Hong Kong

[spot]

Let's decide what we think about governance in Hong Kong, no doubt at the cost of invisibility to anyone in China.

The story so far - Britain took a forced lease on Hong Kong from pre-Communist China as part of its imperial phase.

150 years later, on the date established by treaty, Britain returned the colony to China. Half a million people emigrated in the lead-up to the switch-over. The British established a form of local government as they left. The final legal position, agreed by China, is the Basic Law by which Hong Kong retains local control on a China-influenced council in all matters save Foreign Policy and Defence. I suggest we discuss "all matters", it's a wild oversimplification.

Do we disagree that Hong Kong should be part of China? That China should control its Foreign Policy and Defence?

What other aspects of Hong Kong's governance, policing and judiciary should be explore?

It will interest the thread to discover how matters should have been arranged differently.

[Bryn Mawr]

Let's decide what we think about governance in Hong Kong, no doubt at the cost of invisibility to anyone in China.

The story so far - Britain took a forced lease on Hong Kong from pre-Communist China as part of its imperial phase.

150 years later, on the date established by treaty, Britain returned the colony to China. Half a million people emigrated in the lead-up to the switch-over. The British established a form of local government as they left. The final legal position, agreed by China, is the Basic Law by which Hong Kong retains local control on a China-influenced council in all matters save Foreign Policy and Defence. I suggest we discuss "all matters", it's a wild oversimplification.

Do we disagree that Hong Kong should be part of China? That China should control its Foreign Policy and Defence?

What other aspects of Hong Kong's governance, policing and judiciary should be explore?

It will interest the thread to discover how matters should have been arranged differently.

At this level? No, there’s no point.

The problems lie in the detail of the assurances made to the people of Hong Kong around the time of handover and the way that those assurances have been breached.

[spot]

The problems lie in the detail of the assurances made to the people of Hong Kong around the time of handover and the way that those assurances have been breached.

That's good, we can definitely work with that. The agreed exceptions at the time of Hong Kong's return related to "foreign interference" and "defence".

I'd suggest that includes pre-screening candidates for election, and removing some elected lawmakers;

Banning of previously annual events like Tiananmen Square vigils

Criminalization of "secession," "subversion," "terrorism," and "collusion with foreign forces" with vague definitions;

The extension of China's security apparatus beyond Hong Kong's judicial oversight;

Provisions allowing suspects to be tried in mainland China under certain circumstances;

Forced closure of some independent media outlets

But beyond the agreed exceptions there is also school curriculum changes emphasizing "patriotic education", and the detention of pro-democracy activists, politicians, and journalists.

None of that suggests to me that Hong Kong's sovereignty should not have reverted to China, nor that the current state of affairs should be changed by foreign interference. If the Chinese citizens of Hong Kong don't make the enclave ungovernable then there's compliance, and if they do then ideally it's a local policing matter.

I note all protection of multi-party politics explicitly expires in 2047, fifty years after the handover. There are pro and con arguments relating to imposing a one-party system, but letting these pro-democracy elements continue for the next 22 years is just storing up trouble. America has "democracy" in some form, as does Westminster, and a right pig's ear they're both making of it.

There is no black and white in this discussion. You're clearly right that the law should offer protection to dissent. You extend that argument to a reason why Taiwan should remain independent. Have we isolated the issues sufficiently well? Because the flip-side is whether China is doing a good job of improving life within China. You could stretch that comparatively by asking whether America is doing a good job of improving life within America, and whether Westminster is doing a good job of improving life within the UK - the answer to both of which would take some twisting to reach a "yes".

[spot]

There's a leftover conflict as far as Jeremy Bentham is concerned. He proposed Utilitarianism.

The problem with Utilitarianism is that it appears unfair. It has no moral compass. If the economy benefits from killing all the non-productive residents then killing them might be utilitarian but it is by most value systems also immoral. There's a harsh binary, either Utilitarianism is usable or it needs modification to become usable, in which case should it be modified or abandoned? And if modified, how? "Fairness" is not an absolute, it is a relative consideration. In terms of a philosophy I have no idea what fairness would constitute. In fairness to the majority, minority views must be sacrificed? Fairness requires all minority views to be protected? They can't both be true.

My initial view is that "the minority is invariably right", and that whenever this seems wrong you've failed to identify the actual minority: majorities often pretend to be the minority in order to get round the view. The view is a reasonable reflection of asymmetry, the big bully is always the problem. Consider The Troubles as a case in point.