow and threat UK that they would invade HK if any constitutional reform was introduced
For the 150 years that Britain has ruled HK, all the time the HK Governor is APPOINTED by the British Crown, not elected by people. The Legislative councilors are APPOINTED by the Governor, not elected by people. There is no democracy in HK under British rule. Why, when HK is returned to China, Britain cries so loud about democracy! I hope you could give your viewers a fair explanation. I am a HK citizen. I am happy with the political system and peace and stability that we now have.
in 1946, UK attempted to give HK higher degree of democracy and introduced "Young Plan" , but Chinese Communist party didn't allow and threat UK that they would invade HK if any constitutional reform was introduced.
But UK still gave Hong Kong greater democracy and we could elect our respective in regional councils since 1960s
th-cam.com/video/4CW2kXCU__U/w-d-xo.html
James, a great topic again to have on the podcast.
We all could write dissertations & books on all the wrong things that have happened between the CCP & Hong Kong, but the summation you provided covered all the salient points in an excellent fashion.
Bottom line is that the CCP has shown its true intent in not adhering to international agreements it has made. It seems the international community willing engages in a form of "Kabuki Theater Diplomacy" where the reality of the PRC actions will be ignored so international diplomats can pat themselves on the back for accomplishing an agreement which the PRC never had an intention to follow. To me, the PRC is a "Con Artist" state, and efforts to engage positively with them will not be productive.
Western liberal nations' engagment with the PRC betrays classical liberal values, which ultimately undermine our own societies in the West.
History proves that diplomatically placating both Nazi Germany & Imperial Japan gave the world the most devastating conflict in history, and the confluence of politics now is deeply troubling & frightening. The foolish concept by Western liberal democracies that problems with the CCP could be diplomatically "managed" was and is a fantasy that only makes the PRC more bold.
Bottom line again is that Hong Kong is sadly lost, and protecting, as well as defending, liberal democratic values must be paramount in all economic & political decisions made by policy makers in the collective West.
Thanks for this topic. Highlighting the events in Hong Kong is helpful and should remind all of us that we must guard our liberal values from illiberal influences.
Now the mainlanders even have greater degree of freedom than HKer lol
This is actually true. If you protest in China, the government will actually respond and back off. In HK, you'd just get a crackdown.
@@ABCantonese and the HKers only have themselves to blame. They had a good thing going, having the most freedom in China and they overplayed their hand. I am cantonese myself with family in HK.
@@leethal59 It was a fight they had to fight at a key time as China's grip tightened on HK. If China stood back and continued allowing them their autonomy then great, if they decided to crush dissent then it's only slightly accelerated their existing plans to subsume HK and the whole world has seen their true colours.
@@davidellis2182 Fight they had to fight based on your western gweilo perspective that has no skin in the game? This ain't your turf anymore buddy. Stop commenting on stuff that you know nothing about, only because the mainstream media dictates you should be a good little democracy warrior.
There was NEVER any " democracy " in HongKong lol
Thanks Prof 👍🏻🇦🇺👍🏻
Thanks so much Peter. I hope you are doing well.
Is it not inevitable though? the 50 year transition seems to benefit Hong Kong's ruling elite coordination efforts to remain relevant once its done. They (HK ruling elite) must be satiated and don't care whether the SAR status is cut short.
Not true. Very one sided view
What’s not true? Are you seriously suggesting that there hasn’t been an erosion of democracy in Hong Kong?
And No... the CCP is not the Qing Dynasty, and has and had no authority over the Agreement.
I feel bad for all the people that built lives there during the british lease.
If Britain never took the territory, none of this would happen! Or who knows what would happen?
@@TheWedabest there will be no city. Just another region full of fishermen.
@@Luvisenergy just like Shenzhen?
@@Luvisenergy Yeah just like Shanghai, Beijing, Shenzhen etc. just fishing villages indeed...
@@TheWedabestDuring colonial period, millions of refugees from Mainland China fled to HK to escape the Chinese Communist party, it proves that China government treated their own people evan worse than British coloniser
If China had simply more or less kept the One Country Two Systems idea alive the entire Taiwan situation would be very different today.
Pretty much yeah
Small bit of background.
The mess started with an educational reformation.
As an attempting to be more aligned with China, Hong Kong added civil education to the school curriculum, which was widely unpopular.
To make things worse, Hong Kong used to be like the British system with 7 years of high school. In order to realign with China’s 6 year high school system, Hong Kong government simply picked one year and merged all the year 6 and 7 students into one, doubling the number of graduates for that year.
Now you end up with a sizable number of youths facing heavy competition, unemployment, politically motivated, and holding strong resentment towards the government. Adding poor economy to the mix, what could have gone wrong?
A sizable chunk of Hong Kong’s well educated and skilled population emigrated prior to the hand over. The mass protests resulted in two more waves of emigration.
For a “city state” like Hong Kong, human capital is all it has. Whatever the ideology is, Hong Kong has lost its competitive edge and most likely, won’t get too far.
Thank you. That’s very interesting to hear. Overall, the picture one gets is that China just couldn’t help interfering, despite the commitment to let Hong Kong be. As this has led to problems, it has compounded the situation by increasing its involvement and introducing even more draconian measures. It’s a vicious circle. But sadly, I think you’re right. Hong Kong has lost a lot of its talent now. And I’m not sure that it can hope to attract outsiders anymore. All very sad, and unnecessary.
@@JamesKerLindsay Thank you Professor for your reply.
Interestingly, a lot of Hong Konger’s resentment is more towards the Hong Kong government instead of towards China.
While the more naive youth may believe Hong Kong can remain free from interference from China, even gaining independence from China, the more realistic Hong Konger see the influence as inevitable.
China being China and CCP being CCP, probably won’t change any time soon. So instead, Hong Kong would have to adapt, create a profitable situation but yet tolerable for Chine, while bargaining for as much autonomy as possible.
This was supposed to be the job of the Hong Kong government - balancing between the interests of Hong Kong, maintaining autonomy, while respecting the political agendas of China.
So far the Hong Kong government is failing spectacularly, and it’s already past half of the 50 years.
Well, probably they didn’t fail the last aspect.
Creating the subject of civil education was one of such political stunt aimed at appeasing China. Contents could be easily slipped into existing subjects of social studies, literature, history and geography, but that would be too subtle as a show of loyalty.
On the bright side, Hong Kong would probably won’t end up being just another city of China.
