The Urban Council was the colonial British council that was completely elected by universal suffrage: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urban_Council
The system today only came about because of the handover.
Also note:
> The People's Republic of China government did not agree with reforms to the Legislative Council enacted in 1994. Therefore, it withdrew the previous so-called "through-train" policy that would have meant that members elected to the colonial Legislative Council would automatically become members of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region ("HKSAR") legislature. Instead, the Chinese government resolved to set up an alternative legislative council in preparation for the return of the sovereignty of Hong Kong from Britain to China. This body, the Provisional Legislative Council, was established by the Preparatory Committee for the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (HKSAR) under the National People's Congress of the People's Republic of China in 1996.[6] The Provisional Legislative Council, in operation from 25 January 1997 to 30 June 1998, initially held its meetings in Shenzhen until 30 June 1997.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legislative_Council_of_Hong_Ko...
And how is my message not true? The current system is a direct descendant of the British colonial one and your link is pretty explicit about it. Of course, PRC would like to keep the opaque, convoluted and easily influenced system, which British had. No surprises here.
The 1994 changes were pretty substantial:
> When Chris Patten arrived, the Legislative Council (LegCo) was composed of only 18 directly elected seats from the Geographical Constituencies (GCs), 21 Functional Constituencies (FCs) mostly selected by the powerful elite groups in Hong Kong, 17 members appointed by the governor, 3 ex officio members (namely the chief secretary, attorney general, and financial secretary) and the governor himself as the President of the LegCo.
> The electoral method of the 1995 Legislative Council was fixed under the Basic Law, the mini constitution of Hong Kong after 1997, with only 20 directly elected seats from the geographical constituencies, 30 functional constituencies, and 10 seats elected by an election committee. To broaden the democratic structure of LegCo under such a framework, Patten had to find room under the Joint Declaration and the Basic Law.
> On 7 October 1992 during his inaugural policy address to the Legislative Council, Chris Patten announced his 1994-95 electoral arrangements. The proposal included:[3]
- "single seat, single constituency" measure should be applied in geographical constituency elections including the Legislative Council, Municipal Councils and District Boards;
-Lowering the minimum voting age from 21 to 18;
-Abolishing all appointed seats on the District Boards and Municipal Councils;
-Removing all the restrictions on local delegates to China's National People's Congress to stand for election;
-Broadening the franchise of certain existing functional constituencies by replacing corporate voting with individual voting;
-A total of 9 Contemporary functional constituency seats should be brought up so as to let about 2.7 million people have the right to vote; and
- Introducing an Election Committee of District Board members to return 10 members to the Legislative Council.
> In this way, Patten extended the definition of functional constituencies and thus virtually every Hong Kong subject was able to vote for the so-called indirectly elected members of the Legislative Council.
Even so, even if you say the current LegCo is descended from the pre-handover one, the pre-handover LegCo was one of the things that the British negotiated with China.
Sounds like HKers are working hard for it and on a legal basis it's their right to make their own law within Basic Law , so what's your point here?
It does, article one states HK should have high degree of autonomy and etc...
Furthermore, article 23 states that HK should make their own national security law, not China.
> It does, article one states HK should have high degree of autonomy and etc...
Wow. This may be the single most dishonest thing I've ever seen someone post to HN!
For reference, here is the actual text, in full, of Article 1 of the Basic Law:
> The Hong Kong Special Administrative Region is an inalienable part of the People's Republic of China.
( https://www.basiclaw.gov.hk/en/basiclawtext/chapter_1.html )
This has no effect other than denying Hong Kong the right to become autonomous.
Relative to what? Relative to what they had in place before? Or relative to some system you've dreamed up?