
Once a Model City, Hong Kong Is in Trouble - acdanger
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/29/world/asia/hong-kong-china-handover.html
======
caretoomuch
As someone lived in Hong Kong for quite a while (during the tail of its
heydays) but now in the US, Hong Kong is indeed in big trouble. But not for
the reasons mentioned/implied in this article.

It's very easy to buy into narratives such as authoritarianism vs democracy,
communism vs capitalism, China vs Britain/West, tight control vs freedom as
the reasons for Hong Kong's decline, but that's just short-circuited thinking
for the lazy.

The real reason for Hong Kong's decline, is the failure/irresponsibility of
Hong Kong's elite ruling class. Maybe to many people's surprise, since its
handover to China, Hong Kong has effectively been ruled by the local elites,
NOT by Beijing. Sure, Beijing appoints the governor, but the governors are
locals, and there was never any direct "order" from Beijing, well, sorta until
recently, when Beijing began to see the failure of the local Hong Kong
government.

Those elites are composed of mega real estate/business tycoons. Being the
elites in the most capitalist city-state in the world gives them tremendous
wealth and power, but to the disappointment of Spider-man, with that great
power there's no great responsibilities. The ruling class mega riches don't
see income inequality as a problem, but a badge of honor for themselves, to
show how "they've made it", while all the poors are just not smart/hardworking
enough. Any efforts to "appease the poor" are hindered by the ruling business-
politician symbiotics, because those efforts get in their way of accumulating
more wealth.

The frustration of the youth and the poor stems from the sense of inequality,
unfairness and despair as they see no chances of upward mobility. Yet, even
the poorest in Hong Kong is a capitalist at heart, so they are poor not
because of the rich, and they certainly do work hard, then who's to blame?
China, Beijing, the mainlanders, because they are evil, communist, denying
tian'anmen square, yada yada...

On the contrary, when the ruling rich saw the rebellion of lower class,
without knowing/admitting themselves are to be blamed, they seek help from
Beijing. What does Beijing know about governing a country? More control!
That's the only thing Beijing knows, and it's been working (kinda) with them.
So that's how we get where we are now.

~~~
cilea
The same is happening to Taiwan (stuttered growth; in-fighting, etc.). The
issue is deeply rooted in local power-wielding elites conspiring or opposing
the ruling government. It has nothing to do democracy. The riches have already
allocated some of their wealth elsewhere (see Canada and Australia), so they
don't really care. It's always easy to blame it on Beijing, isn't it?

~~~
laretluval
> The issue is deeply rooted in local power-wielding elites conspiring or
> opposing the ruling government. It has nothing to do democracy.

Seems like democracy would make this problem worse, since it redistributes
power to local informal power elites.

~~~
bilbo0s
Taiwan is a "democracy", just a deeply corrupt one.

~~~
dis-sys
Calling Taiwan a democracy is like labelling the Culture Revolution a
democratic movement.

When elderly Chinese who actually experienced the terrible Culture Revolution
go to visit Taiwan, many of them had the feeling that Taiwan make them feel
young again as they saw the Culture Revolution again in Taiwan.

Endless street politics for every single change to the society, hugely divided
society, corruption from both sides, people are forced to pick which side is
less terrible rather than which is better, President democratically elected
used its official jet to move cash to foreign countries.

