Thousands of Hong Kong students start week-long boycott

[nimo_cn]

We can have never ending debate on this issue, what matters how the local Hong Kongers and free world at large interpret the articles of agreement. I am posting the following for you to read several times before replying to my post. It seems to me you are twisting the facts to suit your thinking where as I am of different opinion.

The Government of the HKSAR will be composed of local inhabitants but the chief executive will be appointed by the Central People's Government on the basis of the results of elections or consultations to be held locally, and he will nominate the principal officials. Furthermore the legislature of the HKSAR shall be constituted by elections.

It says chief executive will be appointed by CCP on the basis of elections.

The demonstrators are fighting to retain the right to choose the candidates for the elections where as CCP wants to impose choice of candidates which is not part of agreement in the treaty. It does not matter what you or your CCP thugs say. Does it anywhere states that CCP will nominate the candidates for election if not than why CCP thugs cannot stick to the original spirit of the agreement instead of twisting it as you are doing by posting the posts?









Content of the Joint DeclarationEdit
Joint Declaration

The Sino-British Joint Declaration consists of eight paragraphs, three Annexes about the Basic Policies regarding Hong Kong, the Sino–British Joint Liaison Group and the Land Leases as well as the two Memoranda of the two sides. Each part has the same status, and "The whole makes up a formal international agreement, legally binding in all its parts. An international agreement of this kind is the highest form of commitment between two sovereign states."[7] Within these declarations the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region shall be directly under the authority of the Central People's Government of the PRC and shall enjoy a high degree of autonomy except for foreign and defence affairs. It shall be allowed to have executive, legislative and independent judicial power, including that of final adjudication. The Basic Law explains that in addition to Chinese, English may also be used in organs of government and that apart from the national flag and national emblem of the PRC the HKSAR may use a regional flag and emblem of its own. It shall maintain the capitalist economic and trade systems previously practised in Hong Kong. The PRC declared that the basic policies regarding Hong Kong are as follows:

National unity and territorial integrity shall be upheld and a Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (HKSAR) shall be established.
The HKSAR will be directly under the authority of the Central People's Government of the PRC and will enjoy a high degree of autonomy, except in foreign and defence affairs.
It will be vested with executive, legislative and independent judicial power (including that of final adjudication) and the laws currently in force in Hong Kong will remain basically unchanged.

Not just the current social and economic system in Hong Kong will remain unchanged, also the life-style and rights and freedoms, including those of the person, of speech, of the press, of assembly, of association, of travel, of movement, of correspondence, of strike, of demonstration, of choice of occupation, of academic research and of religious belief, inviolability of the home, the freedom to marry, the right to raise a family freely. Those will be ensured by law as well as the private property, ownership of enterprises, legitimate right of inheritance and foreign investment.
The Hong Kong Special Administration Region will retain the status of a free port and a separate customs territory. It can continue the free trade policy, including free movement of goods and capital.
The HKSAR will retain the status of an international financial centre with free flow of capital and the Hong Kong dollar remaining freely convertible. The HKSAR may authorise designated banks to issue or continue to issue Hong Kong currency under statutory authority.
It will have independent finances with its own budgets and final accounts, but reporting it to the Central People's Government. Additionally the Central People's Government will not levy taxes on it.
The HKSAR may establish mutually beneficial economic relations with the United Kingdom and other countries.
The name used for international relations will be 'Hong Kong, China'. In doing so it may maintain and develop economic and cultural relations and agreements with states, regions and relevant international organisations on its own and it may issue travel documents for Hong Kong. International agreements to which the PRC is not a party but Hong Kong is may remain implemented in the HKSAR.
The government of the HKSAR is responsible for the maintenance of public order. Military forces sent by the Central People's Government, stationed in HKSAR, for the purpose of defence shall not interfere in the internal affairs in the HKSAR.
Those basic policies will be stipulated in a Basic Law of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region in the PRC by the National People's Congress and will remain unchanged for 50 years.

The Government of the United Kingdom will be responsible for the administration of Hong Kong with the object of maintaining and preserving its economic prosperity and social stability until 30 June 1997 and the Government of the PRC will give its co-operation in this connection.

