😂

Uk wanted british administration with PRC soverainty

well this guy thinks Trump will never become the president, what do you expect.

During the British control period, the UK never give Hongkong democrazy but only sent administration officers to Hongkong people & gave up Hongkong when Japan attacked during ww2. While China gave you true freedom so you can finally decide something but now Hongkong teens despise China in reverse. what happened?

@@sixucai5314 Sorry, rebuttals to you. Firstly, the UK DID NOT give up Hong Kong. The Commonwealth soldiers from Britain, Canada, India and some local Chinese fought till the end. Secondly, regarding the point of sending administrative officers, yes, indeed, in the early days, most of the administrative officials were from Britain or other parts of the Commonwealth. However, from the 1960s onwards, there started to be a trend of localisation of government officials, and in the days before Handover, some of the major government posts were even occupied by Hong Kongers, most notably Anson Chan, who served as the Chief Secretary from 1993 to 1997. Thirdly, regarding the point on democracy, indeed! Britain never gave us true democracy, but in the 1991 and 1995 LegCo elections, we were granted the rights to quasi-universal suffrage for Legislatures. The whole democratisation trend took place since 1980s, and was sped up after the June Fourth Incident out of fear of communist rule. Democracy and universal suffrage for the Chief Executive is something that was openly agreed to be granted by CCP before Handover, so you can see that the trend of democratisation would continue beyond Handover. Lastly, regarding the point on Chinese giving us true freedom, I wonder if you truly understand the situation in Hong Kong. If CCP has given us true freedom, we would be able to select our CE right now already, but the plan granted to us in 2014 was obviously a plan that would effectively exclude any pro-democracy candidates from entering the election process. This universal suffrage thing is the root cause for all the dissatisfaction towards CCP, so this can suggest why HongKong teens hate CCP. The fact is, the CCP has been demonising Hong Kong teens, but they are just fighting for what they deserve. Feel free to have a meaningful discussion with me, I am more than welcome to receive rebuttals from you, but make sure you get better prepared first, especially in terms of facts.

@@chm0225 thx for your long statement. But as part of chinese (I assume it's true or it's meaningless to discuss about this topic), why Hongkongers never think of making China better or giving chinese people more respect but just think about yourselves. it means very selfish to me, especially Hongkong becomes rich ONLY because of the special status in China. I never see the sign that HKers really get into mainstream chinese culture。

Why??

hong kong and macau can keep their systems and stay autonomous for 50 years after reunifying .

uh no

It is 2047 now

National security law has passed 😭

Great idea!

The Daily Conversation i love your videos but can you make one about mega projects in Central and Latin America

Yes please!!!

Yes please! Looking forward for that

Max Lee He shouldn't make a video just about Taiwan, as it would be unfair to the other Chinese provinces.

Thanks and will do.

Go watch Geography Now channel

Farghali and

Slashplite they’re good as well

Thanks!

hey @The Daily Conversation, where could I get graphics of Hong Kong like this from?

what is the point of your idiotic channel? its like a half-assed version of a documentary using other sources. you are crap.

Chinese move

I have never heard of the language Chinese. Can you please explain it's roots and where I can find people who speak it?

@@th3thrilld3m0n America and America.

Linus Wärn glad to know u like here☺

Linus Wärn u might want to come during the HK7 games for a big f ing party

When is that?

I live in Hong Kong

Giann Carlo Lalisan watch the video but every time he says British or English pretend that he says Portuguese and Portugal the same with every time he says Hong Kong pretend that he says Macao and boom now you have Macao episode

I second this! Singapore is a fascinating place with a fascinationg history. It'd be a cool video for sure.

Yes, every single one (for a change ;)

I agree with some of your points, but I doubt that China's going to overtake us too soon. You see, China's going for modernization and perhaps in decades time it will be as free, albeit probably still totalitarian, as Hong Kong. They're currently not in the least part Maoist-style socialist in their economic and social handling. But I must say that it is the pan-democrats themselves that vetoed the bill that could have been the first step to democracy. China's not going to let us have universal suffrage anytime soon, so we should go gradually, as stated in the Basic Law. To do that we need to obtain the best deal that we have, which is Carrie Lam's bill for 2017. Yet the pan-democrats vetoed it and destroyed opportunities for the first step to universal suffrage. Now Beijing' not going to care about our democracy for the forseeable future. Sigh. That's why we need to be more pro-establishment. Just saying, but I am a native middle school student studying here in Hong Kong.

Fergus Wong as a secondary school student from Hong Kong i agree with u and if we aren't so rebellious China don't even have to intervine

china's edu system look like a prison. How about Hong Kong? Are Hong Kongers collectivist or individualist?

