Let's not be so naive. The UK/US only want democracy when they think the elected government will be pliant to their interests. Look at what has happened in Palestine; the West is strangling the hell out of the democratically elected Hamas government. Look at Venezuela; the US tried to overthrow Chavez, who was democratically elected. The Cold War is littered with instances of the US overthrowing democratically elected governments because they were leftist; Iran-Contra anyone? Planting democracy in HK was an act of imperialism by the UK. They wanted a territory that would bow to their wishes on the border of Communist China. Essentially, it's an extension of the Cold War; too bad for you, we've won this battle and squished your plan of "democracy" a.k.a re-established Western hegemony over HK.
No, it's not about the US or any specific country. It's about government propaganda, period, through manipulation or outright control of the media.
^ Sure the West have been hypocrites when it comes to democracy that doesn't mean though that its a bad thing in and of itself. I agree that Chris Patten instituted democracy in Hong Kong largely to stick it to the PRC. That doesn't mean that the peple of Hong Kong shouldn't have democracy. Also in regard to why the PRC should consider living up to its agreement and grant democracy to Hong Kong is that would be the best way of reasurring Taiwan to rejoin. As long as the PRC doesn't live up to what it agreed to there is no guarentee for the people of Taiwan that the PRC would allow them to maintain their democratic system.
It's unlikely Taiwan would trust China after their state media has portrayed them as childish and traitorous dogs for the past 20+ years. More likely would be China meddling with their election process and influencing the most corrupt politician available.
The farce of seeking democracy in Hong Kong has got to be the joke of the century. For more than 150 years prior to its return to the motherland, Hong Kongers were never allowed to elect their own governor, not even once. Mind you, the capitalist system and "The Way of Life", as promised in the Sino-British Joint Declaration, have been preserved to their utmost integrities since Hong Kong's handover to PRC. Hong Kong, meanwhile, is more prosperous than ever. Even with all their decade-old gloom and doom predictions going down the toilet, the naysayers never got tired of stirring the pot. The protesters are free to go back to live under their old colonial master in Great Britain. Oh, make sure not to wear bulky jacket when boarding London subway, to avoid being shot five times in the noggin.
And that matters because?? Look, we all admit the motives for democracy in Hong Kong were very sketchy when it was implemented. But that doesn't mean democracy is bad nor does it give China an excuse to suspend democracy after it was promised to Hong Kong when it joined China. China's capitalist too, its not like they've done anything special for Hong Kong. What "way of life" is there in Hong Kong that's any different from Shanghai? how is this an argument as to why democracy shouldn't be implemented in Hong Kong after it was promised to them? These are all irrelevant statements that don't answer the core of the question. China promised democracy and now they're dragging their feet. Oh and nice red herring there with the London subway thing. Because only in democracies do things like that happen.
It was written into Hong Kong's law. However, there's debate over how to interpret it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hong_Kong_Basic_Law_Article_45
Sorry, this does not in any way shape or form alter the meaning of Preserving The Way of Life, which is the crux of the Sino-British Joint Declaration, and the condition under which Hong Kongers have been living, for decades.
What? The Hong Kong Basic Law was the constitutional document ratified by the PRC in 1997. It serves as the constitution for Hong Kong today. If ratifying a document promising a transition to universal suffrage for elections of the executive doesn't mean anything, then that raises a whole host of other issues. The Chinese openly agreed to this when they signed that document, that joint declaration doesn't have the force of law and frankly doesn't mean much anymore since it was a statement of intentions and principles that were fleshed out in the constitution.
Heh, come to think of it, Demonstration against the British Crown and British colonial rule was punishable by imprisonment in Hong Kong under colonial rule. In colonial Hong Kong, criticism of British imperialism and colonialism was subject to criminal prosecution. In post-colonial Hong Kong, criticism of China and its socialist system is celebrated as a defense of democratic freedom. thats nice
the ever shrinking numbers at the demonstrations don't seem to indicate so. from 500k in the first year to 50k. You'd figure it would be growing if things were that bad.
Which is why it would be important for the PRC to make gestures that assuage Taiwan's fears. Honoring in full the agreement on Hong Kong would go a long way towards convincing the people in Taiwan that the PRC would be willing to allow them to maintain their system.
My impression of Hong Kong is that that is highly doubtful. I think most of residents of Hong Kong would prefer to be part of the PRC as long as they have some protections on rights and liberties. There is some nostalgia for Brit rule but at the same time thre were many who resented Brit rule. At this point though I think nearly everyone in Hong Kong recognizes that its future is with the PRC and its a matter of what sort of future that will be.
To follow up on my last point I don't think the pro-democracy protests should be mistaken as protests for British rule. It seems like many are arguing that democracy represents some sort of longing for western colonialism when it is more about the desire of the people of Hong Kong to have their own say in self government.
sorry the intent of my post was to show that HK people don't really hate the PRC as much as some think, since IMO those pro-democracy protests are as much a protest for democracy as it is anti-PRC.
You may want to read again, but there is no specific time line stipulated in the Basic Law governing Hong Kong SAR with regard to the selection of Chief Executive by universal suffrage. No promise has been broken by the Central Government of PRC as far as I can see. Frankly I'd have more sympathy towards their grievances if the same *democracy*-seekers had been mightily engaging in status upgrade during the British colonial era. But hell no, if they were content with their perpetual 2nd-class citizenry in the good ol' days, their newly found motivation for democracy deserves no more than a good laugh. Further, it's not like they have to put up or shut up. As pointed out by other posters, the mere fact they are allowed to demonstrate freely is a living proof that Hong Kongers are enjoying unprecedented liberty that could only be Hollywood fantasy under Imperialist British rule.
overwhelming majority of HKers hate the Brits, glad to have evicted the opium dealers. for the most part, HKers are competitive souls; just don't be treated as children, not able to make decisions for themselves.
