[adminu]

Assuming Hong Kong is indeed tightening its grip on the people and accepting more influence from Beijing, I wonder if that was a smart move. I mean, Hong Kong is a cash cow for China and an innovation driver. It foots on lots of trade and internationals coming in. Why would you fiddle with that and threaten making Hong Kong less desirable to foreigners?

[syntaxing]

I think the brain drain from HK to China is much more prevalent than people know these past five years. China have been doing various "assimilation" techniques since the Qin Dynasty. I feel like China has been pretty aggressive with their "wash generation" (direct translation). Bathe the citizens in decent wealth and comfort while increasing the immigration rate from Mainlad China. Look at the new train and bridge to Shen Zhen that's part of the new government intiative to make Shen Zhen the world SV. There's new entrepreneur/startup incubator thats less than a hour travel from HK. This incubator is expected to provide tax break, living and office space, and small stipend to live for any young entrepreneur and HK citizens are qualified to apply. For the better or the worse, it's only a matter of a couple decades where HK today will cease to exist at this rate.

[FabHK]

> it's only a matter of a couple decades where HK today will cease to exist

Well, at most three decades, to be precise, when in 2047 it will fully revert to China under the Sino-British Joint Declaration, and lose its status as a Special Administrative Region.

[_ptgt]

My understanding is that HK future after 2047 is left unclear under the Sino-British Joint Declaration. Not that it's specified to be annexed to the mainland.

Granted, in practice it's hard to see any other outcome from today's lens. But my observation is that there tends to be a lot of this fact-mangling when it comes to territories PRC likes to claim that suspiciously seems to nearly always coincide with the PRC's interests, and I would prefer public discourse at least has the legal facts straight now and when the time comes.

[FabHK]

First time I hear that interpretation, but a quick skimming of the documents suggests that you might be right. Worth investigating.

[zhte415]

I hope your comment is satire.

If not, the wumaos are doing a good job on HN.

[wongarsu]

China as a whole has grown massively, making Hong Kong proportionally much less important than it was 20 years ago. That allows Bejing to stop their hands-off approach and "bring them into the fold".

[dominicl]

Yep, in 1992 Hongkong was still responsible for ~25% of China's total GDP, today its contribution little below 3% on par with other big cities.

[yorwba]

It's not like all decisions in the Chinese government are made by the same person. Asserting control over Hong Kong is likely to hurt business there (especially if it involves restrictions on financial transactions similar to the mainland), but the specific individuals putting themselves into positions of power have a lot to gain from abusing that for their own profit.

[PlasticTank]

Hong Kong these days is nothing more than a clearing house for China A shares. Shanghai is the big hub for International-China business these days and Singapore takes the APAC business.

[ksec]

Gosh, that is 2 sentence managed to sum up most of the financial activity in APAC and China.

And to add, Shenzhen is where all the technology companies are.

[FabHK]

Harsh, but not wrong. :-/

[erentz]

> Why would you fiddle with that and threaten making Hong Kong less desirable to foreigners?

Because China is not as naturally unified as it likes to make out and having an example of a previously free and democratic state that still wants to agitate for freedom within your borders is intolerable to an authoritarian regime that needs to maintain control everywhere.

[anthuman]

Previously free? Hong Kong was a colony of britain which ruled with an iron fist and disallowed voting or democracy in Hong Kong. Hong Kong was never free nor democratic until it became part of China. Lots of brits love to pretend they brought democracy everywhere, but they didn't. Hong kong became a "democracy" and "free" after the brits got kicked out. The brits never let their colonies become democracies because britain was never really a democracy. Britain is a constitutional monarchy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_monarchy

Also, the fact that china is an authoritarian communist state shows that they aren't pretending to be "naturally unified". If they were "naturally unified", they wouldn't be so authoritarian in the first place.

[spacehunt]

There were Legislative Council and District/Urban/Regional Council Elections even before the Joint Declaration was signed. In fact, in the final years of British administration both the LegCo and the Urban/Regional Councils were elected by universal suffrage.

Also,

> ... documents recently released by the National Archives in Britain suggest that beginning in the 1950s, the colonial governors who ran Hong Kong repeatedly sought to introduce popular elections but abandoned those efforts in the face of pressure by Communist Party leaders in Beijing.

https://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/28/world/asia/china-began-pu...

[anthuman]

Wasn't the "legislative" council filled with appointees and served as an advisory role to the british governor ruling over hong kong? Where is the democracy there. Also china played around with "local" elections, doesn't mean they were/are a democracy.

As for your last point, so what? Nobody is claiming china is a democracy. But neither was britain. And it's laughable that "chinese pressure" is why britain didn't allow democracy in hong kong. It's a convenient excuse that doesn't change the facts.

Britain never allowed democracy in hong kong. And it's simply absurd to claim hong kong was "free" when it was a conquered colony of britain. It's one of the ironies of history. Hong kong only became "free" and "democratic" under chinese rule.

And in the final years, the "LegCo and the Urban/Regional Councils" may have been elected but they were powerless advisors. The ruler of hong kong, the governor, who had actual power was not elected.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Patten

Does that guy look like an "elected" and "rightful" leader of hong kong? A guy who wasn't born in hong kong and who didn't grow up in hong kong ruled hong kong by appointment, not election. It's absurd that anyone would claim hong kong was free or democratic at any point under british rule. Britain itself wasn't a democracy and it never allowed any of it's colonies, especially the non-white colonies, to become a democracy.

The truth of the matter is hong kong was never a democracy and probably will never be one. Neither the colonizing brits or the chinese were interested in hong kong being a democracy.

[spacehunt]

Of course Hong Kong is supposed to be better under Chinese rule; it's no longer a colony!

I always find it amusing when people try to compare the PRC with the oppressive colonial empires as if they're on the same level...

As for whether LegCo was powerless, look up the Protection of the Harbour Ordinance. It was a bill introduced not by the government but by an elected legislator, something that will never happen under the current system. That bill has been the bane of the government ever since, even after the handover.

[wbl]

Hong Kong democracy was opposed by China. Look at the 68 riots.

[paulorlando]

Your point that Hong Kong democracy was opposed by China is a piece of history that few know. Britain wanted to introduce self-governance in the 1950s/60s but China deemed that to be a hostile act. Details: https://qz.com/279013/the-secret-history-of-hong-kongs-still...

[anoncake]

> Britain itself wasn't a democracy and it never allowed any of it's colonies, especially the non-white colonies, to become a democracy.

Britain does have its deficits, but by 1997 it certainly qualified as democratic by the usual standards. So do multiple of its former colonies.

> Hong kong only became "free" and "democratic" under chinese rule.

Under the rule of the PRC? Do you really believe that?

[188201]

China is always tried to tighten its grip, but in a slower pace. For the extradition law they are proposing, it is not a standard move but very controversial among Hong Kong and even internationally. The main reason for China to do that is because China don't have enough dollar reserve.

In trade war between China and US, many food production in China relied on foreign trade. Increasing tax would cause China losing their reserve in higher rate. It is not just about Huawei, but many industry losing jobs, not enough food production for the people. The same or similar may apply to US but the difference is that China is authoritarian. If an authoritarian cannot maintain its economic growth, the government would be collapsed by revolution or a coup. They could even potentially start a war for cover up their fault by blaming foreign countries. For US, it's just a matter of losing an election.

Now what is the solution? There are still many reserve in Hong Kong. Let's start a extradition law in Hong Kong to China to take back some of the dollar from "outlawed" Hong Kong merchant. For the sake of China, Hong Kong could be a pawn for sacrifice.