In 2022, top CCP officials stated that “In reality, 50 years is just a figurative saying. There will not be changes after 50 years… the first 50 years cannot change. There is no need to change after 50 years”
Xi Jinping later delivered a speech when he went to Hong Kong, stating:
“There is no reason to change such a good system (one country two systems). It must be adhered to in the long run”
“Hong Kong should consciously respect and safeguard the China’s sovereignty and security”
Translate that politic speak to English, would probably be along the line of “Ok we gonna let you keep your autonomy even after 50 years, as long as you don’t do anything stupid or make us look bad, such as seeking independence”
With this context, the arrests and trials would make a lot more sense. While the show of loyalty may sound like a setback for democracy, this may actually be the most significant political win for Hong Kong since the hand over. Probably also the biggest concession Xi Jinping ever made during his reign.
@tekinfomedi for a place that’s run by literally a CEO, that’s typical Hong Kong opportunist behavior. Especially those who left due to economy concerns rather than fear of the CCP.
Tho most of the average HKer took a big hit during the 1998 financial crisis
Hong kong was never really a "democratic" territory! Also what did they think would happen in 2047!?
6:15 This is sad... That moment was the end of Hong Kong.
Seems to me to be inevitable and appropriate that HK progressively align political systems and institutions with China. Is that such a bad thing, anyway? Though some aspects of China’s system and behaviour seem reprehensible (or at least we are being relentlessly taught that), there seems to be much to admire in their economic growth, technological progress, huge reduction of poverty, relative non-belligerence, long term strategic planning and apparent leadership integrity (versus Trump, Johnson, Sarcozi, Berlusconi for example). I fear we are being taught to fear and hate them in order to justify another war that will be cloaked in morality but driven by self-interest, like the Opium Wars of the past. 🤷♂️
Yes, China's system and behaviour are reprehensible and most of the 'benefits' you mentioned are either exaggerated, misattributed to the CCP's system of governance, or simply out of touch with reality.
@@anglaismoyen You may be right, and it is difficult to know whose propaganda is the greater lie, but I do see with my own eyes tangible proof of their remarkable progress in the last 30 years….their cities, companies, vehicles, computers, tourists etc. Friends who live or work there corroborate this. Thats why they’re now perceived and being portrayed as a threat, surely?
Please bring up Macau. Macau is even sadder than Hong Kong and no one speaks for Macau like no one has forgotten Macau's existence and it's issues with communist China. Speaking of Chinese, Chinese is not a race or a one monolithic race. The Cantonese, the Southerners clearly don't live well with other ethnics of " Chinese" like the north - the Pekingese . So don't blend the "Chinese" together. There are significant differences in terms of culture, tradition, heritage, language, custom and ways of doing things. Therefore, I find the word "Chinese" is a very ambitious term. Very often, the "Chinese" themselves or people not of that part of the world don't exactly what the " Chinese" is all about.
Thanks. Someone else mentioned Macau. You are absolutely right. It is the forgotten part of this story. I really should do something on it. (Sadly, though, this video has done really badly. I’m not sure I will revisit the topic for a while.)
This video was very informative! Good stuff. As a Hongkonger though, I find your focus on the 2012 elections to be a bit strange? The drop in the pro-democracy vote was entirely due to a split in the movement over the Democratic Party's support of the government's 2010 electoral reform proposal. Also, far more than 10% of Hong Kong's population is foreign born. Many ethnic Chinese in Hong Kong were born in western countries, or southeast Asia.
Thanks. I didn’t think I made 2012 a centrepiece of the argument. I just put it there to show how pro-Beijing forces were starting to gain strength. That’s all. And thanks for the point about the population in Hong Kong. I was working off internationally available figures.
What broken promise has been broken? Has the author read the Basic Law?
The mainland has been adhering to the Basic Law quite well.
It has been Hong Kong that has regened on enacting Article 23.
Hong Kong remains highly autonomous.
The West should read more and presume less.
The steps it took were unnecessary. It just couldn’t help but meddle. And in doing so it created problems that it now feels it needs to solve by introducing more draconian steps. It was all completely avoidable. It has reduced its reputation and made integrating Taiwan peacefully more difficult. It should have just let things be.
Why is the west so “weak”? More than half of global gdp, basically the only markets in the world that matter to countries that want to pursue China style economic growth, etc.
It just seems like we’re unable to stand up for ourselves when our ideals are under attack. Whenever someone hits us we rarely hit back, we might send a strongly worded letter though. Why are we never proportional?
Very good question. Part of it is to do with what we call hybrid conflict. This is particularly important these days, and works brilliantly against open democratic societies. It is about weaponising democracy and free speech. We have seen it time and time again, including the credible allegations of interfering in elections and referendums and finding hate groups to disseminate divisive messages. The problem is that it is very hard to do the other way when you deal with authoritarian closed systems. They can stop the flow of information and close down public debate. And as Western states respect human rights we can’t engage in other hybrid activities, such as hacking hospitals (as just happened in the U.K.) or busing migrants to the border of one these states and pushing them across (as Belarus has been doing to Poland and Lithuania). This is the trouble the West faces. These countries are using our system against us and, rightly, we don’t want to respond by dismantling our systems.
@@JamesKerLindsay Thank you for taking the time to answer.
Is there anything the west can do that’ll have a significant impact? In terms of countering this, without sacrificing the same ideals we’re trying to protect.
But in my original comment I was also referring to more brazen acts by adversaries. Such as Chinese industrial espionage, international police stations, etc. Russians attempts at jamming air travel over Europe, russian claims on NATO territory in the gulf of finland, etc. The attempt at jamming civilian airplanes over the Baltic is especially egregious to me. If they had succeeded in bringing down the airplanes thousands of NATO “citizens” would have died. Seems to me like Russia is pushing to find the red line, but haven’t found it yet, so they keep pushing.
@@JamesKerLindsay Indeed, it works because too few people are sufficiently engaged to question the source of what they hear if it plays into their existing biases. It's a very difficult problem in open societies, and made all the worse by social media. Either we're going to have to evolve into more sophisticated consumers of media, or this will always be a problem. But I don't know if it's completely new. The USSR exploited the openness of Western societies and political systems through the Comintern, didn't they?
@@douglassun8456 Exactly. Social media is the weapon of mass destruction of hybrid warfare. So much more needs to be done to tackle this problem. The trouble is that many people automatically assume the anything to regulate social media is an attack on free speech, rather than realise that this could in fact protect their societies in the long run. It is a tough one.