Personally, I don't want such toxic Taiwan to be integrated back to China,
they can run their own circus on that island so people in the mainland can
look at them and learn from their mistakes.

~~~
imron
Sounds like you've been getting all your Taiwan news from 新闻联播.

Taiwan is nothing like what you said, and to compare it to Cultural Revolution
China is just ridiculous.

------
khc
Writing as someone who left HK when he was 14 who still visit every couple
years, so take what I write with a load of salt.

I really think HK is over, as in it will never return to its peak glorious
days. Much of the prosperity of HK came from being a middleman between China
and the rest of the world. That position is eroding because China is slowly
opening up. For example, of the top 5 container ports, 3 are in mainland China
and HK is #5 [1]. HK was the busiest as recently as 2004. Why ship to/from HK
when you can ship directly to/from China?

Much of the ruling elites (many of whom are/were businessmen or have business
ties) understand this, and realize China has a lot more soft power over HK
than what the Basic Law guarantees. The end game is clear, HK will become just
another Chinese city, the Establishment is hoping that by pandering to
mainland, they can slow down the process and maintain their self-interest. The
more positive way to think about it is, if China allows, HK can become the
Shanghai of the south instead of a little brother to Shenzhen.

Meanwhile, the poor. I grew up quite poor in HK and a family of 4 shared one
studio. The kitchen and bathroom were shared with another 4-5 families. 4 of
us slept in ONE bunkbed. Life got much better after I was 7, because we moved
to public housing in the suburb. You see, there's always a big divide between
the rich and the poor, but all the public subsidies made life bearable.

A big part of HK's government revenue come from land sale [2]. And land is
more valuable when it's not used for public housing. That and immigration
means the wait to get public housing is getting longer and longer [3].
Immigration is supposed to increase revenue too, but as mentioned because a
big part of revenue come from land sale and immigration doesn't increase the
amount of developable land, the overall effect is smaller.

Normally one way to deal with this is impose immigration quota, but I looked
into this a few years back and apparently for family reunion, HK government
does not control the quota and have to accept however many the mainland sends
over. For obvious reasons many in HK have family-ties in China so politically
having a smaller quota would not be popular either. I don't have numbers to
prove this, but there's a general sentiment that infrastructure is not growing
fast enough to accommodate population increase.

I don't know what HK can do honestly. Politically it's in an impossible
situation.

[1]:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_busiest_container_port...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_busiest_container_ports)
[2]:
[http://www.censtatd.gov.hk/hkstat/sub/sp110.jsp?tableID=193&...](http://www.censtatd.gov.hk/hkstat/sub/sp110.jsp?tableID=193&ID=0&productType=8)
[3]: [http://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/education-
community/artic...](http://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/education-
community/article/2070493/waiting-time-get-hong-kong-public-housing-shoots)

------
dis-sys
I'd like to offer my views on the decline of HK -

1\. HK was a middleman, it used to connect the mainland China to the world.
That worked for HK very well after 1949, but clearly the people living in the
mainland do not want to see HK to keep having its cut for the flow of
capitals/goods for a very reasonable reason - there are more and more
professionals/businesses in mainland China that are eager/qualified/happy to
take over what HK was offering.

2\. HK failed to develop its industrial base. Let's compare it to Singapore,
you see different high tech companies in that city nation, but what HK has
developed in the last few decades? You can also compare it to the neighbouring
Shenzhen, if Shenzhen can offer companies like Tencent/DJI, why HK can not do
the same in a so called free environment? FTA is long available to HK, there
are numerous HK based companies doing business in mainland and making good
profits, just in the wrong sector - they are all in real estate. Rather than
blindly blame Beijing, there are more meaningful reasons to look at.

3\. HK's retail sector is no longer comparable to what you can expect from
tier-1 Chinese cities (Shanghai, Beijing, Shenzhen). Mobile payment, online
shopping, delivery, large and easy to use e-commerce sites, you name it. Sure
you can easily argue that HK has a few department stores with pretty good
services, but is that enough to support the future of a city with millions of
residencies? The consequence is simple - Chinese from the mainland stopped
going to HK for shopping, they start to feel its out of date payment systems,
1990s style department stores are getting less and less attractive.

4\. HK's Infrastructure is no longer considered as good. I first visited HK 13
years ago when HK's metro was far better than anything you could possibly
expect in Shanghai. Today there is high speed rail that can get me anywhere
within 200km radius of Shanghai, Shanghai metro's scale is 2-3x times larger.
How fast you can get yourself from HK's central to Guangzhou? I can get myself
to a nice office building or hotel in Hangzhou from my home in Shanghai door
to door in 90 minutes.

5\. HK is losing its financial capital status fast. Chinese Yuan will be
internationalised eventually, that is probably THE biggest financial event in
the next 30 years, but how many people would possibly believe that having HK
dollar in HK is a smart move? Let's remember that HKD is never allowed to
freely float, its exchange rate is fixed to USD.

All this come to a real question here: is HK declining or just returning to
where it suppose to be?

~~~
pcr0
Funny bringing up DJI as an example of a Shenzhen company. They were actually
conceived in a Hong Kong university but moved over the border due to cheaper
rents and closer proximity to factories.

~~~
rxin
DJI AFAIK moved out of Hong Kong due to the lack of funding. Hong Kong never
developed any serious engineering culture & talent base and it is very
difficult to start a high tech venture in Hong Kong, from a funding point of
view. From a talent point of view, Shenzhen's engineering easily outnumbers
and out-qualitys Hong Kong by an order of magnitude.

------
Mikeb85
The real problem is that Hong Kong is a finance and trading hub. And it became
so because it was the easiest way to do business with China.

But business likes stability. The democracy protests have done nothing for
Hong Kong, and now that China's eased access to their market through Shanghai,
Hong Kong's entire raison d'être is at risk.

Also, the article is pretty spot on in other ways. Once upon a time, Hong Kong
students were guaranteed success by virtue of being born there. Now, they need
to compete with mainlanders, which of course is a much larger pool.

And finally, 20 years ago China wanted to build up Hong Kong as a model for
it's 2 systems 1 country philosophy. However the democracy protests have all
but killed that, so the Chinese will gladly simply build up Shanghai to Hong
Kong's detriment, and no amount of democracy or separatism will fix it.