Rahman LITE I would say collectivist? (I immigrated early on so I did not have first hand experience) Hong Kong's educational system used to be a replica of the British one, but the reform in early 2010s changed to have slightly more of the student's own choosing, I think.

Rahman LITE Personally somewhere in between. I believe that both individualist and collectivist systems of learning have their own benefits. We are taught social responsibility and to develop an interest for our country (which is definitely not brainwashing, know the difference). We have elements of national education mixed into some subjects. However we are not restricted on which electives we can choose in high school and university, and the government also supports student's individual interests, so as long it does not harm social cohesion and national security. We have a subject called Liberal Studies in which we analyse politics and society and stuff like that, and critique of the government and current system is allowed. However, independence propagation is prohibited as it is unconstitutional and violates the 'One Country' clause.

Sarcastic Charisma we will take our country back and make china great again

Hong Kong is doing better than China. I think you will take it back and ruin it.

agree xD

@@SJ23982398 actually its not

Mr. Klopp GDP per capita is $38000 for Hong Kong and under $10000 for China. I would say Hong Kong is doing better.

Not sure what your sources are for that claim...One Country Two Systems was a key negotiation point between the UK and the Chinese governments: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-British_Joint_Declaration You think Deng would've just given Hong Kong their own system if it wasn't one of the stipulations for British withdrawal?

I claim it out of my own memory and not out of any source. "You think Deng would've just given Hong Kong their own system if it wasn't one of the stipulations for British withdrawal?" That's exactly what I said. "One Country Two Systems" is Deng's invention. He even said that it can serve as a model to Taiwan on the unification issue. Another thing is that "One Country Two Systems" is not used as a bargaining chip by China as you suggested. From what I can tell, China has no intention to impose Communism on Hong Kong after the turnover setting aside all political considerations and Britain couldn't care less. China at that time was still very poor and Hong Kong was much wealthier and successful than mainland and was a huge asset to China of then, both in terms of investment and source of ideas. China certainly wants to keep the status quo of Hong Kong and disrupting Hong Kong in any shape or form was tantamount to kill the golden goose that laid the golden eggs. Deng wasn't that stupid. China at that time was starting baby step on experimenting capitalism and Hong Kong was a source of inspiration. To that end Deng created four SEZ (Special Economic Zone) of which Shenzhen is one. Why Shenzhen? Because it was right above Hong Kong! Britain's gripe on the whole Sino-British negotiations is that China wants to get Hong Kong back, with full sovereignty. In the beginning Britain insisted the three treaties were still valid. When that doesn't work Britain propose that China can get sovereignty but the territory should be administered by Britain. That doesn't work either and the negotiations entered into an impasse and finally China announced that if Britain does not come back to the negotiating table by a certain deadline China will unilaterally announce its plan of Hong Kong's turnover. Britain relented and that was how the negotiations continue.

To "The Daily Conversation" ..... One Country Two System is originated from Deng so to keep the stability of HK. UK so happens to agree upon it either they want it or not. Obtain the Hk government source and not through Wikipedia, which is much more reliable. You can search HK government homepage. I live in HK long enough see the whole process happens and through daily newspaper starting in the 1980's. Do some serious research before sending information to the public. I just want to say China never trusted UK (A previous drug lord country) who sell drugs, beat the hell out of China, snatch China assets and money and carved out some of China's land just because China doesnt have sufficient military force during last century. It is only a matter of time (within 20 years) when China obtain sufficient military and economic power to tear the limb from their torso if someone tries to carve China's land again like previous UK did.

One Country Two System was originally Deng's solution for unification with TAIWAN. Since Taiwan's issue is way complicated and may not resolved for many years to come, Deng thought he can use it on Hong Kong and Macau first.

"Deng would've just given Hong Kong their own system if it wasn't one of the stipulations for British withdrawal." That's exactly what would happen. Been living in HK before the handover, people outside Asia don't seems to understand how smart is the CCP. I'm not a supporter of them in any way but Chinese Communist are not ordinary communist. If you look at Macau, CCP had their shot to unify Macau and Mainland in the 70s after the coup in Portugal but they refuse to do so. Instead, they make sure Portugal keep governing Macau. So why would Deng want a 1 Country 2 Systems for HK? Very simple, because Deng knew that values are created by entrepreneurs and startup companies. Doing business need a huge sum of financing, so where could those money come from? Hong Kong. more than half of the financing flow thru HK to Mainland. In general, pro-Beijing parties prefer more economic freedom and anti-Beijing party prefer more political freedom. You can read some historical text to begin and not relying on Wikipedia. Learn more, way to go! Good Luck!

Yeah bc china basically ignored most of the rules set for hong kong

Yep. Stay tuned.

Wow! I want to visit there. :]

You're welcome! It was a lot of fun to make. Which part of HK did you grow up in?

