| ▲ | QGQBGdeZREunxLe 10 hours ago |
| Britain had the chance to liberalize Hong Kong before the handover negotiations even began. You can thank Murray MacLehose for the mess they're in now. https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/lseih/2025/06/13/the-empires-last-ab... |
|
| ▲ | nine_k 9 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| UK offered a rather simple pathway to immigrating to the UK for most Hong Kong residents [1]. But the choice between the stagnant UK and the booming mainland China was not obvious for everyone in late the 1990s, when China seemed to be democratizing more and more (despite the Tiananmen massacre), and growing richer by the day. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_National_(Overseas) |
| |
| ▲ | z2 9 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | It was a far cry from the full Portuguese citizenship offered for Macau, both in the latter's lack of conditions on acquisition (beyond being over age 15 at the handover), and in passing it on to descendants. https://www.quora.com/Why-did-Portugal-give-full-citizenship... | |
| ▲ | btilly 9 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | They had multiple pathways. The top three destinations were Canada, the USA, and Australia. These locations offered a major benefit over the UK - they were on trade routes along which people from Hong Kong were already doing business. Canada was particularly affected. It absorbed the most immigrants, they were a larger share of the population, and this was a major increase in ethnic diversity. The resulting cultural clashes were sometimes an issue. Here is one that literally doubled car insurance rates in British Columbia around the time I left. Three cars, 2 in front with the left-hand car being driven by a Canadian, and the back car driven by a recent immigrant. The immigrant sees the opportunity to pass, swings out into oncoming traffic, and guns it. Leaving just a few inches of room. Normal Hong Kong driving. The Canadian has no idea that this is happening until OMG I'M ABOUT TO BE HIT! The Canadian then swerves right to avoid the emergency, and hits the car on the right. The immigrant drives off. Presumably wondering about these crazy Canadians who don't know how to drive. Everyone involved behaved reasonably for how they were used to driving. But the combination worked out very poorly... | | |
| ▲ | phainopepla2 8 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | I would argue that the immigrant behaving reasonably "for how they were used to driving" is itself unreasonable. When you move to foreign country you have to adjust some things about your behavior. Driving behaviors and anything else with such a strong public safety component should be the most obvious thing to adjust for an adult, without needing to be told. | | |
| ▲ | btilly an hour ago | parent [-] | | Question, have you been an immigrant? Do you know any immigrants? When you immigrate into a country, all of a sudden all of your reflexes are wrong. Some are obviously wrong. Some are more subtle. It is overwhelming, and too much. While in retrospect it is easy to say that they should prioritize some things over others, in practice they tend to learn from experience after people respond badly, and those who are a little more used to the culture explain why they are wrong. And the experience of being told that they are wrong all of the time will make many hold on to some of their old habits extremely strongly. Don't criticize how slowly immigrants adapt to a new country, until you've been an immigrant in a foreign culture. | | |
| ▲ | testrun 33 minutes ago | parent [-] | | I was an immigrant to a new country. I made an effort to learn the new rules. The immigrant adapts, not the country. |
|
| |
| ▲ | QuiEgo 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Related: Vancouver has, in my opinion, the best southern Chinese food in North America. | |
| ▲ | bparsons 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | A rather bizarre digression... | | |
| ▲ | senordevnyc 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | It sounds like they got freaked out on the road, swerved and hit a car next to them, and now have concocted a story where it’s actually the fault of immigrants. | | |
| ▲ | btilly an hour ago | parent [-] | | The theory "Canadians made this up to explain their own bad driving" requires an explanation of why there was also a large enough rise in accidents that car insurance rates needed to double. The theory "it happened like they said it" explains why the rise in accidents happened, and fits with normal driving habits in Hong Kong. |
|
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | cm2187 8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I know that attributing to western countries the responsability for any bad thing happening in this world is a common reflex, but we are 30 years after the handover, 40 years after the negotiation, so surely China bears some if not pretty much all the responsibility here. And it's not like the UK had much of a choice in the first place. China threatened to invade and there is very little the UK could have done to prevent a full control. Worth also remembering that "one country, two systems" came with an expiration date that is rapidly approaching anyway. |
| |
| ▲ | woooooo 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | The Chinese absolutely bear responsibility for how they've governed the last 30 years, just as the British bear responsibility for how they governed the prior 150. The fact that British HK liberalized a little at the very last second before handover is better than nothing, and the National Security Law is definitely bad, but right now the scoreboard is 7/150 years of free speech under the UK, compared to 23/28 years of free speech under PRC. It'll take another 100 years for the PRC to have a worse record than the UK. | | |