~~~
pishpash
The real problem is that Hong Kong existed as an arbitrage hub to an
artificially closed hinterland during a political time warp, and when China
finally opened up, Hong Kong's fate was already sealed. Hong Kong still has
some first-world advantages to exploit, but the number is dwindling day by
day.

~~~
unityByFreedom
> Hong Kong still has some first-world advantages to exploit, but the number
> is dwindling day by day.

Beijing/Shanghai have yet to demonstrate the level of innovation that comes
out of the Hong Kong/Shenzhen connection.

And, parents still send their kids across the border in mainland China to go
to school in Hong Kong.

China may have opened up, and is continuing to open up more, but by no means
are the gates fully open at Shanghai. Innovation still primarily comes from
the south and regions that are farther from the federal government's base.

~~~
dis-sys
First of all, there is no federal Chinese government, it is called the Central
Government of China. There is no federation any time during China's history -
the central government controls everything in every province, the power of any
local administration is granted by the Central Government, directly or
indirectly.

Secondly, most innovations happen in Beijing, you can count whatever stats you
like, such as # of patents filed, high tech start up numbers, VC funds and
where they invest their $ etc. You'd be seeing more than half are in Beijing.

To give you a very quick example: Xiaomi, Didi, Mobike and OFO are the 4
unicorns of China's internet industry, all headquartered in Beijing, their R&D
are done in Beijing, these four have not gone IPO and the youngest worth $1B.

------
d_burfoot
Before pontificating too much about the doom of Hong Kong, you should observe
that compared to the US, HK has:

\- Far lower crime and incarceration

\- Better education (measured by PISA scores)

\- Incomparably better infrastructure (compare beautiful, clean HK subways
with laughably pathetic US ones)

\- Better health outcomes than the US, 84 year life expectancy vs 79 for the
US

\- Preserves an incredibly large percentage of its territory for parks (most
of HK island is a park)

\- No natural resources like the US

\- All of this with far far lower taxes than the US (government % of GDP is
roughly 14% compared to 38% in US)

~~~
inimino
Hong Kong is a port city conveniently located (politically and physically)
between China and the rest of the world.

To compare a uniquely positioned city like that to the entire US population
(which, for example, includes Detroit) is not particularly meaningful.

~~~
robotresearcher
Replace the US with San Francisco or NYC and the list still applies.

~~~
inimino
Now take Manhattan Island, politically and physically isolate it, restrict
freedom of movement between it and the rest of the country, and shut the rest
of the country off from international trade for a few decades and you'll begin
to approach an apples-to-apples comparison with HK.

~~~
yodiployo
Nitpick all you want, d_burfoot is right.

As Manhattan drags the West into the mire, Hong Kong leads the East's ascent.

------
contingencies
I just crossed back to Shenzhen from Hong Kong yesterday. A few random
observations...

In HK, a lot of the taxi drivers are old guys who can barely read, don't speak
English or mandarin, and are a real hassle to deal with unless you are a
Cantonese speaker. A lot of the taxis have weird fare manipulation lookup
tables instead of correct metering. Although the mass-transit oriented stored
value card, Octopus, was established decades ago, you still can't use it in
taxis. Further, if you want to top it up, you literally _can 't top it up_
with anything smaller than HKD50 (USD$9) even if your fare costs less and you
only have small denomination local money. There are no electric taxis, but
plenty of rich people own Teslas. If you ask 20 odd Hong Kong banks about
cross-border RMB payment APIs (HK is supposed to be a financial center, after
all) not a single bank can offer you one. In fact, just to open a regular bank
account is now so difficult standard waits can exceed 2-3 months (and success
is far from guaranteed).

So what does HK still have to offer?

(1) A legal environment under Beijing's auspices but with nominal resistance
to mainland corruption and manipulation.

(2) Superior international financial connectivity and services if you can get
a bank account.

(3) Liberal visa-free travel policies for people from most countries.

