Yeah you got some points there. We have a better welfare system. Seems like there's a lot of conflicts between china and hong kong peeps lols.
The best welfare states are always with the highest tax and likely more equality... Hong Kong has a very decent welfare system for the absolute poor, but for the relative "poor" who are whining about not owning the latest LV it's tough luck. But really, not spoon-feeding half the population gives them incentive to climb up the socioeconomic ladder, or die trying.
yeah that is true! many of my friends who migrated from hk and friends who are born here.... the people born here seem to have great pride whereas migrated people don't seem to care..well thats what i know, maybe they don't lol. They don't make a fuss as much as ABCs
You can say the same about ANY ex-British colonies... including Australia (which is under 100% British control until 1901, and wasn't entirely "independent" until 1986). And migrated people doesn't care about showering their "Hong Kong pride" because they can go back after their education or whatnot...
Although we are from same family....HK is not part of China! HK is self governed!! We are different! Just like Taiwan! But we cannot separate from china because china is going to be the next superpower oooh yeah! Be proud you are Chinese! We own the world!!
Hong Kong is NOT an independent country. It used to be a colony or possession of a country called Great Britain, who then gave up ownership of it to the PRC. It is legally referred to a Special Administrative Region (SAR) of the People's Republic of China. China is a nation, HK is NOT. Hence Hong Kong is NOT a nationality. It belongs to China so the people there are legally called Chinese. They used to be call British Crown subjects but after 1997, that all reverted back to Chinese. While there is always regionalism, that's no reason to get into a huff. I know some New Yorkers who, when asked where they're from, answer Brooklyn. If the questioner insists that they're from New York City, since Brooklyn is, after all, an integral part of NYC; the response is always; No, you're not listening, I said I'm from Brooklyn. I'm sure that there's an element of that here too. But hey, the Germans have the Real Germans and the Osters (their poor brothers from the east), the Koreans have the ROK and DPRK (their real poor brothers from the north), and even the Jews in New York have their own perception of proper domain. I once made the mistake of insulting a Jewish man by assuming that he was from Williamsburg (a large Jewish neighborhood in New York) when he looked at me aghast and exclaimed, Oh, no... I'm from Borough Park (another large Jewish neighborhood in New York). The difference between the two is money. One is upscale and the other is pedestrian. Its like saying Mong Kok versus Happy Valley. Its all about perceptions, not anyone else's mind you, but rather our own and how we feel about ourselves. And as for Hong Kong being what it is today because of British administration? I agree. HK only got to where it is because of its system of common laws as dictated by the British. I always said that in 1997, they did it backwards. They should have given China to Hong Kong (and not the other way around). The only thing that is holding China back, more than anything, is corruption. Not that there wasn't any in Hong Kong mind you. But they did something about it, which was what help the colony rise (with the influence of geopolitics) to where it is today. Ralph
^wow ur posts are so detailed.... i love taiwan and them having their own nationality is kinda cool! =] best politic and music XD GOGO 馬英九!!! MY HERO!
Hong Kong is not an independent country, I agree on that, I just say it's a locale with a special geopolitical interest (and lots of economic incentive for people to keep doing that). The thing about this whole argument is the dual connnotation about being "Chinese": it can indicate both nationality AND ethnicity. I mean, if a person is born and bred in, say, United States, he or she is still "Chinese" ethnically (if the parents are Chinese by blood), but unlikely to be "Chinese" in nationality. And then this discussion will go to hell about the whole "Chinese vs. American" or "Chinese vs. Canadian" thing, but I'll let it slide since it's counter-productive to be off-topic, and I always have a habit of doing that. I found it interesting that you used Korea as an example, I mean, unlike Germany (which was reunited in the late 80's or early 90's, when Berlin Wall was down), North Korea isn't quite the same as South Korea politically. North Korea, as far as I know, isn't a recognized country (or dignified country?) to many nations... But I don't know enough about Korea so I'll just stop here. I just want to point out that North and South Korea are politically different, and internationally recognized to be so. You got it right about the whole colonial state thing... Britain got a way with its colonial states, and a long history of screwing them over after they are done with it (or in Hong Kong's case, a death trap to humiliate the successor, thus building further nostalgic colonial sentiment). Corruption did China in, that's for sure, partially because it allow further inequality of income (and education and every last thing) and inhibit socioeconomic mobility... But since everyone's so entrenched in the whole corruption business, it's impossible not to be part of it (thus the reluctance to properly set up a bureau to fight corruption)... Then it all goes downhill from there. And yes, it's not that there is no corruption in Hong Kong (or even Britain), but they are not as conspicuous about it so it isn't as much a targeted social problem as it is in China.