Happy to help!

;)

Brits sucked but the Qing also colonised Tibet, Korea, Vietnam and Xingjiang.

I can understand the part about Tibet. For Xingjiang, it's a very diverse place where Chinese give Uyghurs more power because they are non-Han majority. Also, If you view tributum as colonisation, then you can add Burma, Siam, Cambodia, Laos, Butan, Sikkim, Nepal, Afghanistan, Kazakstan and a brunch of Khanates in Central Asia in the list. So next time you shot fire in KZfaq you got more bullets in your hands. Good Luck!

Including the US, a former British colony now follows the footstep of its former coloniser.

same. I am racially Chinese, ethnically Hong Konger. And that is my identity.

calm down guys... Ethnicity is referring to a group of people with similar culture (sources: Google, Wikipedia, and Merriam-Webster). Since I identify Hong Kong's culture to be distinguishable from the rest of China, I could claim I'm ethically Hong Konger. -Yes, I'm also ethnically Cantonese and Han Chinese. I don't deny that, but I most closely identify with Hong Kong in that it feels too different when I'm in, let's say, Shenzhen, which is only a border away from Hong Kong. This is kind of like a Puerto Rican is an American by standard, but they probably would refer to themselves as Puerto Rican. -Asia is a whole continent, unless my audience can't tell China apart from India, I go straight to "I'm Chinese" rather than "I'm Asian". With that said, my point is that the term ethnicity is very ambiguous and it highly depend on how one defines it...

Countries that are mostly ruled by ethnic Chinese like the mainland, Taiwan, Singapore, and HK, should all have independence from the mainland's government. Taiwan and Singapore obviously do but the Communists ought to see some benefit in having multiple political and economic centres, practicing various methods, all for the benefit of their own citizens (Chinese or otherwise), the region, and humanity. Healthy competition and exploring alternative paths is better than one authoritarian government (granted that they are doing a pretty fantastic job so far). But some members don't have the interest of the common people at heart and more control over Taiwan and HK is going to enrich them and their buddies.

Jackqulen. I totally understand what you are saying. I share the same sentiment.

Fred Hal Singapore is not part of China, so why is it being included in states wanting independence from China? The government only claims territory under Qing dynasty China, of which Taiwan and Hong Kong are, but Singapore isn't.

nah man, Awesome

Also you should do a video on Taiwan as it is in another weird and complicated geopolitical limbo. It might get a lot of hate from both sides but I think it is worth the risk.

It is said that Hong Kong can keep being a special administrative region until 2047....

Jackqulen I ment anytime after 2047.

Ahh yes, but perhaps a little less Chinese involvement though. This so called one country two system feels more like a puppet state at some point if the Chief Executive has to be pro-Beijing...

Jackqulen I do agree with that. I don't know enough about the situation in China and Hong kong since I don't live there anymore but I think Hong Kong should be kept democratic for the foreseeable future, as it is what makes it special from the rest of mainland China. Maybe it could serve as a starting point for introducing democratic ideals into the Chinese political system once the country is ready economically and structurally, and people have a higher average education level. I don't think China is ready for democracy right now as the model of growth that it has been running is based on long term planning and being decisive in making decisions. It would not be possible in a democracy.

Yes, Hong Kong Police do the good job and arrest rioters 🤣

It seems 50-50 to me, but hopefully we'll hear from some Hong Kongers about what they think...

The Daily Conversation Yeah I agree Maybe a independent city state like Singapore would be good for them

Most of British history concerning the empire is never taught in schools unfortunately, so many don't know all the bad that was done by the British.

ashfaq rahman Yeah it sucks Every nation only teaches u what they want u to know I mean in school all we every learnt was the good things Our Empire did and that we ruled 1/4 of the Earth I didn't learn that Winston Churchill indirectly killed 4 million Indians u till a few months ago

Hong Konger here :D There's no simple answer. It's divided whether Hong Kong citizens would choose British rule vs China. -most of the older generation would tell you they do not want British rule. In fact, back in 1990's, many look forwarded to decolonization of Hong Kong (the ones that didn't would most likely have immigrated during that time). -However, hostile sentiment grew over the years, especially among the younger generation, as China became more involved in Hong Kong's daily lives (politically and socially). The political aspects was covered in the video where we had large demonstrations that took months a few years back. Socially, the public did not like the Chinese tourists (well, I think that's a worldwide phenomenon). One can imagine how awful that is since Hong Kong has been the top destination for Chinese tourists than any other place on Earth (and still is, after the one visit per week quota law in 2016)