That's about it.

~~~
emodendroket
I don't know why it's so shocking that the taxi drivers should not be masters
in speaking foreign languages. I would find it odder if they were all well
educated and fluent in three languages.

~~~
rz2k
It sounded like a contrast to Shenzhen.

Throughout the world, taxi drivers in international cities know a couple dozen
words in multiple languages. Paris, Rome, Berlin, Madrid?

Even if they didn't grow up speaking Mandarin, it sounds like a conscious
decision, if they don't understand a request in Mandarin from a rider today.

Of course, this is just one person's set of impressions, too.

~~~
emodendroket
The conscious decision would probably be learning Mandarin phrases. Presumably
a mainlander who was having trouble could always write the name of their
destination.

I haven't been to Europe but in Asia I don't think it's the case that most
taxi drivers know much English. Some of the Japanese ones offer an in car
interpretation service over the phone but I've never had occasion to use it.

~~~
rz2k
I meant that they might know phrases in French, German, and Spanish more than
English, though in the case of Europe English is pretty common.

However, to be fair, in my experience, some people in Europe have hang ups too
about different languages. I speak Italian, can pass with a little French, and
know no German. In the northern Italian mountains people would start
conversations with me in German based on my appearance, and in resort towns
there were a number of people who chose not to learn Italian, but English was
okay.

Similarly, a friendly lady was trying to help me in a train station in Paris,
my French wasn't good enough to understand some detail, her English wasn't any
better than my French, and I asked her if she spoke Italian. She curtly
answered no, and seemed a little offended.

I imagine I'd have similar stories if I only spoke English and French, English
and Spanish, or English and German.

Would people react with occasional distaste if you tried communicating using
Cantonese in Beijing?

~~~
emodendroket
I suspect the reaction would be more like bewilderment, because the
geographical reach of Cantonese stops pretty far short of Beijing and it's
rather unlikely you'll run into people who speak it. Now if you try speaking
to them in Japanese they might be offended. But I have limited experience in
the Sinosphere compared to Korea and Japan.

------
blackbagboys
Compared to the reputation for far-seeing technocratic excellence that it
acquired in the foreign business press, the CCP leadership has always been
astonishingly short-sighted when it comes to foreign policy. The Taiwanese are
taking note of what 'one country two systems' means in practice - absolute
submission to the ruthless, brutal oligarchy in Beijing. The CCP will crush
Hong Kong, destroying everything that made it appealing in the process, and
find that in so doing they've permanently alienated Taiwan.

~~~
Analemma_
I mentioned this in the last thread about Hong Kong, but they're not as dumb
as you think. Taiwan (both the Blue and Green coalitions) has always
distrusted "one country, two systems", even way back in the 90s before Hong
Kong's autonomy started getting salami-sliced away. China knows that, and
knows they're not really losing anything by abandoning that approach.

That's not their plan anyway. The parallel tracks for dealing with Taiwan are

1) building ever-closer economic dependency, and then punishing Taiwan every
time it elects pro-independence leaders, so that Taiwan has no choice but to
elect pro-reunification candidates for the sake of economic security and

2) gradually muscling the US out of the region and building naval capabilities
so that if 1) doesn't work out, they can take it back by force.

How Taiwan feels about "one country two systems" doesn't really matter to
China.

~~~
Gravityloss
But maybe the better question is, why? The people of Taiwan for the most part
don't want to be a part of China, and Taiwan doesn't pose a military threat to
China.

~~~
AnimalMuppet
Face?

Also, having that island under China's control would be militarily useful in
any showdown with the US - it pushes US forces farther from the mainland.

------
vitaminbandit
This article takes an economic situation and tries to frame it as a political
one. Hong Kongers don't care about the ideological differences between
mainland China and HK, they care about the staggering inequality and loss of
economic mobility in their once vibrant city.

Chinese money is flooding into Hong Kong and it's all being parked into real
estate. This has sent real estate prices skyrocketing and far outside the
reach of ordinary citizens. As a secondary effect, Hong Kong elites are now
parking all their money into real estate with the expectation that the Chinese
capital flight continues to drive up real estate prices. Real estate is the
best investment available in Hong Kong right now. Bar none.