Furthermore this declaration regulates the right of abode, those of passports and immigration. All Chinese nationals who were born or who have ordinarily resided in Hong Kong for a continuous period of seven years or more are qualified to obtain permanent identity cards. Those cardholders can also get a passport of the HKSAR, which is valid for all states and regions. But the entry into the HKSAR of persons from other parts of China shall continue to be regulated in accordance with the present practice.
The PRC's basic policies regarding Hong Kong (Annex I)

This Annex is called the Elaboration by the government of the People's Republic of China of its basic policies regarding Hong Kong. It is partly mentioned in the summary above and deals in detail with the way Hong Kong will work after 1 July 1997. The annexe consist of following sections: (1) Constitutional arrangements and government structure; (II) the laws; (III) the judicial system; (IV) the public service; (V) the financial system; (VI) the economic system and external economic relations; (VII) the monetary system, (VIII) shipping, (IX) civil aviation; (X) education; (XI) foreign affairs; (XII) defence, security and public order; (XIII) basic rights and freedoms; (XIV) right of abode, travel and immigration.
Sino-British Joint Liaison Group (Annex II)

Annex II set up the Sino-British Joint Liaison Group. That Group came into force at 1 July 1988 and continued its work until 1 January 2000. Its functions were

a) to conduct consultations on the implementation of the Joint Declaration
b) to discuss matters relating to the smooth transfer of government in 1997
c) to exchange information and conduct consultations on such subjects as may be agreed by the two sides.[8]

This Group was an organ for liaison and not of power, where each side could send up to 20 supporting staff members. It should meet at least once in each of the three locations (Beijing, London and Hong Kong) in each year. From 1 July 1988 onwards it was based in Hong Kong. It should also assist the HKSAR to maintain and develop economic and cultural relations and conclude agreements on these matters with states, regions and relevant international organisations and could therefore set up specialist sub-groups. Between 1985 and 2000 the Joint Liaison Group held 47 plenary meetings whereof 18 were held in Hong Kong, 15 in London and 14 in Beijing.

One of the main achievements had been to ensure the continuity of the independent judiciary in Hong Kong, including agreements in the areas of law of Merchant Shipping, Civil Aviation, Nuclear Material, Whale Fisheries, Submarine Telegraph, Outer Space and many others. Furthermore it agreed to a network of bilateral agreements between Hong Kong and other countries. Within those agreements were reached on the continued application of about 200 international conventions to the HKSAR after 30 June 1997. Hong Kong should also continue to participate in various international organisations after the handover.
Land Leases (Annex III)

According to the Land Leases all leased lands, granted by the British Hong Kong Government, which extend beyond 30 June 1997 and all rights in relation to such leases shall continue to be recognised and protected under the law of the HKSAR for a period expiring not longer than 30 June 2047. Furthermore a Land Commission shall be established with equal number of officials from the Government of the United Kingdom and the Government of the PRC which was dissolved on 30 June 1997. This commission was established in 1985 and met in Hong Kong for 35 formal meetings and agreed on 26 legal documents, within the granting of the land required for the new airport at Chek Lap Kok in 1994 .
United Kingdom Memorandum

In this memorandum the Government of the United Kingdom declared that all persons who hold British Dependent Territories citizenship (BDTCs) through an affiliation with Hong Kong would cease to be BDTCs on 1 July 1997. After the declartion, the Hong Kong Act, 1985 and the Hong Kong (British Nationality) Order, 1986 created the category British National (Overseas). BDTCs were allowed to apply for British National (Overseas) status until July 1997, but this status does not in of itself grant the right of abode anywhere, including the United Kingdom and Hong Kong. After the handover, most former BDTCs became citizens of the People's Republic of China. Any who were ineligible for PRC citizenship and who had not applied for BN(O) status automatically became British Overseas citizens.
See also: British nationality law and Hong Kong and British nationality law
Chinese Memorandum

