“We are basically seeing the Hong Kong government trying to slam shut the really last vestiges of room for criticizing it,” said Kevin Yam, one of 13 overseas pro-democracy activists accused of national security offenses by Hong Kong authorities.
When Britain returned Hong Kong to Chinese rule in 1997, Beijing assured the former colonial power that civil liberties in the city would be preserved.
On Saturday, Hong Kong enacted a measure that critics charge will further stifle free expression in a city that until recently was known for its freewheeling style, aggressive media and politically active populace.
The bill, called the Safeguarding National Security Ordinance but also referred to as the Article 23 law, took effect following unanimous approval earlier this week by Hong Kong’s opposition-free legislature, where it was deliberated over and passed in a record 11 days.
Article 23 is designed to supplement an earlier national security law Beijing imposed on Hong Kong in 2020, one that critics say supercharged the erosion of civil liberties here.
China in the 1980’s: “if you give us back Hong Kong, we’ll take good care of it…”
UK: “ok sounds good. Here you go!”
Kinda sounds silly. Don’t ya think?
I don’t think anyone was under any illusions. Britain didn’t have a choice or any leverage. It was a 99 year lease so there was no legal claim to keep HK and the UK wasn’t going to war with modern China. China could have just taken it if Britain set a bunch of terms.
Before the handover, they just basically offered Hong Kong residents the right to move to England. Canada, Australia, and the U.S. had special rules for immigrants from HK. (Probably other countries too.)
Technically only some of HK was under the lease, some was indefinitely controlled by the British. However, you’re still right because of the military force difference.
Not just an issue of military forces. The New Territories were where all the water supplies for Hong Kong Island were located. It would have been a completely untenable situation once the 99 year lease ran out.
Hong Kong Island and Kowloon were annexed as booty from the Opium Wars. The New Territories were leased at the point of a gun.
All were inextricably bound to China long before 1997 as they depended on it for both water and electricity.
Yeah, I’m not justifying the annexation.
Lord hear me now
Junk boats and English boys
Crashing out in super marts
Electric fences and guns
You swallow me
I’m a pill on your tongue
Here on the nineteenth floor
The neon lights make me come
And late in a star’s life
It begins to explode
And all the people in a dream
Wait for the machine
Pick the shit up leave it clean
Kid, hang over here
What you learning in school?
Is the rise of an Eastern sun
Gonna be good for everyone?
The radio station disappears
Music turning to thin air
The DJ was the last to leave
She had well conditioned hair,
Was beautiful, but nothing really was there
Are you aware that China only leased hong kong to Britain? They didn’t have much of a choice in giving it back to China due to the treaty. I linked a summary of the history for you below.
https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/britain-agrees-to-return-hong-kong-to-china
Edit: looks like some people don’t care for inconvenient things like historical fact and upholding treaties between sovereign nations. Lol.
TL;DR: Only New Territories is leased for 99 years, remaining part of Hong Kong is ceased. So the statement is partly correct.
About “China only leased Hong Kong to Britain” is partly correct, and here is why:
After the first opium war, Hong Kong Island (including Aberdeen Island/Ap Lei Chau and surrounding islands) was cesed to British under Treaty of Nanking, which stated that
Wikipedia source
Treaty source
Then, after the second opium war, Kowloon Peninsula was cesed under Convention of Peking, which stated:
Convention source
Wikipedia source
Note: Kowloon Peninsula was leased initially, but latter ceased to British, see cite 1.
So , the remaining part of Hong Kong, the New Territories, is leased under The Convention Between Great Britain and China Respecting an Extension of Hong Kong Territory , but English translation is not available, so here is a machine translated version:
Convention source
Wikipedia source
To sum up, only the New Territories is leased and the remaining part is ceased. For more detail, please read Cession of Hong Kong from wikipedia (Chinese Version only, you may use machine translation)
Map of Hong Kong
Cite 1:
Chapter 2 British Occupation of Hong Kong and the Establishment of the Colonial System from A Brief History of Hong Kong—From Ancient Times to the 1997 Handover, by 劉智鵬; 劉蜀永, ISBN 978-962-937-420-4.
To pretend that the Brits “leased” Hong Kong like it’s a mutual transaction and not because of colonization and the Opium wars is utterly idiotic.
The Brits had a choice when they funneled Opium into China in exchange of silver. They had a choice when they pointed a gun to the Chinese for taking the New Territories.
The Brits had a choice… is it a moral choice? No… but they had a choice.
The Brits taking Hong Kong from China is a huge stain in history. But to pretend that Brits are going to have any say after giving the territory back - also sounds ridiculously stupid.
Unlike you, someone was kind enough to show what I had gotten right and what I had gotten wrong. I’ve thanked them for helping correct my knowledge. You, on the other hand, are welcome to shove it.
Thank you for correcting my inaccuracies and not being a dick while doing so, I hope you have a good day kind stranger.