With all their capital tied up in real estate, the elites don't invest in
startups or R&D. No increases in productivity, no new jobs, no gains for the
average citizen in a city that grows more expensive by the day. This is why
Hong Kong is in decline. This is why Hong Kongers takes to the streets. It's
not a backlash towards conflicting political ideology, they just want the
Chinese and their damn money out.

~~~
FabHK
> Real estate is the best investment available in Hong Kong right now. Bar
> none.

Whether it still is now (prices having doubled since the 2007 bottom) is
questionable, and depends hugely on political decisions.

> With all their capital tied up in real estate, the elites don't invest in
> startups or R&D.

Fully agreed. Not only that, it makes starting a small business extremely
expensive.

> It's not a backlash towards conflicting political ideology, they just want
> the Chinese and their damn money out.

I'd argue the umbrella movement was borne of four related grievances:

* the enormous inequality (coupled with low social mobility)

* the extreme cost of getting your own flat (young workers live with their family for a long time, and have to save money for long time before they can put down a downpayment for a tiny apartment (they come in different sizes: shoebox, matchbox, coffin...))

* the gradual erosion of civil liberties

* and, yes, the desire for more political self-determination, e.g. universal suffrage or even independence.

------
j9461701
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.

~~~
Umofomia
> 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

Note that it's not because the British never tried to introduce democracy. In
fact they were heavily dissuaded from doing so because of ... surprise ...
China. Source: [http://www.cnn.com/2017/06/18/asia/hong-kong-handover-
china-...](http://www.cnn.com/2017/06/18/asia/hong-kong-handover-china-uk-
thatcher/index.html)

    
    
      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.
    

More details here too: [https://qz.com/279013/the-secret-history-of-hong-
kongs-still...](https://qz.com/279013/the-secret-history-of-hong-kongs-
stillborn-democracy/)

~~~
FabHK
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. :-/

~~~
dis-sys
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.

~~~
seanmcdirmid
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.

------
nailer
There's a lot to be gloomy about but HK is also really inspirational. At a
time when a lot of young people in the west are railing against democracy,
free speech, and other laws that support their freedom, HK has 20 year olds
pushing China to deliver the democracy they promised before 1997.

~~~
pjc50
> a lot of young people in the west are railing against democracy, free
> speech, and other laws that support their freedom

[citation needed]

~~~
sirkneeland
Not "railing against" to be fair to your original point but this study
(FiveThirtyEight thinks it's sound) says millennials value democracy far less
than their predecessors.

As a % of people who think it is "essential" to live in a democracy:

Born in 1930s - 75% millennials - 30%
[https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/democracy-
meh/](https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/democracy-meh/)

~~~
mrighele
Could it be that democracy that people born in the '30s experienced (or at
least perceived) was different from the one experienced by millennials ?

------
tuna-piano
Some questions I'm thinking of in regards to this situation:

-Who in the world does not agree that self-determination is good?

-Britain seems to be standing up for Hong only lightly. Will they ever carry a bigger stick?[1]

-What is the difference between Hong Kong/China relationship and the often criticized West Bank/Israel relationship?

-Would the former colonies in Africa and Asia be in better hands if they were still part of their old master countries? Hong Kong is obviously not in a terrible spot, but certainly many former colonies in Africa are.

-I think it's clear that because China-Hong Kong have close economic ties, but China is much larger, that Hong Kong needs China much more than China needs Hong Kong[2,3]. Will this power dynamic further bias decisions in favor of Beijing?

[1][http://www.scmp.com/news/hong-
kong/politics/article/1871316/...](http://www.scmp.com/news/hong-
kong/politics/article/1871316/let-hong-kong-elect-its-own-leader-britains-
david-cameron)

[2][http://atlas.media.mit.edu/en/profile/country/chn/](http://atlas.media.mit.edu/en/profile/country/chn/)

[3][http://atlas.media.mit.edu/en/profile/country/hkg/](http://atlas.media.mit.edu/en/profile/country/hkg/)

~~~
platinumrad
>What is the difference between Hong Kong/China relationship and the often
criticized West Bank/Israel relationship?

????? Hong Kong is wealthy, developed, and cosmopolitan and the West Bank/Gaza
are not??

Israel and Palestine share the same landmass and China and Britain do not??

Israel is the most powerful nation in the Middle East and Britian is not the
most powerful nation in East Asia--in fact it's a nation in Western Europe???

Even when Britain was highly relevant in Asia they were only ever a colonial
power while Israel as a nation is inextricably tied to the land that it shares
with Palestine?????

I'm really struggling to see where you're going with this one...

~~~
tuna-piano
I was trying to compare the political situation, not quality of life, which as
you mention is vastly different.

My comparison is more that:

-China controls Hong Kong with only limited local say in the government. Israel also controls the West Bank, with limited Palestinian Authority control of certain matters.