@@Ea-pb2tu Thanks. Perhaps we should see things up. I think the starting point needs to be for politicians to acknowledge the extent of the problem and announce that in future any sort of hybrid attack will be seen as a direct threat to countries and will result in retaliation. We still see it as a second class form of threat. But it is increasingly becoming more destructive, including to Western societies. But the retaliation will need to be carefully considered. A lot more focus will also need to be given to social media. This is a real issue. For example, and I know this isn’t popular, but I have long thought that we should abandon anonymity - or make it that you can browse with an anonymous account, but you can’t post. I know this is controversial and raises difficulties in some areas. But I think we need to think about it. People don’t realise just how powerful social media is and how effectively it is used by malign powers. For example, many people don’t understand why bot farms are dangerous. But it uses psychology. If a Russian account posing as a far-right activist in Britain posts a false claim and it revives one like for a comment, people ignore it. But if it receives 20,000 likes and lots of supportive comments then other people start to take it seriously. This is where we are at now.
China dealing with Hong Kpng the way it has will just be to the UK's ultimate benefit as more & more of Hong Kong's best & brightest get their BNOs & come over
Hong Kong was never a real democracy under the British.
No one said it was. But that shouldn’t be the measure, should it. Britain ran a colonial regime. I think one would expect China to be rather different.
Obviously. At least the real money left 5 years ago !
You know what Authoritarian leadership and similar forms of government are afraid of - freedom.
Have similar protests and issues occurred in Macau, which shares a parallel history of handover back to China?
All clashes are foreseeable, the British Hong Kong left the liberal society, freedom of speech but no true democracy, it clash with the authoritarianism, so it just demonstrates both ideology can’t be co-existed in such a intensive city.
Majority of Hongkong people would be okay if UK could take back Hongkong and send the governor and colonial officers to rule Hong Kong same as the colonial period, they treated us much better than the CCP.
British ruled Hong Kong very well, but rule their own country in mess
The national security law in HK is far less harsh than the one in the UK and ,of course,HK was swarmed with "Special Branch" officers when it was a colony and these officers would arrest anyone deemed a threat to the British including those who were against China as the British didn't want to offend them.Also international surveys ranked HK judiciary and press freedoms even higher than in the UK.So check your facts and be fair,Professor. Don't make a fool of yourself!
During colonial period, millions of refugees from Mainland China fled to HK to escape the Chinese Communist party, it proves that China government treated their own people evan worse than British coloniser
The British people can subvert their government by votes, can Chinese people do it in China?
@@yipzoe3865 One cannot deny UK is more democratic than China and China has never pretended to be a liberal democracy. But what cannot be denied is this Chinese government has brought 800 million people out of poverty and led the country from a backward place to be an industrialised country with the 2nd largest economy. A recent study done by Harvard University has shown that over 90% of the Chinese people support their government. Don't forget the UK killed millions of their colonised people and plundered their resources.So stop pretending to be virtuous and the world will appreciate more if UK stops helping Israel in the genocide of the Palestinians.
@@yipzoe3865 China has never pretended to be a liberal democracy but what cannot be denied is the Chinese government has lifted 800million people out of poverty and led the poor country to be a rich industrialised one.A recent survey by Harvard University shows over 90% of the Chinese support their government. UK cannot pretend to be virtuous when it has killed millions of their colonised people and plundered their resources.Stop pretending you care for human rights when you eagerly support Israel in Gaza .
@@yipzoe3865 China has never claimed to be a liberal democracy but what cannot be denied is the government there has lifted 800million people out of poverty and has the support of over 90% of the people according to a study by Harvard University. UK cannot pretend to be virtuous when it has killed millions of their colonised people and plundered their resources.
We must also consider a few things:
1) while not something that occupies the minds of the common person on a day to day basis, the very existence of Hong Kong is a living relic of the Century of Humiliation, this cannot stand in the eyes of any legitimate Chinese government. Had it been the KMT ruling the Mainland through the ROC, the idea would have been the same, HK must be reintegrated.
2) HK was not much of a democracy in the first place. Under the British it was governed as a crown colony like SG, with a legislative council whose electorate was limited to the landowners; it would only be made more democratic to counter the desire of a mainland government to decolonise HK, culminating in the limited democracy that exists during the handover; even now there exists “functional constituencies” that really puts to doubt if HK had a real democracy.
3) The entire basis for the city’s autonomy is based on a handover agreement with a colonial power, the very idea that a native government has to adhere to such promises is silly, but I suppose CFA is proof that colonialism is more alive and well than one might expect.
4) Anyone who has supported the violent rioters who flooded the streets with their homemade caltrops, and set people alight, have done well to leave. No one wants to leave in constant fear of a higher authority, but neither do they want extended chaos and siege in their homes.
How about Vladivostok? It was ceded to Russia under unequal treaty in Qing dynasty, but never returned
Chinese Communist party claims that they don't recognize all the unequal treaties in Qing dynasty, why China doesn't ask Russia to return Vladivostok?
@@yipzoe3865 Trust me, it will happen one day when the time is right.
interesting to watch this as a hongkonger, although i'm watching this from vilnius lithuania :) and while i will go back to finish my university degree, i do think i will join the hundreds of thousands of hongkongers to leave hk and emigrate elsewhere after the fact.
being in my early 20s, i've lived through both the 2014 and 2019-20 protests. didn't take part myself, but i did see them with my very own eyes
on democracy though, my family has not once voted in legco (legislative council) elections, because we really dont think it makes a difference either way. another commenter i think puts it very well, in that there never really was "proper" democracy in hk, certainly not under the british. i dont really read local news either, so this video was genuinely the first time i learned that article 23 was passed
either way, its a bit of a shame that i couldn't stay in my city of birth for longer, but sociopolitical participation really does feel useless, more so now than ever. not to mention i already have several friends that i've made in the past few months alone in europe, and my interests really do lie here in europe i think. and since i never really actively participated in civil society in hk, i dont think its a great loss to myself or hk to just up and go. don't get me wrong, i am politically active and i very much have strong opinions on certain political matters - hell i just attended vilnius pride a few days ago - but i just feel like trying to advocate for or against them in hk is about as effective as trying to fill a bathtub using a chopstick.
and living in a family where half of us are pro-china, it does provide me with a more nuanced perspective than what many western media might portray and i think that's definitely a good thing in general. and here's the thing: i have known some of my classmates who took part in protests, went to study in the uk, but then came back because they realized the uk wasn't the utopia they were expecting. not to claim supremacy over these people, but i think younger post-handover generations amongst ourselves definitely put the british in too high of an esteem, because they didn't know things weren't necessarily hunky-dory to say the least pre-1997
do i have an answer to all of this? no. my solution of moving to europe sounds cowardly to some westerners i'm sure, but sometimes when you feel powerless to deal with something, it may be best to just walk away
At least you are smart and decent enough to not waste your time in Hong Kong and found a place to live in where you feel comfortable and better
it is alarming that this kind of phenomenon is happening in the entire west, except people are now revolting against it.
i have been of the belief that the end of Hong Kong's Democracy is an important experiment for the western government of how they can do the same on all other countries.
