[duguxu]

Thanks for your patient and kindy reply. I believe many people in China, especially young students or businessmen have read or heard what you mentioned more or less. People from mainland definitely know the official news is not the full picture. But just don't simply assume they have no picture at all or their knowledge is totally incorrect without anything in line with the facts. That's my core point.

> They could only examine prima facie evidence, a much lower bar than guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

How low is that? Do you have some serious materials easy to read on this issue?

I think mainland people never deny Hong Kong's superiority on juridical system. Tourists would have a great interest knowing how it works and make Hong Kong a great success in business. However, it's superficial and hateful to propaganda just by focusing on familiar things and pretending nobody knows.

> a proper legal system and accountable democracy are the key to long term stability

Every sensible protester knows the importance of stability. But to get more support by propaganda, instead of taking it for granted, there's a lot to explain along the way between their behavior and the value both side shares. For certain group of people, it's not as obvious as the protesters see.

>Britain wanted to give more democracy to Hong Kongers, but got opposed by Beijing

Notice Britain could have given more democracy for Hong Kong without China's pressure before 1980 but she didn't, like Young plan. My point here is, according to history, the colony is not a better symbol for freedom and democracy than the SAR in mainland people's eyes, but more like a symbol for independence.

[tempguy9999]

> Notice Britain could have given more democracy for Hong Kong without China's pressure before 1980 but she didn't, like Young plan

The link from hker's extensive post (thanks man!) https://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/28/world/asia/china-began-pu... specifically says this

"But 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"

Do you accept britain actually tried to do what you say it didn't? (edit: I'm not denying we did some really bad stuff, but we may have got it right that time)

Also in your original post you said

> Stressing only on freedom towards mainland people sounds as horrible as stressing only on order towards protesters

This is very hard for me to understand as a westerner. 'Freedom' means the ability for me to choose, as an adult individual, what I can do (within the constraints of not messing up the lives of others; basic morality). You seem to be saying that mainlander chinese are actually afraid of or repulsed by that? That they do not wish to have that ability to be themselves? I think I'm reading you wrong, could you give me an idea of what you're trying to say.

[duguxu]

> Do you accept britain actually tried to do what you say it didn't?

I tend to believe whatever a serious official document says. But notice there was serious corruption in the government of Hong Kong before 1970s and pressure also comes from British officials and businessmen. It’s hard for me to imagine Britain would just abandon democracy mainly because of Beijing’s pressure while at the same time be an anti-communism fortress for western bloc and proactively impose sanctions against mainland. On the other hand, it’s well known there are some controversies between London and Beijing in 1980s after the handover was determined. I think this sentence mixes these two periods together and is misleading if no further new evidence is provided.

> This is very hard for me to understand as a westerner.

It’s just an analogy. Is order a bad thing for you? Of course not. But I think most westerners wouldn’t regard “order only” in political background as just respecting rules and keeping tidy. Many words are sometimes overused with political agenda behind. Stressing ONLY something means extremism and no compromise at all for other good. I can’t follow your logic from this analogy to these weird conclusions. Chinese like freedom as much as you.

[tempguy9999]

> I tend to believe whatever a serious official document says. [...] and is misleading if no further new evidence is provided.

OK, so you accept it but reject it. OK. In case you're interested, if you'd followed the link you'd have seen this

"In it, Zhou says Beijing would regard allowing Hong Kong’s people to govern themselves as a “very unfriendly act,” says Cantlie. Not long thereafter, in 1960, Liao Chengzhi, China’s director of “overseas Chinese affairs,” told Hong Kong union representatives that China’s leaders would “not hesitate to take positive action to have Hong Kong, Kowloon and the New Territories liberated” if the Brits allowed self-governance:"

and also the original typewritten docs https://qz.com/279013/the-secret-history-of-hong-kongs-still... faded but readable.

> I can’t follow your logic from this analogy to these weird conclusions

It wasn't a conclusion, only questions. I just didn't understand what you're saying. I still don't. I was just asking for clarification.

> and proactively impose sanctions against mainland

As someone aware of british abuses of power (opium war etc) and like to know more, would you be kind enough to link to something showing that china had sanctions imposed on it by the UK at the time. I did some googling but found nothing (probably looking in the wrong place).

[duguxu]

> OK, so you accept it but reject it.

I had read them in Chinese. I accept these documents confirm Beijing opposed turning Hong Kong into a self-governed Dominion, which would probably soon become an independent country like Singapore. Very likely Beijing believed it's harder to integrate an independent polity than a handover from Britain in the future. It's more like a concern against independence in my opinion.

The opportunity for democracy I referred to is the kind of attempts like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young_Plan_(Hong_Kong) . Pressure from Beijing doesn't always make a proper excuse. It's misleading to dismiss the resistance and obstruction from Britain side. I am not trying to argue who is responsible, but considering the final results we have in history, the colony failed to justify with practical actions as a much better light of democracy as some protesters might think.

> I still don't

Some people may think "freedom" is freedom and "order" is order. But through radical propaganda, these could sounds like "freedom" is about riots and "order" is about crush for other people. That's why there should be some talking about shared values instead stressing only on one of them, even if it is absolutely good.

> would you be kind enough to link to something showing that china had sanctions imposed on it by the UK at the time.

My mistake, it's not just sanction but embargo. see https://www.mardep.gov.hk/theme/port_hk/en/p1ch6_1.html

[tempguy9999]

> I accept these documents confirm Beijing opposed turning Hong Kong into a self-governed Dominion

It didn't say that, it said it was an extension to introduce more democracy. Not 'self-governed Dominion'.

