Comment by JumpCrisscross | Hacker News Reader

Comment by JumpCrisscross | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

> Could someone explain my why they really protest?

Vox recently made a good video on the topic [1].

In 1984, Beijing agreed with Britain that after the handoff in 1997, China would respect Hong Kong’s political system [2]. Hence, Deng Xiaoping’s “one country, two systems” [3].

Beijing is breaking that agreement. It already tried abduction [4]. Now it wants to be able to extradite anyone to China to be tried in Chinese courts.

This is problematic. Hong Kong, like Japan, Taiwan, Britain and America, has an independent judiciary where the government must prove its case. So if a dissident is tried in Hong Kong, prosecutors have to prove their case in a relatively fair court.

Chinese courts are party instruments. (Consider that there is no way to enforce Hong Kong’s rights under the 1984 agreement.) Under the proposed legislation, said dissident would be shipped to China where a rubber-stamp conviction could be sought.

[1] https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=MQyxG4vTyZ8

[2] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transfer_of_sovereignty_over...

[3] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_country,_two_systems

[4] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causeway_Bay_Books_disappear...

> Beijing is breaking that agreement.

You forgot China having to approve candidates in Hong Kong elections: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-32397179

The agreement between China and UK was for 50 years, so by right China can start changing things totally in 2047. So the issue is China is 28 years too early.

Why the downvote? The Wikipedia article even backs it up: "The Basic Law ensured Hong Kong will retain its capitalist economic system and own currency (the Hong Kong Dollar), legal system, legislative system, and people's rights and freedom for fifty years, as a special administrative region (SAR) of China." -- https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_country,_two_systems

In that first video he states Hong Kong was leased to Britain for 99 years. Not exactly true. Hong Kong Island was seized like Gibraltar. Only the New Territories were leased. (the footage admittedly corrects this).

"The lease consisted of the rest of Kowloon south of the Shenzhen River and 230 islands, which became known as the New Territories. The British formally took possession on 16 April 1899." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Hong_Kong#Growth_and_e...

Note that, besides dissidents and the obvious human rights risks, major international firms have often used Hong Kong as a regional headquarters for their Southeast Asian business (or just as a headquarters generally). This is also threatened, as these businesses thrive in an environment defined by capitalism, property rights, and the rule of law — rather than government-run enterprise, property seizure, and the whims of China's rulers.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/12/business/hong-kong-china-...

https://www.cnn.com/2019/06/11/asia/hong-kong-extradition-ch...

https://www.afr.com/news/world/asia/labor-business-alarmed-b...

> Now it wants to be able to extradite anyone to China to be tried in Chinese courts.

That's not true.

> It allows for extradition requests from authorities in mainland China, Taiwan and Macau for suspects accused of serious criminal wrongdoing such as murder and rape. The requests would then be decided on a case-by-case basis. [1]

[1] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-48591001

You would have to be a credulous fool to expect that the Chinese government would not manufacture “criminal wrongdoings” for political purposes. Therefore, the GP post is essentially correct.

Case-by-case basis is a slippery slope to unchecked power. Let’s also not pretend that China hasn’t fabricated charges against those it doesn’t like (e.g. Ai Weiwei’s “tax fraud”).

Lastly, as sad as it is freedom has a price (not just in the military sense as often echoed stateside). Sometimes that price is death without what everyone would called justice (which in this case is extradition). Abraham Lincoln’s words, you will have situations where people will be “sacrifices on the altar of freedom.”

https://www.legco.gov.hk/yr18-19/english/bills/brief/b201903...

How is China the one violating the agreement when it's the Hong Kong Legislative Council passing the extradition law.

I mean even the protesters are protesting against __their__ legislative council. [0]

[0] "forced the city’s legislature to postpone debate on a widely unpopular bill"

> How is China the one violating the agreement when it's the Hong Kong Legislative Council passing the extradition law

China selects the chief executive [1]. Opposition members were recently removed from the Legislative Council [2]. The law is wildly unpopular.

[1] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/mar/24/hong-kong-sele...

[2] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jul/14/hong-kong-pro-...

The HK legislature and executive aren't democratically elected, but directly or indirectly chosen by Beijing. Moreover, Beijing's control over the legislature was increased when they "reinterpreted" the agreement and removed several pro-democratic legislators a few years ago.

Beijing wants this law passed, Beijing controls the political future of those who with the power to pass the bill. The HK citizenry oppose the bill.

China is the one pushing the law. Influencing and eroding the HK political system to make it so they have more say over what HK people can say and do.

They've been slowly taking freedoms away from HK since the Xi Jinping got into office and declared himself President for life.

I am unsure why beijing would be obligated to make any promises to UK as they are essentially just taking back their property after a lease ended?

To ensure a smooth transfer and a certain degree of self-determination for the people who lived there, were reasonsably content with the existing set-up and would have been most unhappy if the UK had simply washed its hands and disapeared.

China made these promises in part to assure the residents of Hong Kong (and international observers) that their rights would be respected, and also to prevent economic collapse caused by businesses deeming the island an unsafe place to do business.

What most people call Hong Kong consists of three major areas: Hong Kong Island, Kowloon, and New Territories.

Hong Kong Island (where majority of people live) was given to UK with no lease limits. Kowloon and New Territories were leased to UK for 99 years in 1898. So, in theory UK only needed to return Kowloon and New Territories. Of course, this wasn’t practical. It’s like giving Manhattan to another country but keeping Queens and Brooklyn. So in 1994 UK agree to return all 3 (Hong Kong Island, Kowloon, and New Territories) in 1997.

Kowloon south of Boundary street was also ceded in perpetuity to the UK in 1860. Kowloon north of boundary street was leased for 99 years in 1898. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boundary_Street

They weren't just taking back their property after a lease ended. The UK had leased the New Territories, but the Kowloon peninsula and Hong Kong island had been ceded. When the lease expired, the UK could have given back the New Territories and kept the rest, but it was agreed to hand over the whole lot.

That agreement was part of a deal which also included "one country, two systems".

Well they did sign an internationally binding agreement over how Hong Kong would be treated after handover.

They already made the promises, and lodged them with the UN.

Now they are breaking those treaties.

Because they signed the Sino-British Joint Declaration: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-British_Joint_Declaration

Reply on news.ycombinator.com