"Under the National Law of the PRC, all Hong Kong Chinese compatriots, whether they are holders of the 'British Dependent Territories Citizens' Passport' or not, are Chinese nationals." Those people who use travel documents issued by the Government of the United Kingdom are permitted to use them for the purpose of travelling to other states and regions, but they will not be entitled to British consular protection in the HKSAR and other parts of the PRC.
CommentariesEdit

The signing of the Joint Declaration by the Conservative Party government of Margaret Thatcher was a cause of controversy in Britain at the time: some were surprised that the right wing Prime Minister would agree to such an arrangement with the Communist government of China represented by Deng Xiaoping. But, as stated in the notes of The Hong Kong Baptist University: "The alternative to acceptance of the present agreement is to have no agreement."[9] Some[who?] were surprised that Hong Kong residents were not given full UK citizenship. The Joint Declaration would also have to have been signed by HM Queen Elizabeth II and the President of China, Li Xiannian.[citation needed]

However, many commentaries pointed out that Britain was in an extremely weak negotiating position. Hong Kong was not militarily defensible and received most of its water and food supply from Guangdong province in mainland China. It was therefore considered economically infeasible to divide Hong Kong, with Britain retaining control for Hong Kong Island and Kowloon while returning the New Territories to the PRC in 1997, if no agreements could be reached by then. As mortgages for property in Hong Kong were typically fifteen years, without reaching an agreement on the future of Hong Kong in the early 1980s, it was feared that the property market would collapse, causing a collapse of the general economy in Hong Kong. Constraints in the land lease in the New Terrorities were also pressing problems at that time. In fact, while negotiation concerning the future of Hong Kong had started in the late 1970s, the final timing of the Declaration was related to the land and property factors.

Some commentaries pointed out that the British Government had no interest in granting full British citizenship to Hong Kong Chinese residents. In fact, the British Government changed its nationality laws just a few years before the signing of the Sino–British Joint Declaration to ensure that Hong Kong Chinese residents would not get the right to live in Britain in future.

But on the other hand, Wu Bangguo, the chairman of the National People's Congress Standing Committee stated in a conference in Beijing 2007, that "Hong Kong had considerable autonomy only because the central government had chosen to authorize that autonomy".[10]
AftermathEdit

After signing of the declaration, the Sino-British Joint Liaison Group was set up according to the Annex II of the declaration.

The transfer of sovereignty of Hong Kong (referred to as the "return" or "handover" by the Chinese and British press respectively) occurred as scheduled on 1 July 1997. Since the return just a few things changed, such as the flag of Hong Kong, the Prince of Wales Building being renamed into the People's Liberation Army Building. Post boxes were repainted green, as per the practice in China. Street names have remained unchanged and the Royal Hong Kong Yacht Club has kept its "Royal" prefix, although the Hong Kong Jockey Club and other institutions have given up this title.[11]

After the Asian financial crisis in 1997 the Hong Kong measures were taken with the full co-operation of the Chinese government. This did not mean that the Chinese government dictated what to do and therefore still follows the points of the declaration.[12]

Despite the autonomy, the government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region sometimes sought the suggestions from the Chinese government. In 1999 the government of the HKSAR asked China's State Council to seek an interpretation of a provision in the Basic Law by the National People's Congress Standing Committee. The Chinese government said that a decision by Hong Kong's Court of Final Appeal would allow 1.6 million mainland immigrants to enter Hong Kong. As a result the Chinese authorities obliged and the Hong Kong judgment was overturned.[clarification needed][13]

Pressures from the mainland government were also apparent, for example in 2000, after the election of pro-independence candidate Chen Shui-bian as Taiwan's president, a senior mainland official in Hong Kong warned journalists not to report those Taiwan independence news. Another senior official advised businessmen not to do business with pro-independence Taiwanese.[13]

With this and other changes,[13] ten years after the return, in 2007, The Guardian wrote that on the one hand, "nothing has changed since the handover to China 10 years ago",[14] but this was in comparison to the situation before the last governor Chris Patten had introduced democratic reforms three years before the handover. Now, the Guardian continued, a chance for democracy had been lost as Hong Kong had just begun to develop three vital elements for a western-style democracy (the rule of law, official accountability and a political class outside the one-party system) but the Sino–British deal had prevented any of these changes to continue.