| ▲ | dangus 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | I think it’s somewhat disingenuous to ignore the trend direction. The Netherlands has a longer history of monarchy under their current government (present monarchy founded 1813) than North Korea (current government established 1948). Does that mean you’d rather live in North Korea than the Netherlands? The plain and obvious fact remains that Hong Kongers would have more political liberties today if the UK retained control of the territory, regardless of the complete colonial insanity of the original arrangement. Can you name one present existing British overseas territory that has less of a right to criticize the government than Hong Kong? There are still a bunch of them to choose from from. | | |
| |
| ▲ | maxglute 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Or surely PRC should get all the praise for diffusing geopolitical traps UK like to leave whenever they lose a colony. Patton threw a curve ball right before handover to last minute liberalize HK a little to hold onto influence, something they didn't do under UK rule. Of course it was geopolitical trap to make PRC look bad if they ever decide take away from HK what UK never provided, but PRC managed to do it anyway and most of world, i.e. global south got example that it is possible to excise legacy colonial tumors from declining empires who choose not to pass gracefully. | | |
| ▲ | spaqin an hour ago | parent [-] | | I have no idea how you came to the conclusion that liberalization (giving ever so slightly more freedom) would increase foreign UK influence post handover. |
| |
| ▲ | QGQBGdeZREunxLe 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > I know that attributing to western countries the responsability [sic] for any bad thing happening in this world is a common reflex I don't think I'm being superficial here. There are a few distinct events during the 20th century which can be attributed to the British. The handover of Hong Kong, Suez Crisis and the Balfour Declaration stand out the most. > And it's not like the UK had much of a choice in the first place. China threatened to invade and there is very little the UK could have done to prevent a full control. The leased territories are Chinese territory. Full stop. Hong Kong island and the ceded land could not survive alone. All of the water processing happens in the New Territories. It would have been impossible to either break up HK or defend it. https://i.redd.it/zghghoib1k1a1.png China has not rolled back any reforms that happened before negotiations began [0]. They did rollback the last-ditch efforts of Chris Patten [1] because at that point it was seen a malicious attempt to undermine the handover. The mechanisms for China to take control were largely left in place by the British so they bare some responsibility, but it is the PRC asserting this control and there's an argument to be made that most of HK supports the PRC and it's their right to do what they wish with their own territory. > Worth also remembering that "one country, two systems" came with an expiration date that is rapidly approaching anyway. It'll be interesting to see what is kept. China's experimenting already in Hainan. They could structure Hong Kong in a similar fashion. [0] - The PRC did introduce PR with the idea that it would reduce the risk of majorities forming but the system is arguably more democratic than FPTP. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1994_Hong_Kong_electoral_refor... | |
| ▲ | p_j_w 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | > I know that attributing to western countries the responsability for any bad thing happening in this world is a common reflex You can’t gloat that the sun never sets on your empire and then absolve yourself from responsibility for events that you had a heavy hand in influencing. Regardless, if you think the article is wrong, your point would he better served by providing examples of where it’s wrong and stating why. | | |
| ▲ | dangus 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | How many years does it take for that influence to expire? In 40 years many/most of the people involved in the old system aren’t even alive anymore. That would be like blaming me for the Gulf War when I was in diapers. | | |
| ▲ | linkregister 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | We can attribute cause and effect to countries without implicating any individual citizen. |
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | JumpCrisscross 9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > Britain had the chance to liberalize Hong Kong before the handover How would it have made a difference when the Chinese military invaded? |
|
| ▲ | maxglute 8 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| TBH UK never had the chance because PRC saw through their games. TLDR UK wanted to maintain influence post handover for their investments, but like most other colonies on the fading empire they had no leverage, i.e. negotiate to turn HK into self administered territory (like Singapore)... along with UN decolonization rules meant engineering pathway for HK independence. PRC keked and said fuck off and promptly removed HK from UN list of non-self governing territories. There's a reason UK/Patton had to jam in HK liberalisation efforts last minute to increase UK influence post handover and not before... because if they did it before, i.e. pre 90s there would be so much anti colonial and pro CCP sympathies that political freedom in HK could be contrary to British interests. HK was just another Suez, symptom of UK weakness, not any one man. |