From: HE@UCC.UWINDSOR.CA
Subject:      Re: PRC wants to abrogate Joint Declaration on HK
Reply-To: Wing Ng <wing%PEGASUS.COM@ucc.uwindsor.ca>
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1992 04:27:12 GMT
Comments: To: multiple recipients <CHINA-NT@UGA.CC.UGA.EDU>

    The claim that the British government tried 40 years to introduce
democracy in Hong Kong for 40 years only to be blocked by the Chinese
government is more than interesting. I wonder why the British had been
so agreeable to the Chinese government for 40 years only to become so
persistent this time around. Again, I cannot help suspecting that something
was going on behind the facade.

Herb

----------------------------Original message----------------------------
In article <102583@bu.edu> lix@thames.bu.edu (Xiaowen Li) writes:
> In   article  <1992Nov19.083756.19372@pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu>
> wing@pegasus.com (Wing Ng) writes:
> >(deleted)
> >Two women both claim a baby belongs to them, and the case went to
> >King Solomon.  The King took out a sword, and proceeded to cut the
> >baby in two, so that each woman can have 1/2.  One of the women
> >cried: "stop".  The King said, "you must be the true mother, you
> >care about the baby's well-being."
> >
> >Sorry, the foreigner U.K. cares about our well-being (to some extent),
>
> Sorry for our HK D-friends' such understanding. I sincerely doubt
> British  are  your  true  mother,  they  did  not  bring  Britich

I lost my soc.culture.* link for a few days, and I accidentally
deleted lix's post to China-Nt, well, here's my reply.

We never thought the British are our true mother.

The point is that the group that wields political power in our
motherland denies our right to democracy, and also denies the right
of our Mainland compatriots to democracy even more forcefully 3.5
years ago.  We do not regard such a group has any right to claim to
be our "mother"[-land].

> Democracy  to HK in the past 100+ years. Could you please tell me
> why?

I replied one time before on China-Nt:

Since 1946, the British wanted to introduce an elected legislature.
It was then opposed by local conservatives.  Since 1949, CLAIM THE
BRITISH, they have been warned by the PRC NOT to introduce any
democracy in Hong Kong.

You can believe or disbelieve the British.  No matter how bad they
were, it is crystal clear since the time of the Joint Declaration
who wanted more democracy, and who wanted to obstruct democracy in
Hong Kong.  Especially now, one has to blind not to recognize that
THOSE WHO BROUGHT US 6.4 are deadset against democracy in HK and
China.

> My understanding is,  British used to keep a practically workable
> system  in their colonies,  convenient to themselves.  But  right
> before   they leave,  they may do something looking beautiful but
> problematic   such as India-Pakistan division,  Irag-Q8  division
> etc. The ones were  satisfied when British leave, will shed blood
> later - and that is  no longer British's business.

We are quite aware of that.  We don't trust the British either.
We feel Chris Patten pushed for more democracy, which we judge is
good for HK, and we applaud him for doing so.  We do not endorse
him, or the British, with a carte blanche, blank check.

> China agrees not to Change HK's system in 50 years.  Why? Because
> Deng  XiaoPing realized HK's system has been proven  workable  in
> the  past 100+ years.  So China made such a promise in 1984.  Now
> British  wants to change the system before 1997,  and hand such a
> system to  China.  This system may be better,  more democracy. It
> may be workable.   But this system has not been proven better and

The Joi7t Declaration of 1984, which Mr. Zhu Rongji said might "be
gone with the wind" [apparently PRC has backpedaled, claiming it
was a misunderstanding], agreed to by PRC and U.K., stipulates
clearly that "all members in the Legislature shall be elected".
So the promise is NOT the system of 1984, but the promise of more
democracy was built in, in this internatioanl treaty.

> workable.  Do  you  think China's promise in 1984 is still valid?
> If there were anything  wrong in such a new system,  should China
> change it?

PRC is supposed to give HK autonomy on all matters other than defense
and foreign relations.  Even the HK Basic Law was drafted by drafters
from both the PRC and HK.  If there are problems with the system after
1997, HK people can fix it.  In fact the Basic Law is set up in such
a way that it is relatively easy for HK side to change it, and it is
rather difficult for the PRC central govt. to change it.

All quite fine on paper.  But CCP scorns paper, it makes up its own
interpretation of any agreement it signs.  We intend to hold CCP to
its own promise, as far as possible.

> >(deleted)
> >Wing
>
> I hope you could have more democracy.  But please be calm,  don't
> trust  British too much as true mother.  They are not.  Find  you
> own way to get  the best results.

Thank you for your support.  As one other netter said:  "We are all
Chinese and we love freedom for all of us."

Wing
Newsgroups: talk.politics.china