Every thing Chinese central government says matters on the issue of HK, what you say, however doesnt.

the joint declaration doesnt states how the election is gonna be carried out, then the Chinese central government has a final say on that issue. HK is not a signatory to the joint declaration, Chinese central government is, hence the final interpretation of the agreement lies in Chinese central government.

HK's autonomousness is not a natural right, but was granted by Chinese central government. Technically speaking, HK is a subordinate to Chinese central government, not an independent entity as many are implying.

no need to quote the British on the issue, it's pure hypocrisy as I have pointed out.

Sent from my HUAWEI P7-L07 using Tapatalk 2

 

[nimo_cn]

many have changed since the return of HK, the most obvious could be that the HK governor is a HK resident instead of a British.

Sent from my HUAWEI P7-L07 using Tapatalk 2

 

[SADAKHUSH]

Every thing Chinese central government says matters on the issue of HK, what you say, however doesnt.

the joint declaration doesnt states how the election is gonna be carried out, then the Chinese central government has a final say on that issue. HK is not a signatory to the joint declaration, Chinese central government is, hence the final interpretation of the agreement lies in Chinese central government.

HK's autonomousness is not a natural right, but was granted by Chinese central government. Technically speaking, HK is a subordinate to Chinese central government, not an independent entity as many are implying.



no need to quote the British on the issue, it's pure hypocrisy as I have pointed out.

Sent from my HUAWEI P7-L07 using Tapatalk 2

I do not expect any thing better than what you have stated. Whatever Chinese CCP thugs say does not matter either to Hong Kong residents that is way they have come out on the streets.

U.K. is signatory on behalf of Hong Kong citizens and CCP actions are direct violation of the same. When Chinese Government did grant the rights to citizens of Hong Kong than they should honour their words other wise it just proves the hypocrisy of the CCP.

I do not get paid for expressing my views as is the case with you. Enjoy your day while you are tied down to the chair.

 

[nimo_cn]

I do not expect any thing better than what you have stated. Whatever Chinese CCP thugs say does not matter either to Hong Kong residents that is way they have come out on the streets.

U.K. is signatory on behalf of Hong Kong citizens and CCP actions are direct violation of the same. When Chinese Government did grant the rights to citizens of Hong Kong than they should honour their words other wise it just proves the hypocrisy of the CCP.

I do not get paid for expressing my views as is the case with you. Enjoy your day while you are tied down to the chair.

Neither do I expect anything better from you than what you are posting, except that I don't resort to name calling.

whether I am paid or not doesnt, what matters is what I said makes sense, unlike your posts are full of bullshit.

If what CCP doesnt matter, then why UK had to negotiate with CCP in the first place?

it's a joke for people to say that the British were on behalf of the HK. is it even possible for HK to get a non British governor if it was not CCP?

CCP has honored every single thing stated in the declaration, nothing more for CCP to do to appease the unreasonable demands from HK students.

Sent from my HUAWEI P7-L07 using Tapatalk 2

 

[jon88]

Actually, I have spoken to many of my HongKong friends about the protest. Many do not even know what they are protesting about. They want democracy but not the type that we typically think it might be.

For example, they don't want Indian style democracy which they think is typically dysfunctional. They felt you can't choose the leader that they want with Indian style democracy, being that the choices they get are pre-chosen by the individual parties which is essentially what Beijing is doing. They might like the party but not the individual, or vice-versa.

They do not want American style democracy either, ..the choice of candidates are pre-chosen too.... and not by the ordinary voters. They have issues about the electoral votes too.

What they want is a democracy with one man one vote, without the gerry-mongering or disproportional constituencies, without nationalism, capitalist yet socially protecting, etc. To me, that is like wanting all the pros but not the cons, which is absolutely impossible. Hongkongers are sometimes more Western than Westerners, so, it conceivable that their idea of democracy are more far-fetched than it actually is.