-Hong Kong can't have a military or conduct foreign affairs and isn't internationally recognized (same as West Bank)

-Palestinians in the West Bank are separated from Israel, and are required to enter checkpoints to cross over. Hong Kong residents also need to go through (less invasive) checkpoints to go into China.

At first I thought my comparison might be unfounded, but I thought it was
interesting none the less. But I'm now struggling to see real political
differences in the two situations (although obviously there are many
differences in scale of policy differences, and also important historical
differences). I'd love to be proven wrong though. Certainly Israeli settlement
expansion in the West Bank is a difference. Any other major differences?

~~~
Chathamization
I'd say that the biggest difference in terms of the political situation is
that the people in Hong Kong are Chinese, and Hong Kong is part of China.
Palestinians aren't Israeli (and Israel even talks about population transfers
to remove Arab citizens), and Palestine isn't considered part of Israel
(Israel's stance seems to be "we control this land and maybe some of it is
part of Israel but maybe part of it isn't"). When you add to that things like
the military conflict, blockades, settlements, etc., you can see that the
situation is vastly different.

~~~
tuna-piano
I don't know about that. 1.7 million (20%) Israeli citizens are Israeli Arabs,
many of whom are close relatives of people in the West Bank.

~~~
Chathamization
But that's exactly the point. There's a huge difference between the Israeli
Arab citizens and the Israeli Arabs who are non-citizens. People might talk
about some of the issues faced by Israeli Arab citizens, but when they talk
about the problem with the Palestinians they're specifically talking about the
ones who are non-citizens. The Arabs who have citizenship are in a completely
different situation, just like the Hong Kong residents are in a completely
different situation since they have Chinese citizenship.

~~~
tuna-piano
I guess I don't understand. Hong Kong residents are not really functional
Chinese citizens[1] (as I understand it) just like Palestinians are not
functional Israeli citizens. Obviously the situations are not identical, but
it does seem similar to me.

Hong Kong residents need a permit to enter/work in China just like West Bank
residents need a permit to enter/work in Israel (and something like 50k-100k
Palestinian citizens (non-Israelis) have permits to work in Israel).

[1][https://www.quora.com/Do-people-in-Hong-Kong-and-Macau-
have-...](https://www.quora.com/Do-people-in-Hong-Kong-and-Macau-have-a-right-
to-move-to-mainland-China)

~~~
Chathamization
Did you look at that link? Excerpt:

> If you are a PRC citizen (and most HK people are), you can get a Mainland
> travel permit, then you can work and settle in Mainland China without
> restrictions. Getting a Mainland travel permit is a routine matter, and
> almost everyone in Hong Kong can get one.

This is completely, entirely different from a Palestinian living in the West
Bank. It is _not_ a routine matter for them to get a permit to work and settle
in Israel proper without restrictions; it is extremely difficult to do so.

It's worth pointing out the unequal nature of the restrictions - with
Israel/Palestine, members of the dominant power have the advantage over the
weaker power (Palestine). Israeli settlers are able to move into the
Palestinian territories much more easily than Palestinians are able to move to
Israel (and Israeli settlements and annexation of the Palestinian territories
exist, while the opposite is nonexistent for the Palestinians). This is most
definitely not the case in China - Mainlanders aren't given preferential
treatment over Hong Kong locals.

It's also not correct to think about them as separate entities like Israel and
Palestine, since Hong Kong is represented in the National People's Congress.
Palestinians do not get representatives in the Israeli Knesset, as HK citizens
get in the NPC. The PLA is supposed to protect HK citizens, the IDF is not
there to protect Palestinians - in fact, one of the goals of the IDF is to
fight against the Palestinians. The goal of the PRC is to integrate HK into
the mainland proper, the goal of Israel is to exclude the Palestinians from
Israel. The government of HK is a local PRC government, whereas the
Palestinian governments are separate entities from the Israeli government.
There has been wars fought between Israel and Palestine, and blockades put up
- nothing like this has happened between PRC and HK.

This is kind of like saying "I cut my hand cooking the other day; what's the
difference between that and surgery." The two situations aren't even remotely
similar.

------
throwaway29847
> the authorities have allowed problems to fester, including an affordable
> housing crisis, a troubled education system and a delayed high-speed rail
> line.

So not much worse off than any major western city then? In terms of education,
the entire USA's system could be described as worse than "troubled".

------
shanwang
HongKong's rise was largely due to the decline of Shanghai and mainland China
falling to communist government. Now with the rest of China rise up, I can't
see how HongKong can return to its former glory

------
omegaworks
A lot of "built by the British" sloganeering but just how many British hands
touched a welding torch? Moved ground with a shovel? Hauled supplies?

>Hong Kong was once known for the speed and efficiency with which it built
huge planned communities with ample public housing every several years. But it
has not managed to do so since Britain returned it to Chinese rule on July 1,
1997.

Perhaps a central government tactic. Build up a mass of wealthy entrenched
home owners hell-bent on not seeing their guaranteed rent seeking threatened
by cheaper public housing.

------
partycoder
After the British Empire lost the American colonies, they tried to compensate
their loss by refocusing their efforts eastwards. However the British realized
they could not profit by playing fairly, so they started smuggling narcotics
into China and when that failed, they invaded them, giving origin to their
presence in Hong Kong.

The Chinese have valid reasons to assimilate that territory.

------
WillyOnWheels
If I were China I would point out the HK's entire existence is because Britain
needed a staging area from which to wage war upon China so that Britain would
have a market to sell all the opium it was producing in the Raj, which set the
conditions for the Taiping Rebellion, which killed over 20 million people.

------
Paul_S
I never understood why the UK didn't let Hong Kong declare independence. They
could have then choosen their own protector to keep China away if the UK was
too scared to do so.