yeh.. HK belongs to China, but it used to belong to the British. America was founded by 13 colonies of Great Britain LOL. I'm a British citizen (as passport says haha).. but i call myself chinese. BRITISH BORN CHINESE. Guys, you should be proud to be chinese... I go to an english grammer school and we have quite a lot of chinese here.. and we blend in with everyone else, and are respected. so it's cool. At the end of the day, HK does belongs to China even when it looks independent. So if you are from HK, you are from China NOW.
i asked some ABC's from australia on my msn....and this one was likee soo~ yah i guess not all overseas born ppl are like that XD i take my earlier comment back =X
Wow, I resent that. Hong Kong wasn't from China when I was born, so no, definitely not from China. Ask an 11 years old in Hong Kong and they may say they are from China. People still have their BNOs (British National Overseas) instead of their Chinese passport, so... China? I think not, at least not necessarily.
in 50-200 years your beliefs may cease to exist significantly as the population rises many people may forget about the whole hk is different unless either parents, schools or self research will bring it back up. New people new, old beliefs vanish. You may not like it but that's how it may turn out like. I am sure the pride will also pretty much decline greatly. I must say, HK is better then china lols. Only cause they are more capitalise and more modern. However i think cities likes Beijing have more culture
Yes, there's always that view of in time whatever we think will become irrelevant, but until that point actually hits, I'll hold that thought dearly still. And I can only agree on Beijing having more history (not THAT much at that, given its age, but yeah, a few over-zealous political wunderkind can do that). In terms of culture it is still in the short run, I mean, I've seen the Dead Sea Scroll in the travelling exhibition, listen to Paris Combo and Secret Garden, saw international film festival in Hong Kong. What is there to see in Beijing that is cultural? Tourist spots such as the forbidden city or the Great Walls or even the Wu Tongs don't count because it's not CULTURAL, it's HISTORICAL. Hong Kong, given its small size, got Kowloon Slumps in memories and the Wetland Park. And to add insult to injury, Beijing (and in fact China as a whole) has that rule where 50% or more of the screenings in cinemas has to be local (read: China-made) so tough luck with variety in cinema... It's no small wonder that a heavily censored locale such as Beijing can be said to be very cultured.
You know, the problem with holding onto a BNO is that its an affirmation of second class status. What Britain did to HK'ers was essentially drop them like a hot potato. After the turnover, they didn't want a huge wave of HK's unwashed landing on the cliffs of Dover (that is, BNO's don't have the right of abode in the UK). All the BNO's were good for was to settle the sensitive political issue between the UK and PRC over whether or not the 6 million people were legally Chinese or British subjects. Britain had long considered that anyone born in its territories to be Crown subjects. China did not agree with this as it considered that all people born in HK at any time to be fully Chinese (not just ethnically but legally, as in nationality, too). Also, ethnic Chinese who hold BNOs are not protected by rights of citizenship from the UK embassy. That is, if the PRC government decided to put an ethnic Chinese BNO holder in jail, the UK won't do nothing about it, not even protest. Aside from the above, Hong Kong only got to where it is today because it was in the right place at the right time geopolitically speaking. If the PRC and communist blockade didn't exist, if the British were not imperialistic and demanded Hong Kong as a punitive land grab status post Opium Wars; there would be no difference between Hong Kong and any other backward rat hole fishing village along the Guangdong coastline. It certainly isn't because the people there are any smarter or better than Chinese anywhere else, just that they had the benefit of better governance over the last century and a half. As time goes by and the rest of China opens up, the average PRC city will eventually get to the point where they will easily surpass HK in many ways. Does it tug at emotional heart strings? To be sure. I too, have many, many family and friends in Hong Kong, and any loss of status there is extremely painful. However, given the regional economic and political facts, its a conclusion that is, however reluctant and distasteful, unavoidable nonetheless. Ralph
I didn't disagree that the success or even miraculous story of Hong Kong is solely a matter of discourse. However, I do not think it is solely by "chance" that things happened in Hong Kong, you know, happened. Although Britain has a record of "successful" colonial history, not every place did as well as Hong Kong. Canada, Australia, New Zealand, India, West Indies and other Carribbean "colonies" didn't seem to be benefiting as much from their colonial experience as Hong Kong. Any thoughts as to why Hong Kong went so far under British control? Really, I have my reasons to doubt this statement. But if this is the way you envision the discourse of history in the future, be my guest. Though I beg to differ, to have such FAITH in the Chinese government (and economy). You seem certain that other cities in China will surpass Hong Kong in "many ways", how so? Because China is the biggest provider of cheap labour? WIth little creative force? Or the fact that Chinese government seem to be overjoy with their successes (woo hoo, Olympics or something) while willingly overlook their many downfalls (such as political tension with other nations). I am not so sure that China will surpass Hong Kong any time soon, if it will at all. I mean, bad governance (and corruption, which seems to go hand in hand at times) isn't very conductive to sustained growth. Not to mention short-sightedness of the Chinese government is doing more harm than good to their prospect.