Therefore, I can safely conclude that the demonstrators in HongKong don't even know what they want, at this point in time. A lot of things are not thoroughly thought through just yet.

 

[jon88]

many have changed since the return of HK, the most obvious could be that the HK governor is a HK resident instead of a British.

Sent from my HUAWEI P7-L07 using Tapatalk 2

CCP is a bunch of old power hungry oligarchs and I despise them. However, I can give you this much, HongKong since 1997 are more democratic than it ever was during British rule. The British was quiet this whole time which was understandable until Lord Patten open his big mouth. Was Lord Patten ever became the Governor of HongKong through the blessings of the HongKong people? But then hypocrisy is a British government gene.

 

[Illusive]

Hong Kong should have stayed as an independent city country like singapore but instead they choose slavery under CCP.

 

[jon88]

Hong Kong should have stayed as an independent city country like singapore but instead they choose slavery under CCP.

What would happen if Goa chooses independence instead of being in India? How would India react? Exactly... very difficult to answer, isn't it? Goa and HongKong had the same history, taken away unfairly from their mother country.

Singapore is very different. Singapore wanted to join and did join into Malaysia in 1963. Singapore did not secede from Malaysia, Singapore was kicked out from the Malaysian federation in 1965.

 

[Illusive]

What would happen if Goa chooses independence instead of being in India? How would India react? Exactly... very difficult to answer, isn't it? Goa and HongKong had the same history, taken away unfairly from their mother country.

Singapore is very different. Singapore wanted to join and did join into Malaysia in 1963. Singapore did not secede from Malaysia, Singapore was kicked out from the Malaysian federation in 1965.

Entire India was under foreign occupation, whats the point. Are goans protesting for saving democracy or hong kongers? they could have joined taiwan since they are Chinese nation too.

 

[jon88]

Hong Kong should have stayed as an independent city country like singapore but instead they choose slavery under CCP.

Another thing....Hong Kong people did not make that choice. The high and mighty, civilized and fair minded people of Great Britain, through their democratically and fairly elected leaders made that choice.

 

[jon88]

Entire India was under foreign occupation, whats the point. Are goans protesting for saving democracy or hong kongers? they could have joined taiwan since they are Chinese nation too.

Goa was forcibly annexed into India long after India got independent.

Shall we talk about Jamu & Kashmir? They are not merely protesting, in fact they are revolting. Like I said earlier, its a very difficult issue and it is not going to be solved using simplistic assumptions.

 

[Illusive]

Goa was forcibly annexed into India long after India got independent.

Shall we talk about Jamu & Kashmir? They are not merely protesting, in fact they are revolting. Like I said earlier, its a very difficult issue and it is not going to be solved using simplistic assumptions.

So was hyderabad, so what, IA was welcomed as heroes. We liberated them, there is a difference.

Only people of the valley not whole J&K and plz dont compare it with this, J&K get special status and the chaos created there is because of infiltration.

Perhaps you din't get my point,the time of protest was back then cause whats happening today was always bound to happen, now its too late for these protests, nothings gonna happen here, China will win.

 

[jon88]

So was hyderabad, so what, IA was welcomed as heroes. We liberated them, there is a difference.

Only people of the valley not whole J&K and plz dont compare it with this, J&K get special status and the chaos created there is because of infiltration.

Perhaps you din't get my point,the time of protest was back then cause whats happening today was always bound to happen, now its too late for these protests, nothings gonna happen here, China will win.

If J&K chaos is created by infiltration, IA is a an utter failure and India a failed state. Even in China, they believe the chaos in HongKong is due to foreign influence. Most Chinese also believe they liberated HongKong, just like you believe India liberated J&K.

Like I said, its not so simple. Listen to both sides, and you will find valid opposite reasons from both sides. Thats why it is so difficult.

 

[jon88]

So was hyderabad, so what, IA was welcomed as heroes. We liberated them, there is a difference.

Only people of the valley not whole J&K and plz dont compare it with this, J&K get special status and the chaos created there is because of infiltration.

Perhaps you din't get my point,the time of protest was back then cause whats happening today was always bound to happen, now its too late for these protests, nothings gonna happen here, China will win.