But the point was britain tried to give in the 1950s what you say it didn't until the 1980s, and it was down to chinese pressure - they threatened to invade!

I'll read up on the link to the young plan, thanks.

> It's misleading to dismiss the resistance and obstruction from Britain side

You keep throwing in this stuff without telling me what britain actually did. I can't respond - or learn - unless you give me proper information.

> the colony failed to justify with practical actions as a much better light of democracy as some protesters might think

Again, justify what? What practical actions? What do the protestors think? I literally don't understand what you're saying. I realise your english is infinitely better than my chinese is ever likely to be (regrettably!), I'm not criticising that, just asking you explain what you mean.

> But through radical propaganda, these could sounds like "freedom" is about riots and "order" is about crush for other people

Okay, you are exactly right, we have to be precise about meanings, and propaganda distorts. But I spelt out what freedom meant clearly, and I very carefully excluded rioting or other destructive behaviour. That is not tolerable in the west, same as anywhere. The reaction of UK politicians to images of that were real dismay and shock.

And I can (theoretically) make the case for chinese communism as a source of stability. Whether that kind of stability (which places the state above the individual) is something I would wish to live under or impose on others is quite another matter.

So let's talk - what are those shared values between east and west? This is a very important point you raise and I'd like to know because other than trivial stuff (looking after your kids etc) it would be important for me to understand where we unite, and divide.

> My mistake, it's not just sanction...

From memory, as I can't find the link, china was considered an aggressor by invading north korea, and it wasn't just the UK but a large collection of countries that embargoed/sanctioned it (seems the words mean much the same thing here, I had to look up the distinction!). It wasn't just the UK by any means (if you want a ref, just ask, I can't find it right now).

But yes, rights and wrongs aside, the fact there was a uk-supported embargo and china still threatened to invade, is interesting and I can't explain it. Point taken.

[duguxu]

Sorry for my bad English! I will try my best to explain everything you don't understand although I can't promise I could make it. First of all, I have been concentrating on the topic of a more effective propaganda. Whether you like or not, these are the real thoughts of a portion of people targeted. Please pay attention to tell apart the discussion of tactics of propaganda from my personal political view.

> It didn't say that, it said it was an extension to introduce more democracy. Not 'self-governed Dominion'.

Read the first image of https://qz.com/279013/the-secret-history-of-hong-kongs-still...

> You keep throwing in this stuff without telling me what Britain actually did. I can't respond - or learn - unless you give me proper information.

Read the Young plan.

> Again, justify what? What practical actions? What do the protesters think? I literally don't understand what you're saying.

Some protesters think the colony is a good symbol of democracy. Many mainlanders disagree. Because to prove colony really cared about democracy, abandoned plan is not enough, and practical action records are required, like limited democratic legitimacy for a small area within Beijing's tolerance. I can't see how China wound invade just because of any small-scale democratic experiment.

> But I spelt out what freedom meant clearly, and I very carefully excluded rioting or other destructive behaviour.

I noticed that. I believe we would agree with each other on freedom and many other values most of the time. I am not arguing with you on the difference between us or between protesters and tourists. The point I raised is that some propaganda towards mainlanders did distort, without spelling out the meaning clearly and excluding extremism carefully, and this is bad, even if their heart is good, that's all.

> From memory, as I can't find the link, china was considered an aggressor by invading north Korea, and it wasn't just the UK but a large collection of countries that embargoed/sanctioned it (seems the words mean much the same thing here, I had to look up the distinction!). It wasn't just the UK by any means (if you want a ref, just ask, I can't find it right now).

Nobody denies this. It's in the name of United Nations and everyone knows Uncle Sam is the leader of the embargo. What I want to say is, Hong Kong was strong enough at that time to neglect certain pressure from the mainland and push Britain's policy.

[duguxu]

it’s UN sanctions against China during Korean war. i will add more reply later.

[hker]

> > They could only examine prima facie evidence, a much lower bar than guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

> How low is that? Do you have some serious materials easy to read on this issue?

This entry on Prima Facie may be helpful [1], though perhaps a bit light.

On a related note, Hong Kong’s conviction rate is just 50% [2], so statistically speaking prima facie is a much lower bar than guilt beyond a reasonable doubt in Hong Kong. Moreover, one additional concern is that cases could be made-up for extradition, such as the case for Gui Minhai in the Causeway Bay Books disappearances [3], making it much easier to produce prima facie evidence for extradition. For a more relevant essay on the difference between Hong Kong’s and Chinese legal system especially on the issue of anti-extradition and the (lack of) independent jurisdiction, see [4] in Chinese.

[1]: https://legaldictionary.net/prima-facie/

[2]: https://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/law-crime/article/183380...

[3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causeway_Bay_Books_disappearan...

[4]: https://www.master-insight.com/內地法制難被接受：法院為何不敢做「無罪判決」/

> I think mainland people never deny Hong Kong's superiority on juridical system. Tourists would have a great interest knowing how it works and make Hong Kong a great success in business. However, it's superficial and hateful to propaganda just by focusing on familiar things and pretending nobody knows.

Thanks for your opinion. There is no denying that the protestors could do better in conveying their message, but arguably their audience, the mainlanders, is so diverse that sometimes it is hard to satisfy everyone. But the protestors would try I think.

> > a proper legal system and accountable democracy are the key to long term stability

> Every sensible protester knows the importance of stability. But to get more support by propaganda, instead of taking it for granted, there's a lot to explain along the way between their behavior and the value both side shares. For certain group of people, it's not as obvious as the protesters see.

Thanks for the words. Yes, even among protestors, there are values that is more obvious to some but less obvious to others, so your view is completely understandable.