[jcytong]

It's mostly CCP propaganda though if you actually talk to HK people and see how the majority of them tried to work within the system to "make the change" since the early 90s and fight for what was promised in the Basic Law[1] which was drafted by a committee with 36 representatives from China and 23 from HK. It promised that the Chief Executive of HK and its legislative council to be formed by an election.[2]

The Chief Executive election has been delayed for 2 decades requiring the CCP to "pre-filter" candidates which the public rejected.

The legislative council election has been controlled by disqualifying candidates as well as the mass arrest of 53 pro-democracy candidates for simply organizing the primaries and engaging in debates. [3]

TLDR; China wasn't as strong in 90s so took a softer stance. Later decided to go back on its words so had to find ways to control the elections or the results.

> No real death in over an year of violent protests by police firing in Hong Kong vs 5 deaths in capitol building siege speaks volumes about the professionalism with which Hong Kong police handled the protests.

This is not true. After witnessing the 2019 movement and the real police behavior captured on live tv/news[4], I have a much better understanding of the Stanford prisoner experiment.

[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hong_Kong_Basic_Law [2]https://www.basiclaw.gov.hk/en/basiclawtext/chapter_4.html [3]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_Hong_Kong_Legislative_Cou... [4]https://tl.hkrev.info/en/police-timeline/

[dragonsh]

There are two sides of coin in HK. People who supported violent protestors and people who didn’t. Like any other society some support govt and some do not.

People who support govt and not protestors their shops, restaurants, businesses vandalised and were constantly harassed. It became politically impossible to voice against the protestors due to fear of violence, know this first hand not by talking but living through it.

Please read the Basic Law and also the extradition bill [1]. Extradition being better was still opposed and ultimately National security law was passed to give teeth to administration to stop violent protests.

It’s the vehement majority of Hong Kong people who gave rights to reinterpret Basic Law to stem the flow of people from mainland China (since court of final appeal was going to allow spouses and children of Hong Kong residents from other parts of China to settle in HK). This is the same provision used for implementing National security law. So in HK people got what they asked for and also majority Chinese supported this action on HK. So like any democracy like USA and India a law which appease majority pass easily same happened here.

[1] https://www.legco.gov.hk/yr18-19/english/bills/b201903291.pd...

[hkmaxpro]

> It’s the vehement majority of Hong Kong people who gave rights to reinterpret Basic Law to stem the flow of people from mainland China (since court of final appeal was going to allow spouses and children of Hong Kong residents from other parts of China to settle in HK)

> So in HK people got what they asked for and also majority Chinese supported this action on HK. So like any democracy like USA and India a law which appease majority pass easily same happened here.

Both statements are false. The first reinterpretation of the Basic Law on the right of adobe in 1999 wasn’t the result of ANY DEMOCRATIC PROCESS involving the majority of Hong Kongers.

Some polls may show that a large fraction of Hong Kongers prefer the RESULTING VERDICT on right of adobe, but the reinterpretation is unlike any democratic process as in the US or India, that has a rigorous and formal voting process. And certainly not a majority of Hong Kongers support repeated interpretations of the basic law by people not directly elected in Hong Kong.

The end doesn’t justify the means. You have confused the end and the means.

[dragonsh]

> The first reinterpretation of the Basic Law on the right of adobe in 1999

You mean Hong Kong people wholeheartedly supported the spouses and Children to settle in Hong Kong from other parts of China in millions?

Even if you support violent protestors please don't be double face, even during one year of protests there was a constant call for throwing people from other parts of China back to China from Hong Kong, they were called locusts and what not.

The reinterpretation had a majority support of Hong Kong people and they liked that Tung Chee Hwa was able to stem the flow (instead of court of final appeal which in earlier ruling allowed spouses and childrent to settle in HK) and make it limited to 150 people / day instead of over million moving to HK.

> Democratic Process

Hong Kong is not a democracy, UK never granted it autonomy and always controlled it with appointed chief executive. With handover at least China made the committee which selected the chief executive. So not sure which is more democratic an appointed head by UK or a person elected by people from various sections of society (although it's flawed as most or rich and has allegiance to China, but it's still better than what UK had in Hong Kong).

[hkmaxpro]

> reinterpretation had a majority support of Hong Kong people

Source for your claim?

Contrary to your claim, “The Democratic Party strongly believes that reinterpretation of the Basic Law by the NPCSC is unacceptable” https://books.google.com/books?id=1nccBAAAQBAJ&pg=PA348&lpg=...

> UK never granted it autonomy and always controlled it with appointed chief executive

UK didn’t grant democracy to Hong Kong because of the threat from China. China is to blame, not UK.

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

> 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.

> Chinese leaders were so opposed to the prospect of a democratic Hong Kong that they threatened to invade should London attempt to change the status quo.