Yes, I do agree with you that China still wins.

 

[Illusive]

If J&K chaos is created by infiltration, IA is a an utter failure and India a failed state. Even in China, they believe the chaos in HongKong is due to foreign influence. Most Chinese also believe they liberated HongKong, just like you believe India liberated J&K.

Like I said, its not so simple. Listen to both sides, and you will find valid opposite reasons from both sides. Thats why it is so difficult.

You wish, again i say dont compare J&K to this, its utterly stupid to compare pakjabis posing as kashmiris to blow up people and hong kongers doing peaceful protest to save democracy.

Its simple, nothings gonna come out of this protest, they had their chance back then, they didn't raise it, now its too late.

BTW i never said we liberated Kashmir, we are yet to liberate them, POK.

 

[Compersion]

What happened before 1997 is very important given that UK is trying to get involved in the issue 17 years after they relinquished HK.

You might be misguided to believe that British are really concerned about HK's democratic progress when the last British HK governor condemned China for not giving HK full democracy. however, British had ruled HK for over 150 years, democracy was the last thing they were willing to give HK. every HK governor was appointed by the queen, and none of them were from HK. history of HK has demonstrated that British don't give a damn about HK democracy, their chest thumping is pure hypocrisy.

every thing is the agreement has been or is being fullfilled in the last 17 years. China promised to maintain a highly autonomous HK, and that promise has been kept. UK, after the transfer of HK in 1997, is in no position to comment on the issue because it's none of her business.

Sent from my HUAWEI P7-L07 using Tapatalk 2

I really do not have any comments and views on the British before 1997. But since you have raised a few fascinating points what happened before 1997 needs to be viewed from the perspective of the agreements the three parties signed (Hong Kong people, PRC and UK). The UK Involvement is there now because of being part of the agreement(s). They are entitled to express views since Hong Kong Island and Kowloon was their land and they had given it to PRC in exchange for them signing the agreement(s) that included the Hong Kong constitution. The 99 year lease did not apply to Hong Kong Island and Kowloon.

With your reference to British ruling 150 years and having no democracy. That is not absolutely true. The British provided democracy after the agreement(s) were signed. The British also made sure that Democracy was provided in the agreements and gave up land that belonged to them. Some say it was wrong and silly for the British and they betrayed the Hong Kong people. Others says that British took advantage of Hong Kong and gave nothing.

Also the most important aspect is before the agreements were signed the future of hong kong (especially the leased part) was unclear. I am sure living in the 1970s to 1980s the future of Hong Kong would have been in lots of shades of grey. For many it was it was possible that Hong Kong Island and Kowloon could have continue to be under the British even after 1997 and the areas that were under lease be returned. I am sure you know the history of hong kong and the economic explosion after the agreement were signed.

When one looks at Hong Kong map the Hong Kong Island and Kowloon are small parts of the total area. Before the agreements were signed and after they were signed is different.

Now for example if one takes a situation where Hong Kong Island and Kowloon could have continue to be under the British after 1997 do you think that they would have no democracy.

Treaty of Nanking - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Qing government agreed to make Hong Kong Island a crown colony, ceding it to the British Queen "in perpetuity" (常遠, Cháng yuǎn, in the Chinese version of the treaty), to provide British traders with a harbour where they could unload their goods (Article III). Pottinger was later appointed the first governor of Hong Kong.

In 1860, the colony was extended with the Kowloon peninsula and in 1898, the Second Convention of Peking further expanded the colony with the 99-year lease of the New Territories. In 1984, the governments of the United Kingdom and the People's Republic of China (PRC) concluded the Sino-British Joint Declaration on the Question of Hong Kong, under which the sovereignty of the leased territories, together with Hong Kong Island and Kowloon (south of Boundary Street) ceded under the Convention of Peking (1860), was transferred to the PRC on 1 July 1997.

For a relative comparison:

British Virgin Islands general election, 2011 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The British Virgin Islands general election, 2011 was held in the British Virgin Islands on 7 November 2011.

