- Registration time
- Last login
- Online time
- 6035 Hour
- Reading permission
...blame the British....
deananash 2005-06-15 20:47|
<<I, on the hand, have shown numerous examples of how they have both honored and exceeded the agreement. (Those candlelight vigils are proving my point, not yours.)>>
Those vigils are a right, not a privilege. It's no great reflection on China that these vigils are allowed to go ahead, but a shadow on china on WHY people feel necessary to attend them
Britain could not have increased democracy as you suggest, Chris Patt.en's experience when he tried to introduce reform indicates Beijing's attitude. From the start of discussions with the British in the 1980's Beijing took a very hard line, with even threats by Deng what "alternative" repossession options Beijing would use should Thatcher not toe the line on "negotiations" .
As to China's honouring of the agreement, well the BBC "profile" on HK does not entirely agree
<<Hong Kong's constitution, the Basic Law, provides for the development of democratic processes. But under legislation passed in 2004 Beijing can veto changes to the political system. Pro-democracy forces have expressed frustration at what they see as the slow pace of political reform. >>
And in a story on Tsang..
<<Many in the territory feel that the Chinese mainland wields too much power and stifles the high degree of autonomy it was promised when Britain handed it back to China in 1997.
It cannot directly elect its own leader, and Beijing can effectively veto any changes to its political system.
The situation is that the "window dressing" of allowing "vigils" remains, but despite the tentative steps towards "glasnost" by Beijing, they appear afraid of democratic reforms, and are clearly not meeting the expectations of the HK people.