Hacker News Reader

Comment by daddylonglegs | Hacker News Reader

Rather like the City of London then [1] - not the only similarity between the two places. I think the system dates to British rule in Hong Kong, which became partly democratic rather late in the day.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City_of_London#Elections note: this is the City of London (~1 square mile) not the metropolis.

Edit: ninja'd by louthy and djcapelis

View on HN

Towards the end of British rule in Hong Kong the Brits sought to make HK more democratic but were rebuffed by Beijing, as in the 1960s [1].

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

The original source of this narrative is VJMedia.hk [1], popularized by QZ in English web [2]. VJMedia is operated by RongLeQi who was a member of the League of Social Democrats at the time, aka pro-democrat party who participated in the LegCo oath-taking controversy. Unsurprisingly, it's a fairly biased and disingenuous interpretation of FCO40/327 and the Thatcher memo that border on propaganda. The primary sources quoted in the article has nothing to do with democratic reforms but UK seeking HK sovereignty as a self-governing dominion like Singapore (not just democratic reforms) as an alternative to handover because it would stabilize investor fears - the concerns were purely economic. Obviously China would reject this proposal which basically tried to circumvent handover by making HK dejure independent in 1997. The reason why UK/Patten introduced some democratic reforms near handover was a last minute effort to maintain some political and economic influence over the colony. There was never any effort in the 60s to grant HK democracy within the context of Extension of Hong Kong Territory lease - they asked for sovereignty which was never an option - and what little that was given was a last minute geopolitical power play.

[1] https://www.vjmedia.com.hk/articles/2014/01/11/60039

[2] https://qz.com/279013/the-secret-history-of-hong-kongs-still...

Is there a problem with a de jure independent HK like Singapore, if so I can’t see one. I’m not saying Beijing would agree to be sure.

The greater context according to FCO40/327 (1960s source), "self-government" was actually suggested by the US, probably in context of cold-war containment, the Chinese viewed it as US imperialism. More importantly in the Thatcher memo, I think Deng pretty much states the legitimacy of the CPC rests on it's ability to reunite HK and if that didn't happen the CPC should just disband. There's also no geopolitical benefit to ceding territory, especially developed metropolis to ideological opponents.

> There's also no geopolitical benefit to ceding territory, especially developed metropolis to ideological opponents.

I think that can be true, but it's a difficult needle to thread. I don't know there's huge geopolitical benefit in holding onto a tiny outcrop of land that actively rebels against you on the regular and causes trouble. It's pretty insignificant these days in the bigger picture of the PRC except to your point the CPC's ego rests on it.

As I see it, it's mainly because not that many people live in the City, and this enfranchises employees.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com