[jcytong]

It's mostly CCP propaganda though if you actually talk to HK people and see how the majority of them tried to work within the system to "make the change" since the early 90s and fight for what was promised in the Basic Law[1] which was drafted by a committee with 36 representatives from China and 23 from HK. It promised that the Chief Executive of HK and its legislative council to be formed by an election.[2]

The Chief Executive election has been delayed for 2 decades requiring the CCP to "pre-filter" candidates which the public rejected.

The legislative council election has been controlled by disqualifying candidates as well as the mass arrest of 53 pro-democracy candidates for simply organizing the primaries and engaging in debates. [3]

TLDR; China wasn't as strong in 90s so took a softer stance. Later decided to go back on its words so had to find ways to control the elections or the results.

> No real death in over an year of violent protests by police firing in Hong Kong vs 5 deaths in capitol building siege speaks volumes about the professionalism with which Hong Kong police handled the protests.

This is not true. After witnessing the 2019 movement and the real police behavior captured on live tv/news[4], I have a much better understanding of the Stanford prisoner experiment.

[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hong_Kong_Basic_Law [2]https://www.basiclaw.gov.hk/en/basiclawtext/chapter_4.html [3]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_Hong_Kong_Legislative_Cou... [4]https://tl.hkrev.info/en/police-timeline/

[dragonsh]

There are two sides of coin in HK. People who supported violent protestors and people who didn’t. Like any other society some support govt and some do not.

People who support govt and not protestors their shops, restaurants, businesses vandalised and were constantly harassed. It became politically impossible to voice against the protestors due to fear of violence, know this first hand not by talking but living through it.

Please read the Basic Law and also the extradition bill [1]. Extradition being better was still opposed and ultimately National security law was passed to give teeth to administration to stop violent protests.

It’s the vehement majority of Hong Kong people who gave rights to reinterpret Basic Law to stem the flow of people from mainland China (since court of final appeal was going to allow spouses and children of Hong Kong residents from other parts of China to settle in HK). This is the same provision used for implementing National security law. So in HK people got what they asked for and also majority Chinese supported this action on HK. So like any democracy like USA and India a law which appease majority pass easily same happened here.

[1] https://www.legco.gov.hk/yr18-19/english/bills/b201903291.pd...

[hkmaxpro]

> It’s the vehement majority of Hong Kong people who gave rights to reinterpret Basic Law to stem the flow of people from mainland China (since court of final appeal was going to allow spouses and children of Hong Kong residents from other parts of China to settle in HK)

> So in HK people got what they asked for and also majority Chinese supported this action on HK. So like any democracy like USA and India a law which appease majority pass easily same happened here.

Both statements are false. The first reinterpretation of the Basic Law on the right of adobe in 1999 wasn’t the result of ANY DEMOCRATIC PROCESS involving the majority of Hong Kongers.

Some polls may show that a large fraction of Hong Kongers prefer the RESULTING VERDICT on right of adobe, but the reinterpretation is unlike any democratic process as in the US or India, that has a rigorous and formal voting process. And certainly not a majority of Hong Kongers support repeated interpretations of the basic law by people not directly elected in Hong Kong.

The end doesn’t justify the means. You have confused the end and the means.