Historum - History Forums  

Go Back   Historum - History Forums > Blogs > jttwong
Register Forums Blogs Social Groups Mark Forums Read


Rate this Entry

China vs. Democracy: How China Stopped HK's Democratization in the 1990s

Posted May 9th, 2013 at 12:51 PM by jttwong

In the city of Hong Kong, debates over the Chinese influence on the city's democratization is again raging. Want to raise some awareness by showing ppl a chapter of HK's democratization that ended because of Chinese intervention. Today, HK's legislative body is elected by 35 by geographic constituency (western-style proportional democracy) and 30 by functional constituency (rich people who represent companies voting for themselves and employees)

Hong Kong's last governor Baron Patten of Barnes proposed reforms that gave Hong Kong a fully representative government (19 de facto directly elected seats, 21 functional constituencies elected by employees instead of employers, 10 seats elected by a body itself elected by universal suffrage)

China used an 3-violation argument to claim these reforms were illegitimate. violating the Sino-British Joint Declaration (SBJD), Basic Law & a supposed Sino-British consensus on HK's democracy. However, these agreements are invalid.

Why China is wrong abt Patten violating SBJD:
1) they claim HK's democracy must be gradual. however, one cannot define gradual.
2) Patten interrupted HK's peaceful transition. however, it was china that held HK's infrastructure hostage to trade for stopping democratization, threatened a military invasion and attacked HK ppl's confidence in a way it crashed the stock market.
3) Patten should have consulted with the British; however, Britain, not China was the ruling power at the time. Britain did not need consult China to democratize HK if they choose not to.

Why China is wrong abt the Basic Law:
1) Patten claim HK violated the executive led 'spirit' of the Basic Law; however, these words 'executive led' never appeared in the Basic Law
2) misuse of the District Boards (the institution elected by universal suffrage used to elect 10 seats); however, their claims were predicated upon the arguing the definition of a 'political organ;' again, an ambiguous term

Why China is wrong abt the consensus:
1) there was no consensus; Britain proposed a plan, China NEVER ACCEPTED IT; no need explaining right?
2) the 'consensus' was a series of letters between the respective Foreign Ministers; however, it was NOT a treaty according to the definition of a binding treaty under international law; therefore, even if there was a 'consensus', it is not binding
« Prev     Main     Next »
Total Comments 0

Comments

 

Remove Ads


Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.