~~~
tinza123
Because they can not? The original agreement is UK is only allowed to "rent"
HK for years. They are never given ownership of the city. Plus it's politics,
I don't think it would be such a simple decision made by one party.

------
EGreg
I like the design of this page!

------
holydude
Ofc China does not want HK to be free. China found out how to get "rich"
without losing control. They want exactly the opposite of what makes HK HK.
It's just sad that many strong economies feel like they need / want the growth
based on chinese consumption and trade and are feeding this undemocratic
behemoth.

What is scary is that China is actively promoting expansion by resettling
ethnic han chinese.

~~~
MachinShinn-
Huh? People in HK are already ethnic han chinese... If you're talking about
Tibet/East Turkestan, sure.

~~~
holydude
Talking about other places yes.

------
muninn_
1) Many people. Look at Brexit. You can argue until your face turns blue that
it's bad for Britain, it most likely is, but at least they don't have
unelected politicians setting rules. It's pro-self-determination no matter how
you look at it.

2) Why should Britain stand up for Hong Kong? They're imperialists while they
hold on to it, and then cowards when they give it back to China and say?

3) Almost invariable yes. But then that makes you an imperialist slave driver.
Did bad things happen? Absolutely. Terrible, horrible things. But look at how
things are now.

~~~
pjc50
> at least they don't have unelected politicians setting rules

I have some bad news for you about the House of Lords.

~~~
platinumrad
The House of Lords is an absolute mess of an institution but at least they
can't actually pass or prevent the passage of legislation. Their powers are
limited to amending bills, making recommendations, and delaying legislation.

~~~
vacri
That's some serious hair-splitting. "They don't set rules, they just amend
bills"...

~~~
platinumrad
It's a very limited form of amending (they can't touch money bills for
example) and the House of Commons can always get its way in the end as
amendments can eaisly be rejected by the "lower" house.

------
princetontiger
I agree completely.

In European/Anglo countries, the ruling elite give back. Check out Grand
Central, Rockefeller Center, the large parks and gardens throughout the great
countries of the world. The ruling elite in Asia don't care about others.

~~~
dang
We detached this subthread from
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14665498](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14665498)
and marked it off-topic.

~~~
eachro
What makes this off topic?

------
princetontiger
I love both these comments. China doesn't have private ownership. it's still
communist, right?

~~~
throwawayasdf
It's funny to see the obviously pro-CCCP replies to you here. It demonstrates
my point exactly.

No, you don't have ownership. You only rent the land for 70 years, after which
it returns to the government. You can 'sell your property' to somone else, at
which point the 70-year lease on the land is reset for them to 0.

~~~
vkou
Much of the land in Vancouver's west end is held under 100 year leases.

Strangely enough, people still buy and sell it, and live in it.

Perpetual ownership is not the only valid model of land ownership.

------
unityByFreedom
> Xiaomi, Didi, Mobike and OFO are the 4 unicorns of China's internet
> industry,

Lol. You're just going to ignore Tencent, founder of QQ, and countless other
older, proven-to-be successful tech companies that aren't from anywhere near
Beijing?

Suffice it to say, not everyone agrees with your assessment of Beijing as
being the leader in innovation [1]

Being nearer the beauracracy never helps your flexibility. It helps your
funding for development of things that are of interest to the state.

National government, sorry.

