And HK people's lives were almost unbearable under the tycoons' feudalism, which has nothing to do with Beijing.
And HK people's lives were almost unbearable under the tycoons' feudalism, which has nothing to do with Beijing.
Perhaps because China declared that they'd invade if HK was allowed to self-govern?
https://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/28/world/asia/china-began-pu...
"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.
"The documents, part of a batch of typewritten diplomatic dispatches requested by reporters from two Hong Kong newspapers, reveal that 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."
Of course, British has its own interests, while China also has its own interests. In the end, HK is part of China, and it should be returned to China fully. If British consider Hong Kong's freedom is more important, maybe they should went to war with China instead.
Compare the Google searches:
- "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."
[1] leads to the New York Times article, which I can follow its references.
- "All major democratic reforms for Hong Kong were dropped by British Cabinet decision." [2] does not lead to any credible source. In fact, some of the sites appear to be disinformation campaigns (don’t take my words, judge for yourself).
[1]: https://www.google.com/search?q=%22the+colonial+governors+wh...[2]: https://www.google.com/search?q=%22All+major+democratic+refo...
What is your argument here? They did not had democracy before so they should not complain to not have it now? How twisted is that.
Also, I don't think claiming your constitutional right to democracy can be tagged as "ridiculous". Universal suffrage and democratic election are parts of the "Basic law", the equivalent of the constitution, that the PRC signed as part of the handover "deal".
Why can't it be something else entirely?
This comment is context free: missing critical historical contexts (if not outright misleading).
1967 was at the height of the Cultural Revolution in China, when it was spreading to Hong Kong [1], Macau [2], and elsewhere.
Notably, the local communists (CCP supporters) planted roadside bombs during the 1967 Riots [1], causing 15 deaths and 800+ injuries in Hong Kong.
The Wikipedia articles [1][2] have more details.