The short answer is Yes
Why should HK follow a political path "conceived" by the UK? I'd be utterly ashamed of being British and try to have a say in "HK's democracy". The UK has never apologised for the OWs and never will, and still practises the same rhetoric along with the US and its siblings. Is shrinking its population the only way China could be spelled out of the Anglo-Saxon submissive radar?
Attempting to address China in good faith is just poor politics.
Same could be said of the West... or any country.. there are no allies or enemies only national interest
@@LaluBhaiya1233 lol no.
The west is known for duplicity and hypocrisy.. same as all countries tbh.. it's just how countries roll.. name me one country that has consistently stayed true to it's values or promises
"The Peoples Republic" did not replace Taiwan in the UN
It replaced the ROC.
Taiwan has never had a seat in Turtle Bay
Thanks. I am well aware that it was/is the Republic of China. However, in a short video like this, where the topic is something else, it was easier to use terms that are more readily understood.
@@JamesKerLindsay I understand the need for brevity when discussing China related topics that only tangentially brush cross strait relations.
But, we must also try to be painfully precise in our language. Might I offer that the next time this topic needs to be dealt with in a brief manner you refer to “Beijing and Taipei?”
It's about time to acknowledge the superiority of the Chinese system. China has freedom from violence, America has freedom for violence. We have created a political system that polarizes the public. In no other aspect of our lives do we declare our intent to address challenges and pursue objectives by forming rival teams with the aim to destroy the others. It's an absurd proposition. It is a dumb way to try to run a government.
During colonial period, millions of refugees from Mainland China fled to HK to escape the Chinese Communist party, it proves that China government treated their own people evan worse than British coloniser
Expecting freedoms under a communist system is perhaps not the best approach. We should have considered such realities in 1984.
Considering the backlash against the Gaza conflict and the mass murder by the Israeli forces, perhaps we ourselves need to look within as well.
Bbrp dari tim tiongkok, masih keluarga ku kok, tdk ada perpisahan antara keluarga, bisnis, dan edukasi,,
This was always the CCP's plan, and it was actually a pretty ingenious one. They made the "one-country, two-systems" deal to prevent a civil war from happening in 1997, but it's set to expire after 50 years. "But isn't that just kicking the can down the road and postponing the civil war till 2047?" Not necessarily, because the plan was always to erode and subtract Hong Kong's freedoms little by little over these intervening 50 years, so when the "one-country, two-systems" deal expires in 2047, the transition to full CCP rule will be seamless. Hong Kong on Jan. 1, 2047, will be no different from what it was on Dec. 31, 2046. The "transition" will have already been made, it will just have been made slowly and gradually instead of immediately and shockingly. Thus greatly reducing the likelihood of a civil war.
So basically China won the chess game since 97?
What comes next for China?
So they don't want to shed blood
As an African my perspective is as follows. The British took Hong Kong by force using guns and gun boats. In 1997 - the British imposed conditions on returning a piece of property it illegally obtained, why should China abide by conditions of an agreement obtained via coercion.
Keep in mind that a limited form of democracy was only introduced to Hong Kong in 1985 before that all officials were appointed by the British.
Because that is how international law works. Britain signed an agreement in 1898 to lease a large section of land. It was handed back in 1997 as agreed. But China also agreed to terms to take back the rest of it. Don't forget that before 1945, a lot of borders changed by force. It wasn't just Britain that did this. It happened everywhere. And in the vast majority of cases, those lands were never returned. More broadly, don't let an understandable disdain for 19th-century Western colonialism get in the way of respect for contemporary international law. The current international system is built on respecting agreements. If that starts to break down, then we are all in trouble.
in 1946, UK attempted to give HK higher degree of democracy and introduced "Young Plan" , but Chinese Communist party didn't allow and threat UK that they would invade HK if any constitutional reform was introduced.
Most China provinces are independent countries originally and united by force, Tibet and Xinjiang are conquered in Qing dynasty and still fighting for independence, why dont China give them independence? The land of Hongkong should belong to Hong Kong people and majority of us still prefer British rule after 27 years of handover to China,I think we should have the right to determine our fate
@@JamesKerLindsay Since the invasion of Iraq in 2003 the global South perspective of International Law is "I have bigger guns or i have more money. That is when the international system got broken". It seems as if International Law only applies when you are correct otherwise it is the rule of the jungle. Just the other month the US was saying that the UNSC Resolution on a ceasefire in Gaza was non binding.
Thanks James for sacrificing your ability to visit Hong Kong or mainland China (safely) so others can understand the true nature of the CCP.
You should talk about Macau and it's differences to Hong Kong. I know it's very pro-China, because of the economy.
In 1966, all anti China organisations were driven out from Macau by the Portuguese colonial government because the Portuguese couldnt handle the mass riots in 1966 and signed an agreement to accept everything requested by the pro China rioters.
Macau was poor and underdeveloped under Portuguese rules, so they are more pro China than Hong Kong.
In Hong Kong, there are pro China and anti China organisations co exist during colonial period, the British developed Hong Kong to a very rich and prosperous international city, so majority of Hongkong people are pro UK
Why you don't mention that the Qing Dynasty Collapsed...which means the 100 year time frame ended and the Territory became the U.K.s.
I am not sure that this would be seen as correct under international law. More to the point, it would have sparked a very serious deterioration in relations between Britain and China - one that the U.K. could not have won. Had it decided to hold on to Hong Kong, China would almost certainly have introduced a blockade. This would have made holding onto the territory steadily more difficult. It would also have eroded its economic value. Everyone would have lost, but the UK would have been left holding on to a worthless asset that would have been horrifically expensive to maintain!
Too young to be born to see the fall of Saigon but old enough to see the fall of Hong Kong
Was there democracy in Hong Kong during the British colonial period before the decision was made to return it to China?
No. And I said as much. But it’s irrelevant. China promised to allow it. And I’m not sure that holding up China to colonial rule is a particularly good argument.
It's relevant Dr. Why didn't the UK run Hong Kong as a democracy all those years before they handed over to the Chinese. Hypocrites all over the West.
