I think it should be pointed out that Hong Kong never had democracy. The British ruled the country with the same iron fist the Chinese do, and indeed many of the laws currently being used against the Hong Kong citizenry originated with them.
The difference really does come down to the fact that the British, although authoritarian, ran a relatively clean ship. Meanwhile Beijing's government has been corrupt, nepotistic, vindictive, and now deadlocked.
It reminds me of the old D&D alignment battle: Lawful evil vs. neutral evil. No one cared that the government was kind of evil back while it was obsessively following the rule of law, even if the law was kind of crooked, but under the Chinese it shifted away from that and became whatever is most immediately expedient to those in power. The vaunted "rule of law" became a mere mask for Beijing party politics games.
Declassified documents from long before handover
negotiations even began show that some British officials
did seek to introduce more democracy in Hong Kong but were
angrily rebuffed by Beijing.
Allowing Hong Kong people to govern themselves would be a
"very unfriendly act," premier Zhou Enlai reportedly told
British officials in 1958. Another Chinese official in 1960
threatened potential invasion if the UK attempted to
introduce greater democracy to the colony.
Yep, and while there was never universal suffrage, most other civil liberties and the rule of law were upheld, by and large, under British administration.
And that is giving way, slice by slice, to Chinese "guanxi" (i.e., "connections", "who do you know") and authoritarian politics. :-/
This is funny given the fact that in HK what school you go to largely depends on how much money your parents have (buy bonds issued by schools) and what is their occupation.
This is strictly prohibited in mainland China - a private school recently asked education level of parents on one of its admin forms, that became national news and that school got punished in days. Selling school bonds to effectively bar average families to access equal educational rights would be criminal offence.
If you like, we can continue one public healthcare - whether the residence of Shanghai has better access to public hospital or those in HK? Requiring people to wait months or even years to have surgery in public hospital would probably causing an uprising in China, but apparently that is okay in HK as the rich how makes the law can always go to private hospital.
Your definition of "rule of law" is quite different, that is all.
Because rich connected kids in Beijing don't get into 人民中学 because of their parents money? Let's ignore all the BMW, audis, Mercedes waiting to pickup kids outside the school. That is an example of mainland China's "rule of law", which is largely hypocritical and never what CCTV says it is.
The school system is suboptimal indeed, and good private schools are very expensive and require some machinations to get in. Nevertheless, HK fairs very well in the international PISA studies (ahead of China, incidentally) [1].
Public hospitals in HK are good, modern, efficient, and inexpensive. Private hospitals provide an alternative if you want more personalised or faster service.
However, of this pertains to civil liberties and the rule of law (which my post was about).
The notion that access to education and health care is better in China (or more justly distributed, without special favours for the well-connected) is very questionable, as the other post highlighted.
China would be less traditional D&D alignments and more of a faction-based system where the party and the nation are at the top of the loyalty priority list.
where else do you get the equivalent of two senate seat for the chamber of commerce, another for manufacturer's sassociation, a third for the construction industry, a fourth for the banks ..... but none elected at large by the populace
even today only half the council is elected at large
> where else do you get the equivalent of two senate seat for the chamber of commerce, another for manufacturer's sassociation, a third for the construction industry, a fourth for the banks
The City of London gives companies votes [1]. And until 1948, college graduates in the United Kingdom voted twice [2].
Take a look at history - India, for example, which took one of the most famous revolutionies of all time to escape Britain's rule, which they agitated for because of awful policies like the salt tax.
The difference really does come down to the fact that the British, although authoritarian, ran a relatively clean ship. Meanwhile Beijing's government has been corrupt, nepotistic, vindictive, and now deadlocked.
It reminds me of the old D&D alignment battle: Lawful evil vs. neutral evil. No one cared that the government was kind of evil back while it was obsessively following the rule of law, even if the law was kind of crooked, but under the Chinese it shifted away from that and became whatever is most immediately expedient to those in power. The vaunted "rule of law" became a mere mask for Beijing party politics games.