The USA is the proof that this formula can be aplied in a large scale. 13 colonies that became the richest society in the history of humanity. A country richer than the entire european union. Although the US isn't neerly as free as it used to be , it still a very impressive sucess example. You cited the problems of hong kong, but you're not considering what it used be. It was worst than many african countries today. You talked about Singapore, it has a very free market , low taxes and very soft economic regualitions (not so much for social issues though). Look here the correlation of economic freedom and prosperity. Look that the countries in the top of the ranking for economic fredom are also the most prosperous : www.heritage.org/index/ranking

I'm saying the USA is the richest society in history by the amount of wealth it can produce, GDP nominal if you will. Also you have to consider that America came from nothing ,virtually. It is a new country, it didn't even existed 250 years ago and today it is richer than the entire European Union and has an economy 8x larger the UK's. And this wealth came from trade and from business creation, it wasn't any petro miracle alone like the ones we saw in the middle east. Meanwhile,China is a society of millennia and that has 1,36 billion people. Of course in the future China will surpass the US, because China itself is benefiting from a freer economy. Mao's China wouldn't even dream of coming this far.I desagree when you say that China can just print money and surpass the US in GDP. That's not how it works. As you said, when you print money you create inflation, so every chinease yuan will be worth less. In the end of the day, the currency ajustments will result in an unchanged overall value of GDP in dollars (This not acounting the bad consequences of inflation and governments printing money). When you talk about income inequality, I also desagree. Ineaquality isn't a bad thing by itself, poverty is. India has less income inequality than the US, but it doesn't matter, because almost everybody in india is equally poor( by american standards). What I'm trying to say is that the difference of income earned between people doesn't matter if everybody can make enough money. It doesn't matter if you neighbor has too mansions, if you have a good house. Inequality isn't a problem, poverty is. Also, when people start seeing inequality as an issue by itself , they start supporting insane propositions like super taxing the rich, taking peoples property , etc. This actions only make billionares and business flee the country, besides beeing imoral. Also, I'm not saying Hong Kong's history excuses it from it's probems, I'm just asking you to have some perspective. Many people from China would do everything to have the right to live in HK. You have to admit, HK is a very prosperous and a very free part of the world. Actually, acording to the UN, the Human Development Index (HDI) of Honk Kong is Higher than those of Sweden , Fance and even Japan. Not bad at all. Singapore, has incredible standards of living as well, but contrairly to what you said, is is indeed a finantial hub. According to the World Bank , it is the third largest finantial center in the world, only behind London and New York. Also, not bad at all. Freedom brings results. Just to finish, I have to agree with your last paragraph, economic freedom is not the same as small government, low tax and soft regulations, it also has a lot to do with free trade. Free trade is a key issue in economic development. That's why Europe is well represented in the list. But you cannot have a free economy without the other factors I mensioned beeing taken into account. By the way, even in subjects like taxes and regulations, Europe is much better than most countries in the wolrd. You have no idea of what crazy taxes and regulation exist out there - they really hurt the economy.

Singapore has 85% of its people living in public housing. 90% of land is owned by the government. 22% of its GDP is produced by state owned enterprises. As for the US, Alexander Hamilton, the first Treasury Secretary of the US (that’s the guy on the ten-dollar bill) developed a theory called the ‘infant industry argument’ - the view that the government of an economically backward nation should protect and nurture its young industries until they ‘grow up’ and can compete in the world market. Hamilton died in 1804 in a pistol duel, but the US adopted protectionism in the 1820s and remained the *most protected economy in the world for most of the next century*. So no, free markets do not always work and its not exactly how the US and EU got rich. Britain had the most protected economy in the capitalist world in the late 18th and the early 19th century. Much of this protection was provided in order to promote British manufacturers against superior foreign competitors in Europe, the Low Countries (what are Belgium and the Netherlands today) in particular. The reason China is developing so quickly while other free market countries are developing slowly is simply because China is taking the right steps, the same steps the US and the British took centuries back.

@ Andres. That's total nonsense. Britain generally promoted free trade. Even the empire itself was pretty much an open market. It is in the UKs interests to promote free trade. And this was doubly true back in the 19th century given the then relative competitiveness of its industry. As for Singapore and Hong Kong, these must surely be the most unprotected markets in the world, and it is no coincidence that they are among the very richest places on the planet.

It promoted free trade in the LATER part. Very much later. I have already mentioned it. Only during the late 19th century did they promote free trade. Britain had the most protected economy in the capitalist world in the late 18th and the early 19th century. Much of this protection was provided in order to promote British manufacturers against superior foreign competitors in Europe, the Low Countries (what are Belgium and the Netherlands today) in particular. This is consistent with Hamilton's infant industry argument.

Eww no thanks communist

Not the same people. People who say they prefer British rule are most likely the younger generation. The older generation (at least the ones that stayed in Hong Kong) still believe in the one country, two system. -Well, for the first time, the people in Hong Kong have the power to govern themselves....

lol