Protester shot in chest by live police round during Hong Kong protests

> The CCP control is being implemented which is what the protesters are against.

Really? How exactly is it being implemented?

EDIT: Down-voters, can you answer the question? Or are you just going to try to bury it with down-votes?

If you live in Hong Kong, you can definitely feel that over the years, CCP have been increasingly ramp up their influence on HK matters.

CCP officials start to comment on internal HK matters, lobbying for government policy to pass in the legislative branch.

The extradition treaty subjecting people to some mainland laws is a step in that direction.

Influence? Certainly.

Just like the UK could influence HK matters when it was a British colony, China can influence HK matters now that it's a Chinese special administrative region.

Control? Not so much.

There are several reports of people whom the CCP views as antagonistic having gone missing when flying into or through China. Bookshop owners, political activists and writers, for example.

The strong reaction against the extradition bill comes to a large part out of (reasonable) fear that it will be abused as a tool to get rid of dissidents and pro-independence elements.

The extradition treaty has officially been withdrawn as a result of the protests.

That alone should tell you that Hong Kong has been able to maintain substantial autonomy from the central Chinese government.

I'm only aware of Gui Minhai, a book store owner. He had to appear on TV in China and give a confession of guilt, but was afterwards free to go home. He is not missing. And he is not serving time, the GGP was mistaken.

(EDIT: I stand corrected, if reports of his continuing detention in mainland China are true. His is certainly a curious, unfortunately, and extreme case. It does not take away from the fact that Hong Kong still has a functioning judiciary system independent from mainland China, and the vast vast majority of Hong Kong citizens have no reason to fear the same fate.)

The extradition treaty has officially been withdrawn as a result of the protests.

That alone should tell you that Hong Kong has been able to maintain substantial autonomy from the central Chinese government.

After his release from prison, in October 2017, Gui Minhai has been under strict surveillance, living in a flat in Ningbo. His access to the internet and communication with the outside world has been limited, despite assurances from the Chinese authorities, on a number of occasions, that he was a ”free man and that the Swedish authorities could have any contact they wished with their fellow citizen”. Sweden’s Foreign Minister, Margot Wallström, made a statement saying that providing consular help to a Swedish citizen in need of medical care was ”perfectly in line with basic international rules, including the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations”.

[0]: https://www.hongkongfp.com/2018/02/21/enough-forced-confessi...

He is still on the mainland. I’m Swedish by the way and follow his daughter, Angela Gui. His daughter has been given very limited access to her own father, and the Swedish Ministry of Foreign Affairs also has difficulty reaching him. For some reason, the CCP felt it necessary to use a Chinese businessman to try to make a deal with Ms. Gui where she would limit her media apperances and be given more contact with her father. Hardly respecting freedom of speech, in my own country no less.

And, again, this was because of a bookstore owned in Hong Kong, not the mainland.

After months of protests. That alone does not convince me.

However, the fact that such a self destructive bill is even proposed by the pro-Beijing government in the first place alone convinces me that ”one country, two systems” is being hollowed out.

> After months of protests.

It was suspended almost immediately after initial protests.

> self destructive bill

That's a stretch. Personally I believe Ms. Lam proposed it out of good faith. It was too naive perhaps, and did not include adequate protection for Hong Kong citizens. It never would have survived the legco anyway, never mind the protests.

Regarding one country, two systems. The Chinese government, to its credit, has largely kept its end of the bargain and allowed Hong Kong to govern itself, aside from making sure that the chief executive isn't actively anti-Beijing. Hong Kong people had never enjoyed as much freedom and autonomy as they do today, not under British rule, not ever. Some people are just too blinded by ideology to see that.

> The extradition treaty has officially been withdrawn as a result of the protests.

No it still hasn't. The government claims they are going to withdraw it, but technically the bill is still in the Second Reading stage.

I'm sorry but:

- The last round of Legislative Council elections during British rule was effectively by universal suffrage.[1] No LegCo elections after the handover have been comparable.

- During British rule, there were also municipal councils and again, council members were eventually elected by universal suffrage. After the handover the entire municipal council system was abolished.

- Also during British rule, the Public Order Ordinance was found to violate the Bill of Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, especially regarding freedom of expression and assembly, and was amended accordingly. After the handover the amendments were repealed, resulting in a reduction of freedom of expression and assembly.[2]

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1994_Hong_Kong_electoral_refor...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_Order_Ordinance

Any broadening of rights after the signing of the Sino-British Joint Declaration is suspect. These are ploys to alienate the Hong Kong people from China (離間計). They are what we call 陽謀, ploys we will nevertheless fall for even though we know they're ploys.

Know your history. How had the British treated the Hong Kong people throughout its history as a colony? How has China treated the Hong Kong people? Honestly?

(EDIT: Honestly, people?)

> Any broadening of rights after the signing of the Sino-British Joint Declaration is suspect. These are ploys to alienate the Hong Kong people from China (離間計).

If you by that mean that giving a place more civil rights and protections against human rights abuses makes it more unlike China, yes, I agree.

And as spacehunt said, British established the independent judiciary which the CCP is trying the dismantle now with the extradition bill and the British also made large scale election reforms, which the CCP rolled back out of fear for democracy.