[1] [http://www.allchinareview.com/chinas-emerging-silicon-
valley...](http://www.allchinareview.com/chinas-emerging-silicon-valley-how-
and-why-has-shenzhen-become-a-global-innovation-centre/)

~~~
dang
You've broken the HN guidelines repeatedly in this thread by engaging in
nationalistic flamewar. Please don't do that again.

This is an international environment and the last thing we need is people
sniping at each other's nations for either internecine or xenophobic reasons.
When feeling activated, we all must take care to remain respectful. (Related:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14669197.](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14669197.))

We detached this comment from
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14669031](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14669031)
and marked it off-topic.

~~~
unityByFreedom
Certainly wasn't my intention. I'll be more careful in the future.

I guess I'm not sure how to debate whether one city produces more successful
startups than another. I mean, I think it's safe to say that Y Combinator and
SF have been more successful than, say, Union Square Ventures and NYC, so I'm
not sure where the internecine is in my above comment, but I guess I'll just
sidestep this topic altogether for now and think on it. Thanks for letting me
know.

~~~
dang
By 'internecine' I mean that sometimes people attack each other because their
nations are close and sometimes ('xenophobia') because they are far. I'd give
additional examples but I don't want to set anybody else off.

The main thing is just to err on the side of being respectful, remembering
that other people feel as much love and loyalty for their side as we each do
for ours.

~~~
unityByFreedom
> remembering that other people feel as much love and loyalty for their side
> as we each do for ours.

Oh, for sure. I try to maintain respect for all nations and their people. Are
you certain you weren't targeting another comment?

I guess I could've done without the "Lol" in my comment above, and just cited
Tencent without implying the commenter was "ignoring" them.

But there wasn't any internecine or xenophobia there that I could detect,
because it was a discussion about Shenzhen vs. Beijing, which are within the
same nation! =)

I understand if you can't give examples. Thanks again, I will try to be more
respectful down the road.

------
unityByFreedom
> The real reason for Hong Kong's decline, is the failure/irresponsibility of
> Hong Kong's elite ruling class

Sounds like a narrative that Beijing would very much support, Mr. New Account.

Get people to hate their local govt and appeal to a higher authority for
support. Brilliant.

~~~
caretoomuch
> Sounds like a narrative that Beijing would very much support, Mr. New
> Account.

I'm offering my opinion on this issue. If you don't agree with me on the real
reason for HK's decline, explain your point, or pick holes in my arguments. I
don't see how labeling what I said as "approved by Beijing" \- disregard how
ridiculous it is - automatically disqualifies them.

Also, as to Mr. New Account, I use a throwaway account for the exact reason
that I figured some people would get offended by what I said.

> Get people to hate their local govt and appeal to a higher authority for
> support. Brilliant.

The snarkiness in your comments really made me hesitant to reply, but if you
are still interested in a civil discussion: please recheck what I wrote, and
point out exact where I suggested Hong Kong people should hate their local
government, and appeal to a higher authority.

~~~
unityByFreedom
> point out exact where I suggested Hong Kong people should hate their local
> government, and appeal to a higher authority.

That would be the first line I quoted. Not sure how you missed it.

Here's another,

> there was never any direct "order" from Beijing, well, sorta until recently,
> when Beijing began to see the failure of the local Hong Kong government.

That's an unsubstantiated and unprovable claim. Also implies Beijing is
benevolent. Nobody knows exactly what strings Beijing is pulling. It's hidden
behind lack of free press and habit of politicians to never quite say exactly
what they mean.

> when the ruling rich saw the rebellion of lower class, without
> knowing/admitting themselves are to be blamed, they seek help from Beijing

That's completely made up. You have no source showing "HK elite" sought
Beijing's guidance.

Honestly, your whole post is thick with "blame HK elite" instead of Beijing
for whatever ails HK. Everyone knows Beijing isn't loved, so you throw in a
dash of "Beijing only knows control", yet you point to them as being capable.
The narrative you're pushing is really easy to discover.

------
swuecho
You probably the typical american who think he understand china better than
Chinese.

In comparison, I born in China and live in US for 6 years now.

~~~
dang
I'm sure you do know more, but I'm afraid this comment violates the HN
guidelines in two ways: (1) it's a personal and national attack ("you probably
the typical American") and (2) it contains no helpful information.

We ban accounts that attack other users, so please don't do that, even when
someone's comment is annoying or wrong. When you know more about a topic than
others, the thing to do is teach them. On HN that means posting something
neutral and factual that other users can learn from.

We detached this comment from
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14664772](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14664772)
and marked it off-topic.