@@danielsamuel1995
in 1946, UK attempted to give HK higher degree of democracy and introduced "Young Plan" , but Chinese Communist party didn't allow and threat UK that they would invade HK if any constitutional reform was introduced
@@JamesKerLindsay One country, two systems promised by China are socialism and capitalism, not democracy.
in 1946, UK attempted to give HK higher degree of democracy and introduced "Young Plan" , but Chinese Communist party didn't allow and threat UK that they would invade HK if any constitutional reform was introduced
An insightful report but it is one sided and lacks objectivity. In a democracy, the freedom to assemble and protest should be a fundamental right.
But we also saw massive protests, large scale violence, lawlessness, destruction of personal and public property, and attacks by some of the protesters on others causing injury and death. These unlawful behavior were considered justified by some foreign governments as seen in Media reports.
In conclusion, this report does not spell out the alleged crimes for which various people were convicted.
This is putting the cart before the horse, as we say. Many of the problems that emerged in Hong Kong did so as a result of China’s interference where it wasn’t necessary. And then when protests broke out against that interference, it decided to crack down. And many countries face large scale protests without devising to widen the definition of subversion (let alone calling it terrorism) to stop such protests in future. So, I’d say that all this is a problem of China’s own making.
The land of Hongkong should belong to Hong Kong people, we should have the right to determine our fate, Hong Kong was returned to China against the will of majority of Hongkong people, a referendum can end all the riots
No they don’t
While this episode has explained the history and changes over time in Hong Kong clearly and accurately, it needs to be put in a much broader picture of international context. First of all, if given a choice, maintaining Hong Kong as a perpetual crown colony under British rule probably is much preferred. Since that did not happen, it is necessary to live with its consequences. It needs to recognize that one country two systems is not absolute. It has limits in that maintaining two systems cannot undermine the one country. Open, democratic societies are often subjected to foreign influence and interference. Hong Kong is particularly vulnerable in this regard under Chinese rule, especially with China - US global competition as backdrop. This is something that cannot be foreseen in 1980-s when UK and Chinese negotiated the transfer of sovereignty. Talking Chinese government does not keep its promises overly simplifies the issue.
Kalian orang barat terlalu banyak ikut campur urusan negara lain.. Padahal negara sendiri kacau.
I thought hk was digested already
I am a Hong Kong native, and unfortunately, by the way things are going, is a resounding yes
Democracy is just beginning in HK.
Yeah, democracy is done in Hong Kong. That was the inevitable outcome, it's naive to think otherwise.
British colonisation has no moral say in HK since they gain the territory in very wrong way: drug trade. Democracy is an awful excuse hiding the bitterness of losing the territory
Seriously, this is not an argument. If we are to go down that route, then few, if any, countries are in a position to pronounce anything. Britain handed Hong Kong back, as agreed. China agreed to respect democracy. This is an international agreement.
Most China provinces are independent countries originally and united by force, then each provinces should have the right for independence, Tibet and Xinjiang are conquered in Qing dynasty and still fighting for independence, why China don't give them independence?
The land of Hongkong should belong to Hong Kong people and majority of Hongkong people still prefer British rule evan after 27 years of handover to China
Demokrasi akalan barat aja
Correct conclusion
As much as i despise communism and human rights crack downs i cant deny china abided by the agreements that were forced upon her.
Which is worse? Having your territory forcefully taken from you or rulling your own as the government sees fit?
Theres a lot id like to see the ccp held accountable for but legally speaking they are within their rights though morally debatable.
Thanks Elias. I’d say that Beijing is contravening its legal responsibilities. There was a formal commitment still abide by the terms of the agreement. It hasn’t lived up to the terms of the deal. It has tried introducing various steps by the back door. But I’d argue that it was politically a very silly move. This was all unnecessary. It had an ideal chance to just leave Hong Kong well alone and use this as an argument to reintegrate Taiwan peacefully. That chance is now blown. There is no way that Taipei would accept any offer - and no Western state would encourage it to do so.
James I agree that china's dubious motives and posturing are unwarranted , one need only see the way China treats its own people and its minorities.
From the agreements point of view they bid their time whereby those agreements expired and are now free to act as recklessly as they dare.
I completely agree that the ccp has blown any chance in the foreseeable future of peacefully and mutually reuniting with Taiwan. Trust arrives on foot but leaves on horseback and the ccp has zero credibility in this regard.
Imo the only way China can attain Taiwan peacefully is either by abandoning communism, re aligning with the west against Russia and placating the defenders of Taiwan. I just can't see it happening any other way.
Militarily China can devastate Taiwan but can't grab and hold her
In the end the cost isn't worth the reward nor risks..
Professor KerLindsay calls COLONIAL RULE "democracy"?
Wow.
No. I didn’t. Listen again carefully. I clearly said that Beijing was annoyed that Britain tried to introduce some democracy prior to the handover. Don’t twist my words.
most China provinces are independent countries originally and united by force, Tibet and Xinjiang are conquered in Qing dynasty and still fighting for independence, why don't China give them independence?
The land of Hongkong is belong to Hong Kong people and majority of us still prefer British rule evan after 27 years of handover to China
This episode is extremely biased. He does not understand Hong Kong's Colonial legacy and what a Shame it means to Mainland Chinese.
1) He never mentioned in Macau One Country Two Systems has been running very well, unlike Hong Kong.
2) HE intentionally rarely mentioned One Country principle and only emphasized on autonomy/ the Two Systems part. The One Country is before Two Systems for good reason, Hong Kong is Part of China/PRC, not the other way around. So Macau has its One Country Two Systems working because it respect the "One Country". And Hong Kong weakened its autonomy/Two System by Challenging the One Country Principle.
3) CCP/PRC never accepted the unfair colonialism treaty that gave Hong Kong away. So the saying of CCP should respect British's right at Hong Kong by International Treaty is Deeply insulting to Chinese.
4) He did not realize CCP/PRC was very generous to negotiate with British about the Hong Kong reunification with Mainland China. In other rebelling against Colonialism, the Western power mostly were driven out by Force. They could simply take over HK by force. But one one in West acknowledging this FACT.
No. You are deliberately reinterpreting what I said. I made the colonial heritage absolutely clear, including the disgraceful way that Britain took control of Hong Kong. But Beijing made a commitment to handle Hong Kong in a particular way, and it then decided that it couldn't just leave it alone. It had to tinker with matters that were clearly defined as being under Hong Kong's control. But you are right on one thing: I didn't mention Macau. But that was only so as not to confuse things. The underlying basis of the two situations was rather different, as we both know. Perhaps I will come back to this in another video.
Macau has been under de facto PRC control since the 1960s, long before officially turning into a PRC territory.