The British would have probably expedited democracy movement in Hong Kong and with more vocal voices. That would have been their right the land belonged to them and they could do anything they had no agreement with PRC on what and what no to do in Hong Kong Island and Kowloon. Also many are saying the recent democratic movement in Hong Kong the CCP is fearful of it spreading into PRC. The British would have exploded the Democratic Movement inside Hong Kong Island and Kowloon. In fact that is what they did once the future of Hong Kong was clear after the agreements were signed. What they did would have happened with and without the agreement.

But that takes away from the real topic.

What the protesters are doing is according to the Hong Kong Constitution and due to the flexible language. It is a document made to create conflict and PRC signed it. Why did they sign a document where it was obvious and pretty clear the terms were "flexible" and open to conflict. Because PRC got Hong Kong Island and Kowloon and belief that like you say Hong Kong people had never had democracy and they are second-class people and also it is not a area of any importance. That is not true today.

The lucky thing for PRC is that the Democratic leaders are not knowing what to do next. Where the Hong Kong government has the CCP intellectuals helping and supporting. It is a David vs Goliath match and also a student from Grade 1 vs a University Student. I really feel the Democratic leaders will have outside help to increase their knowledge and also make it a more sustainable and level playing field.

The PRC government is pragmatic and they know that they got Hong Kong Island and Kowloon which they would not have unless they agreed to the agreement(s). The British are saying listen we gave them to you and make sure you follow the contract you signed. Now the Hong Kong people and CCP is arguing over contractual performance and terms.

I want to test your advanced knowledge:

Why does not CCP focus on the Hong Kong Parliament first. Why focus on the Election of Leader. Because with the Parliament the terms in the Hong Kong Constitution are clear. ALL its members are to be elected by Universal Suffrage. What does Parliament do and can it say and do anything on election of leader.

There is a reason why UK gave up Hong Kong Island and Kowloon - and a reason why they can talk about it today.

 

[jon88]

You wish, again i say dont compare J&K to this, its utterly stupid to compare pakjabis posing as kashmiris to blow up people and hong kongers doing peaceful protest to save democracy.

Its simple, nothings gonna come out of this protest, they had their chance back then, they didn't raise it, now its too late.

BTW i never said we liberated Kashmir, we are yet to liberate them, POK.

Its also utterly stupid to accuse Kashmiris who blow people up as Pakjabis just to justify infiltrations.

 

[tramp]

Why have a farcical election at all then? Let it be just like the mainland... If the CCP agrees to election, let it better be a proper one.... not the one where the people are asked to elect one of A, B, or C. That is my point.
Isn't it hypocrisy to offer to conduct elections and then chocking off the options available? So, what it shows is CCP is indeed worried about world opinion. But it thinks by conducting a 'bonsai' poll, it would be able to pull the wool on international community's eyes.

Every thing Chinese central government says matters on the issue of HK, what you say, however doesnt.

the joint declaration doesnt states how the election is gonna be carried out, then the Chinese central government has a final say on that issue. HK is not a signatory to the joint declaration, Chinese central government is, hence the final interpretation of the agreement lies in Chinese central government.

HK's autonomousness is not a natural right, but was granted by Chinese central government. Technically speaking, HK is a subordinate to Chinese central government, not an independent entity as many are implying.

no need to quote the British on the issue, it's pure hypocrisy as I have pointed out.

Sent from my HUAWEI P7-L07 using Tapatalk 2

 

[Illusive]

Its also utterly stupid to accuse Kashmiris who blow people up as Pakjabis just to justify infiltrations.

A Pakistani infiltrator tells his story

Cannot make a man see if chooses to keep his eyes closed.

 

[jon88]

A Pakistani infiltrator tells his story

Cannot make a man see if chooses to keep his eyes closed.

Cannot make a man listen to many when he only listen to ONE. One person's account is more credible than many?

I am not saying all those people are Kashmiris, there are just as many Kashmiris as there are Pakistanis who are willing to bomb everyone. Like I said, its difficult and complicated. Don't make simple stereotypes or conclusions.....there is always two sides to a coin ........a sword can cut both ways..