And, when the CCP can't do anything with the current laws, they kidnap and imprison people for exercising their free speech in Hong Kong. We've waited quite a while now in Sweden for the release of our countryman, the CCP can lend some faith to their insistince that they support "one country, two systems" by releasing him. Anyday now would be nice.

Because the control is still being implemented. To implement it, you need influence.

> the independent judiciary which the CCP is trying the dismantle now with the extradition bill

That narrative is never supported by the facts, and the extradition treaty has been withdrawn. You keep saying it does not make it true.

> the British also made large scale election reforms

After the signing of the Sino-British Joint Declaration. It's like agreeing to sell your company, then doubling the salary of every employee before handing over the company to the new owner. It's reckless, irresponsible, but sadly, very effective. Like I said, a ploy you'd willing fall for, even though you know it's a ploy.

> We've waited quite a while now in Sweden for the release of our countryman, the CCP can lend some faith to their insistince that they support "one country, two systems" by releasing him.

While I agree the CCP crossed the line in the case of Mr. Gui, and I sincerely hope for his release as much as you do, it by no means indicate the unraveling of one country, two systems. Just like the exile of Edward Snowden by no means indicate the unraveling of freedom of speech in the US.

Again, how exactly is it being implemented?

All you came up with is the extradition bill, and that, again, has been withdrawn.

> That narrative is never supported by the facts, and the extradition treaty has been withdrawn. You keep saying it does not make it true.

It’s still not withdrawn, Ms. Lam has only promised she will. But the bill is still in second reading.

> After the signing of the Sino-British Joint Declaration. It's like agreeing to sell your company, then doubling the salary of every employee before handing over the company to the new owner. It's reckless, irresponsible, but sadly, very effective.

These are not employees of the CCP who’s freedom is draining China’s budget, these are people who’s freedom and independent judiciary made them an attractive spot for foreign investment in the first place. The only thing the expansion of voting rights cost the CCP was a more expensive process to influence and pressure Hong Kong. With democracy, such a pointless bill as the extradition bill would not have been proposed in the first place, and the threat of losing re-election would have made the LegCo fully withdraw the bill immediately instead of after months of protest. And, a democracy has checks and balances to investigate police departments for excessive violence and corruption, another thing that the people of Hong Kong lost when the CCP rolled back the amendments that restricted police power.

> Just like the exile of Edward Snowden by no means indicate the unraveling of freedom of speech in the US.

I can publish a full page ad in every US newspaper calling for the US to drop all charges against Snowden and have absolutely no repercussions from the US government. I can’t do that in China calling for the release of Gui. That’s the main reason the case of Edward Snowden is not unravelling free speech in the US, or the west.

I work for Bonnier, one of the largest publishers in the Nordics, and the Hong Kong government took out a full page ad in our largest newspaper, Dagens Nyheter, where they argued that Western governments should keep out of Hong Kong’s business. The editor in chief, Peter Wolodarski, explained why we did it like this;

”We gave the Chinese regime the opportunity to present their case in one of the most prestigious newspapers in the country. An opportunity they deny their own citizens. Because that’s how much we value free speech in Sweden, and that’s how little the CCP values free speech.”

I can not point to any public references, but I have met individuals who have been involved in cases with people disappearing. When their relatives reach out to investigate their disappearances, there will be explanations along the lines that they eloped or disappeared at their own accord and they have no idea where they went. People who have fears that this could happen to them will agree with their SOs on hand signs and codes they can use when walking past security cameras to indicate that they are being forced somewhere. These cases don't end up in the news.

> It does not take away from the fact that Hong Kong still has a functioning judiciary system independent from mainland China, and the vast vast majority of Hong Kong citizens have no reason to fear the same fate.

This is the case today. The proposed extradition treaty would flip that around significantly.

Also, the treaty has not been withdrawn at all, it has been "suspended", meaning it can still be picked up again at any time when/if the controversy has died down. Lam said a month ago that she plans to withdraw the bill, but that has not yet happened.

> It’s still not withdrawn, Ms. Lam has only promised she will. But the bill is still in second reading.

The chief executive publicly announced the withdrawal of the bill. It's as good as done, technicalities notwithstanding.

> these are people who’s freedom and independent judiciary made them an attractive spot for foreign investment in the first place.

What's your point? They had been that attractive spot for foreign investment before the expansion of rights.

> With democracy,

You seem to think democracy is this panacea that heals all ills. I have a magical bridge in Brooklyn you will surely be interested in.

> such a pointless bill as the extradition bill

The bill was proposed as a direct response to someone committing a crime in Taiwan and fleeing to Hong Kong. See the point there?

> And, a democracy has checks and balances to investigate police departments for excessive violence and corruption,

I admit that Hong Kong is not a full democracy, but Hong Kong already has all these things, and they work remarkable well, in fact much better than in most countries one might consider full democracies. Again, one would have to be really blinded by ideology to not see that.

> I can publish a full page ad in every US newspaper calling for the US to drop all charges against Snowden and have absolutely no repercussions from the US government. I can’t do that in China calling for the release of Gui.

But you can do that in Hong Kong. There you have it, one country, two systems, it's alive and well.