“Macau One Country Two Systems has been running very well” is a joke to begin with
@@JamesKerLindsay
That is exactly one of my criticism. I was people in Hong Kong who first broke the agreement. Like I said HKers refused to enact the National Security Law themselves as clearly required by Basic Law, Article 23. You did mentioned it but you failed intentionally or not to point out the the huge implication of this Failure. You only emphasized this the Democratic Rights of Hong Kong people (This is also the another criticism: People in HK placed Two Systems, their own rights, above the One Country, the need of National Security Law demanded by Basic Law).
After HK broke the Basic Law first, PRC was still very generous Because the purpose of the National Security Law for any country is the peace of the society. So as long as HK could maintain the peace, the Beijing would let it go the FACT HK failed to fulfil the end of agreement: enact the National Security Law.
Then the violent protest happened in HK and HK government was powerless to stop it. To make the matter worse, some of the HK Democratic movement were publicly asking foreign intervention of HK affair, like Mr Lai etc went to US congress, and Few even openly promote HK Indepedence.
So this is the Final straw that forced PRC to enforce a National Security Law from Central Government.
So your argument that Beijing broke the promise without mention HK did FIRST is extremely misleading.
Here are two very relevant comparisons:
1) Macau has enjoyed its peaceful and successfully One Country Two Systems. The question is Why? This clearly proves that PRC does allow Two Systems to run smoothly as along as you respect the One Country and is able to run your own affairs peacefully.
2) With all those rebellions against Colonialism, can you find a better Deal the Colonial master got when they were forced to leave than British got in Hong Kong? Can you find another example of this One Country Two Systems?
You never mentioned the FACT this is a very Generous Offer by CCP to Hong Kong People first and to British too. This is very unfair.
One Last thing: you do not understand how much shame the Loss of Hong Kong was and still is to Chinese People. This marks the Start of the Chinese Century of Humiliation. The same is True for Taiwan, especially because Japan used to be a small and backward Asian Country. So people in West always underestimate the powerful demand of Chinese People and tradition to reunite these loss territories during the Chinese Century of Humiliation to the Colonial Powers.
No. Article 23 wasn’t needed. It stirred up tensions that Beijing then used to argue that it was needed. China stirred up the problem unnecessarily.
@@JamesKerLindsay
You are entitled to your opinion. But you do not understand CCP and Chinese tradition: peaceful tranquility of society is number one priority of Government. So article 23 is a MUST for Beijing.
Again Like I said, you do not understand the Chinese and totally biased using Western View.
I do not ask you to agree with Chinese thinking. But from your talk, you clearly do not understand Chinese Thinking.
In HK's case, they are now in much worse situation than Macau because they picked a Fight with Central Government.
In Taiwan's case this fight could be a Real War. This is the direct result of your kind of thinking.
My view is: either you insist your thinking AND preparing for a War with PRC in Taiwan OR you should start to respect Mainland China's nationalist motivation and negotiate with them.
Current situation is the WORSE: challenging PRC's key interest without even preparing for the dangerous consequence.
Ukraine war is the latest Example of this bad strategy!
😂😂😂😂 there was never any 'universal' sufferage under brit rules. english making any statements on Chinese soverignty when assange is prizon with zero charge and supplying tools for israils holocause in the country of palestine is a total joke😂😂
Trying to justify bad Chinese rule by comparing it to colonial rule is not the great argument you think it is.
@@JamesKerLindsay it was never rule it's dictatorship but at least now there is law in Hong Kong which is more than Assange has. to compare anything with the current state of no standard to brit rules would be a lie, there is also the Palestine holocaust legally supported by brit weapons.
Why is China's national security law controversial but (western) democracy is not?
Does the collective west represent the world? Western democracy is something consensus of the whole human being?
Personally, I don't find having to vote between a stupid and crazy then complain for four years with nothing useful getting done particularly attractive.
Seriously!? I think we know the difference. People don't get locked up in Britain for calling for Scottish independence. In fact, we have political parties that support this in parliament. People are also free to engage with foreign groups and organisations without fear that they'll immediately be branded as subversives. People can freely congregate for mass protests against government policies. The list goes on and on.
@@JamesKerLindsay During the end phase of pandemic a lot of people want onro street and peotest, none arrest were made. If go to the campus of US shouting "free Palestin" you will be. And seriously, your political freedom is nothing more than a faked nipple. People peotest left and right for what? Brit can't even get a 100 mile HSR done.
Please, we were lectured about western democracy and studied it for fouty years and by the end, reality is the best teacher.
@@JamesKerLindsay but those people colluded with foreign powers to subvert HK goverment
a lot of Hong Kong TV shows and movies made back in 80s 90s has become "sensitive" these days. Ironic isn't it, HK enjoy more freedom during the British colonial days.
*Stupid question. XI has broken his "promise" on day 1.*
Why would anyone think it would end up any other way? The part that the west ALWAYS gets wrong about asia is this. They play the long game and in the short term they will put up with things, but in the end they get thing the way they want them.
So according to your logic, Kong Kong being a colony of the UK is democracy? Got it. 😅
Did I say that? I was quite clear that Britain only applied a degree of democracy in the 1990s. Listen again. (And what’s with the silly laughing emoji?)
In 1956, UK prime minister had announced that UK was willing to give up the colonies, Hong Kong people had never requested to leave the British empire, so we are ruled by the British until 1997.
Majority of us still prefer British rule evan after 27 years of handover to China, the colonial officers treated us much better than the CCP and we enjoyed much higher degree of freedom during colonial period
Still, if we see it historically, they suffered because they wanted to be left alone. The west just couldn’t leave them alone because of the massive wealth they had. They were robbed, exploited, humiliated, and it continued for quite a long time. In the psyche of Chinese people, there is a lot of pressure to rather choose unity than being used and tore apart as they were. Remember that they teach them in school what the west did to them. The Chinese people have to free themselves, just like everyone else. Democracy didn’t come without a price, neither did any development of mankind.
I'm sorry, what? The wealth they had before the British built the infrastructure and systems that enabled them to become fabulously wealthy?
@@anglaismoyen Haha, you’re joking right? Do you know that China was an empire long before any western nation came to power? Seriously read some history man. What caused the opium wars? Why did the west want China to buy opium? What did they trade to them prior to opium and what went wrong? You clearly haven’t done your homework and this is all open and free information that you can find online. Although I wish for Chinese democracy and freedom, it would be blind to not see how we have distanced them from it, or at least helped paint a terrible picture of it. It is our way, and our ways destroyed their culture for centuries.