Because of the industriousness of the Chinese. If the other colonials were as populated with people who had a Chinese work ethic, I think the same might have been replicated elsewhere. But maybe that's just my own narrow wishful supposition, LOL... Don't get me wrong, I am the last person that would be an apologist for the PRC government. I simply meant that given the effects of continuing modernization and liberalization, it is inevitable that the PRC is eventually going to undergo some sort of ICAC process (as did Hong Kong) purely from market need. As corruption is brought under control, it will foster better business and government practices. This is something that China will do, even if they don't necessarily want to, in order to remain competitive. Once that happens, given the better controls, there's no reason why there can't be a Hong Kong type success story in every province. At least, this is my most fervent wish, as it translates into a better China for the Chinese. Ralph
Theoretically, the ICAC thing SHOULD happen, but I don't think it will in practice in China (they will have this empty bureau functioning like ICAC, for sure) And once manufacturing jobs in China declines (which it is bound to be when economy rises), it no longer has an edge than the rest of the world (not to mention the expense on fuel in transport of goods)
Granted, I doubt that the next two or three generations (if ever) will ever see big party bosses facing any kind of judicial music; there's too much power politics at play. But I think what will eventually occur is the low level party functionaries are going to lose a lot of their ability to avoid the law. The stuff that we read about in the news (land grabs, business swindles, product defects, chemical tainting, etc) will probably wind up being stamped out simply from public outcry. Next, if developing societies previous histories are of any indication (Hong Kong, Taiwan, Korea, Japan) then China is not just one big factory, but its also going to be one big consumer. I personally think that the amount of consumer spending and consumption there is eventually going to outpace even the US. As this happens, this is what drove the USA towards better consumer protections and government involvement in product safety. Before then, when the US was first entering the industrial revolution, horror stories abounded of injuries from product defects and poor designs (you should read about how Ralph Nader got into the business of being a consumer advocate, it will scare the pants off of you). Hence, as far as history is concerned, IMHO, China is inevitably going to become a much better and successful society simply because its human nature to want it to be so. The only way that it could all fall apart is if some lunatic (like Mao) rises to the political fore and reintroduces a wrench into the works. Despite my personal misgivings about the present PRC government, I actually have high hopes for China and see its people in a much better place (both socially and politically). The fact that I'm ethnically Chinese has absolutely nothing to do with it either; this is just based on my reading of history of civilizations and human nature in general. Ralph
The problem with China is that those in power don't care about the "public outcry", without democracy public outcry, locally or abroad, has zero leverage because the worst thing public opinion can do to one's position is zip. I mean, it would be coming from the good of their heart (and yes, vision) to do the right, albeit less profitable in the short term, thing. And I have absolutely no faith in the human condition (meaning, "good of heart" is but an illusion) China is bound to exceed the US in terms of consumption, given its population (like what, almost five times as many people). And like the US, income disparity (inequality) is... ah well, I am not going to go there since it's not strictly related. The problem with the defective products in China is that, yes, they can't sell it abroad, but they can still sell it locally, at a reduced price. Even though it may not be AS profitable as selling abroad, it is not very penalizing either (they wouldn't suffer an absolute loss, just a relative loss). And the problem of China is that the disparity in income (rich vs. poor) is so gigantic those who can afford to, don't spend, they consume conspicuously (Shanghai has the highest number of Benz and BMW and Rolls Royce per capita IN THE WORLD, whatever THAT means), but those who doesn't belong to this category, cannot afford zip. Don't be so sure, lunatics have a tendency to come at unexpected times... In fact, at the moment, everyone's so religiously desperate for a charismatic leader, one insane (or just "different") charismatic leader is all it take. Yes, EVENTUALLY China will become very powerful and well, a better place in all aspect concerned. But at the same time, the discourse has other concerns too: the development of a country is always a race with other constraining factors (such as limits of resources, the much loved/hated buzz word "conservation" and "climate change", world politics)... I am not sure if you are a sci fi reader, but there's a class of sci fi which is so certain that in 100 years time, China will become THE Asian country because it'll be most powerful in all aspect concerned. I always say it's going to happen if the Chinese government doesn't bury themselves in their own graves first. I mean, yes, it's human nature to be developing, strive for better things. But if one doesn't look to the long term and just take all the advantage one can take here and now without considering the future (and China, along with a few other government, has a tendency to do that), karma says it's going to stunt its potential. Which is sad, really.
