- cross-posted to:
- worldnewsnonus@lemy.lol
- cross-posted to:
- worldnewsnonus@lemy.lol
“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.
You must log in or # to comment.
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.
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
His Majesty the Emperor of China cedes to Her Majesty the Queen of Great Britain, &c., the Island of Hong-Kong, to be possessed in perpetuity by Her Britannic Majesty, Her Heirs and Successors, and to be governed by such Laws and Regulations as Her Majesty the Queen of Great Britain, &c., shall see fit to direct.
Wikipedia source
Treaty source
Then, after the second opium war, Kowloon Peninsula was cesed under Convention of Peking, which stated:
With a view to the maintenance of law and order in and about the harbour of Hongkong, His Imperial Majesty the Emperor of China agrees to cede to Her Majesty the Queen of Great Britain and Ireland, and to Her Heirs and Successors, to have and to hold as a dependency of Her Britannic Majesty’s Colony of Hongkong, that portion of the township of Cowloon, in the province of Kwangtung, of which a lease was granted in perpetuity to Harry Smith Parkes, Esquire, Companion of the Bath, a Member of the Allied Commission at Canton, on behalf of Her Britannic Majesty’s Government, by Lau Tsung Kwang, Governor General of the Two Kwang.
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:
After many years of investigation, it was learned that a non-extension site in Hong Kong was not sufficient to defend, and now the Chinese and British governments have agreed on a general plan to expand the British boundary as a new leased land according to the attached map. The detailed demarcation shall be drawn after the two countries have sent personnel to survey and demarcate it, with a deadline of 99 years…
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:
The Arrow Incident in 1856 triggered the Second Opium War. On 18 March 1860, the British 44th Regiment occupied Tsim Sha Tsui, and on 20 March the Governor of Liangguang, Lo Chong-guang, agreed to “temporarily lease” Kowloon.
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.