@@anglaismoyen you joking right? 😂 learn history man. China and India were both empires before the west ruined them.
@@AlOfNorway We were talking about Hong Kong, which was a little fishing village before the British built it into a global financial centre. Also... are you saying empires are a good thing now? but maybe only 'coloured' empires?
Hong Kong is a great example of why your Falklands condominium agreement is a bad idea
Hong Kong isn’t a condominium. In fact, things might have been rather different if it was.
Where were the protesters when Hong Kong was treated worse than dogs by British rulers
No one is apologising for British colonial rule. But that’s not the point. Hong Kong was returned to China after colonial rule. Surely their fellow Chinese should have treated them better? (Indeed, surely the Chinese Government should treat all its citizens better!?)
During colonial period, millions of refugees from Mainland China fled to HK to escape the Chinese Communist party, it proves that China government treated their own people evan worse than British coloniser
I still don't get why the global community didn't immediately just say 'there are two Chinas at the world stage now'... of sorts. I mean calling one Taiwan & the other the People's Republic of China would have seemed the most reasonable if they wished.
If the P.R.C. couldn't agree with those concepts formally (maybe Taiwan didn't instead), then they just wouldn't be recognised.
That was the situation before 1971 everyone recognized ROC government in Taiwan but nobody recognized PRC in mainland China or had any diplomatic relations with them and even USA made it illegal for its citizens to travel to PRC
But eventually the worlrealized that it was impractical and started to recognize PRC as China one by one including USA in 1978
If you feel that agreements and promises need to be fulfilled then there will be no Two China’s. If you feel that agreements are just a way to bluff your way through to get what you want now and the one following the agreements is just a fool then yes go ahead and recognise Two China’s.
All countries around the world has agreed that there is only one China and all countries in the world recognises that Taiwan is an island belonging to China. Now to turn back on this agreement and the UN Resolution for this means you do not value your agreements.
A defeated democracy a la US. 😂😂😂
I’m not sure what your point is? (But going by the laughing emojis it probably sounded funnier in your head than it is on the screen!🙂)
What about apartheid Israel, what about neo colonists like USA and France. Just talk about of Russia, Iran and China.
And what on earth is the relevance to this topic? Israel was discussed in a video 2 months ago... Keep on trolling I guess.
It's handy when the whataboutism literally uses the words "what about", for easy identification.
Sounds like you are new here 🎃
I have done a number of videos on Israel and Palestine. And just two weeks ago, I made a video on France and colonialism in New Caledonia. I suspect this is an example of selective bias. You see me as you want to see me! It actually happens quite a lot. :-)
@@JamesKerLindsay Just because you made a video on Israel and France covering a few points does not make you a neutral and unbiased journalist.
You put blame on Russia, Iran, and Palestine for unrest in the regions.
You should mention in your video that the USA went back on its promise and kept expanding NATO eastward, provoking Russia to invade Ukraine and Georgia. If Russia hadn't done that, these countries would have ended up being USA military bases and would soon host USA nuclear weapons, just like Germany, Turkey, and Italy (even Poland is asking to host USA nukes). What would the USA have done if Russia planned to encircle the USA from all sides by maintaining military bases in Canada, Mexico, Cuba, and Venezuela?
The same applies to Iran. Iran had democracy. The democracy was overthrown by the USA and UK so they could place a puppet Shah regime. I, too, am not a fan of the Islamic regime, but this was a direct result of USA and UK intervention in Iran.
You never mentioned that Israel is an apartheid state and the only country in the Middle East that contains nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons. It's always above international law. They have annexed UN-recognized land belonging to Syria (Golan Heights). The radical Zionist ideology keeps annexing land in the West Bank. You call Hamas a terrorist organization, but when the Israeli settlers and troops keep burning Palestinian homes, kicking them out onto the streets, stripping women naked, and beating kids...the only organization that comes to their aid is Hamas, not the UN, not the USA, not Western journalists.
I can keep going; there are many crimes that the USA and France have been committing even after the collapse of the Soviet Union. Maybe you can be unbiased and discuss all these topics and not just democracy in Eastern countries.
Don’t forget Hong Kong isn’t runs by British..mind your own business
Why? This is a channel looking at international relations. I have a right to look at any situation I want. Seriously, this just underlines the whole problem.
Provide your checklist for democracy and let everyone check off.
Let also see how US and EU.
Of course if the democracy is people having the chance to go to poll once every 4 to 5 years then democracy is half dead. However ig also show the shallowness of the intellectualism of the this guy.
I am more than happy to have a polite debate. I engage far more with viewers than any other international affairs channel. But it helps if one is at least pleasant.
Not at all. Countries have to protect it's sovereignty. More and more Countries are taking these drastic measures Remember the colour revolutions and spring uprising? Governments are viewing these uprisings as a threat especially as the world is divulging as it is.
Since when did you British give Hong Kong people the right to elect the governor? Democracy? Democracy my a44.
So, the answer to Chinese abuses is that it is no worse than colonial rule?
@@JamesKerLindsay TH-cam's censorship system is amazing. No bad words for the anglos. 😂
@@JamesKerLindsay China rescued Hong Kong from the economic crisis in the late 1990s by injecting huge amounts of money. Unlike you British who kept p1und4ring Hong Kong's fiscal surplus to the last penny during the c0lonial period.
Come to think of it, democracy, especially the british one which emphasize parliamentary sovereignty, is an infringement to the very concept of sovereignty of CCP. Expecting CCP will honor the deal is pretty silly😂
Except that it signed an international agreement to do so!?
Please don't get me wrong, i am all for democracy. But i was so shocked by british naivety and lack of understanding of CCP before signing the joint declaration. If the british had done their research on tibet, they would probably knew CCP would turn their back on any promise of autonomy whenever they see fit.
Hopefully the PRC trolls make this video reach 1.000.000 views! 🧌🇨🇳🤣
That would be nice. Unfortunately, it is doing really badly at the moment. Well below where my videos usually are at this point. I have tried title and thumbnail changes. Nothing seems to be working.
@@JamesKerLindsayMost likely it’s a mass flagging from trolls, reporting it for some reason. It happens to most China focused channels which are critical of the CCP.
And there are Singaporean trolls as well
Thanks. It’s always disappointing to put in so much time and work on a video and then to see this happen.
@@JamesKerLindsayRumble is a bit of the Wild West but you can consider to upload your videos there. Comments are a madhouse though🤪
So Chinese gained the land, the UK gained the population who fled from the land, the US gained Taiwanese favour over PRC, and Singaporeans gained attractiveness as the financial hub of the region. For now, it seems that everyone has their own gain. So, is it good?
Well, when you put it like that! You are right. I suppose everyone gets what they want - except for the Hong Kongers themselves. I am sure that many who have left have been sad to go, and probably realise that it could be hard to go back, especially if they speak out about what is happening. It has been fascinating to see a large influx of Hong Kongers to Britain in the past few years. It is really noticeable in some areas. And yet, it hasn't been politicised in the way it has been with other communities - at least, it hasn't been so far, and let's hope it isn't.
Certainly not good for the Hong Kongers, and China's growing expansionism into the South China Sea and constant threats to Taiwan aren't good things for the world.
@@JamesKerLindsay As a British Cantonese who's family migrated to the UK or US in the 80s, nearly everyone on both sides of my family supported the protestors. As the protestors got more violent/blocked roads/trains, beat people, every single person in my family switched sides and said "we just want HK to be stable again" this is ultimately why the movement failed. The youth had no real plan and they were just destructive and lashing out in the place where nearly everyone supported them, ultimately most HKers just wanted things to go back to "normal".
I currently live in the US and am exploring options to leave, the levels of sinophobia is getting scary. I've heard from HKers who moved to the UK experienced racism simply because they were Chinese, expecting the UK to be some utopia but the UK has its own host of issues that they were ignorant to.
@@JamesKerLindsay
If they don't like it they can leave
China is not preventing them from leaving
@@JamesKerLindsay I'm not Chinese, I'm not British, American, nor Singaporean neither. But what I can say from the bitter historical experience of the country I'm living in is that it will not end here. If one strikes water with a sword, nothing will happen. If he does it to a pound of gold, it would be divided but the commercial value would be the same. But if we do the same thing to a living human being, the wounds may be healed, but there would be a scar.... with a painful memory accompanying animosity. Oh my Lord oh my God, how much are we familiar with this kind of story, but how are we incapable of dealing with this kind of tragedy...
Democracy in HK? When the UK was colonising Hong Kong, there were no elections and the Governor was appointed from a foreign country. It must be difficult for them to let go .... so called democratic sovereign countries have their own subversion laws to ensure peace for the majority. Countries around the world does not have to adopt the same forms of governance from the West, which has a relative short history.
Hey man stop talking so much sense ur blinding me
I believe the distance between Hong Kong and Britain should be far enough for UK to mind their business, and let the Chinese on either side of the divide to settle their differences, I don't really know western countries can't mind their business.
Would you make the same argument in other cases? For example, surely South Africa is too far from Palestine. Shouldn’t it mind its own business on what Israel is doing and not being a case before the ICJ? And should we just forget about human rights abuses in Iran because it isn’t close to where we might be? We can say the same for many other situations.
@@JamesKerLindsay
South Africa has no intention of annexing Palestine
@@baha3alshamari152 alright then, what about all the middle eastern countries that actually did annex palestine?
The article 23 is pretty much a national security law, every country has it, I don't understand whats the big deal with HK. Why can't HK have it? As far as I can see the one country two system means there need to be a one country first then they can have the two system. If a small number of HK people only want the two system not the one country, then what does that tell you James Ker-Lindsay? I support HK's democratic process, however I do not support western interference in the matter, the HK people should choice their own path. After the US and UK interference which lead to uprising in HK is just unacceptable, HK is part of China, let the Chinese figure it out. Destabilized HK to hurt China, that's the real aim. There are countless evidence pointing to US and UK direct manipulating the event and have CIA on the ground calling the shot, have you not seen them James? HK had a chance to move toward Democracy, but the western interference killed their dream. Now people in the west spoke of how sad it is for HK that they can no longer have a western style Democracy, but why no one talk about what you did to HK. HK's Democracy is dead was not because of Beijing, it is the result of western interference. Stop destabilized other country ffs, just leave them alone, leave the global south alone.
I think the argument is wrong. Hong Kong’s democracy was never alive. Only in 1992 with HK’s last British governor, Chris Patten, there was a pathetic last minute rush to create a sort of democracy in the territory. For 150 years, Britain ruled by law, people had no saying in the way they were ruled. It has been the same in Singapore, just rule by law, not rule of law, no wonder the triad connected Lee family took over and democracy is a travesty there. Interesting now how HK has become similar to Singapore, the national security law is like Singapore’s Internal Security Act.
It’s ironic that most of the activists in HK can trace their roots to the 1960s Chinese Leftish anti-British groups, who were pro-Beijing
Thanks. Great argument. You’re right. I did point out that Britain only introduced a degree of democracy in the 1990s. But the principle of democracy was there when Hong Kong was handed over. That hasn’t been respected.
You're making nonsensical comments, linking HK n Singapore as similar. PM Lee Kuan Yew demolished the triad in Sg, while HK 's strived. Open your eyes and see the difference Sg and HK now. Do your homework before opening your gap.
@@AndrePHKYou obviously haven’t lived in Singapore. The laws in Singapore are designed to protect the triads, look at the July 2019 Orchard Towers murder case. The open secret in Singapore is that Lee Kuan Yew was a prominent member of the triads and a Japanese collaborator during WW2. Basically the country is ran as a family business. Everybody’s spouses and children are in government positions. Kind of ridiculous. Anyone openly talking about it would be sued to death.
In 1959, the PAP ran on the promise to remove the ISA. 66 years later is still there. Lee Kuan Yew used to go after dissidents, opposition or anyone with half a brain. Originally the ISA was enacted by the British to combat a communist insurrection in the Malaya Peninsula.
I’m amazed how fast HK became like Singapore under the CCP rule, same
Dullness, Superficiality, Materialism. Same Han supremacy, privilege, racism and xenophobia. Truly dead societies in the most basic sense because Singapore for all its claimed achievements cannot hide the fact that young people don’t have children
@@JamesKerLindsayThe Chinese government point of view and actually many in White Hall was that HK system would be kept as it was in 1984 when they had the negotiations.
Regardless, the Chinese government has shot itself on the foot because now there’s no way Taiwan will accept the One Country Two Systems model
@@AndrePHKIt’s an open secret in Singapore that Lee Kuan Yew was a prominent member of the triads and a Japanese collaborator. The country is basically ran as a family business where everybody’s spouses and children are in government positions. If anyone talks openly about it, would get sued to the last penny or worse.
I’m amazed how fast HK became like Singapore, same dullness, materialism, Han supremacy, racism and xenophobia where young people don’t have children
It's definitely not the end of HK's democracy, as it was never a democracy to begin with. However, we can quite sure this marks the end of civil liberty in Hong Kong.