Total Posts:15|Showing Posts:1-15
Jump to topic:

Ownership of Hong Kong

Norphin
Posts: 13
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/23/2009 3:40:28 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
Hello all, I'm looking for some arguments to support the motion "Hong Kong should have never been given back to China" I've had no luck finding info about this, so any help?

Thanks
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/23/2009 3:46:08 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
You'd be hardpressed to find an argument in support of such a resolution because it is hard to justify the breaking of a contract that was signed and agreed upon by the two entities, but...

You can argue that if popular support was against any amalgamation with China, there would be grounds for the British to reconsider their contract on the basis that the indepedent citizens and governors of Hong Kong do not agree with the conditions present in the treaty that was written up almost 100 years ago, if not longer, and that Britain has an obligation to bring it to a referendum, and respect the wishes of the citizens depending on the outcome.

Thats the only reasonable argument I can think of.
Puck
Posts: 6,457
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/23/2009 4:14:10 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/23/2009 3:46:08 AM, Volkov wrote:
You'd be hardpressed to find an argument in support of such a resolution because it is hard to justify the breaking of a contract that was signed and agreed upon by the two entities

By that reasoning, if my current government sold itself to China, even if the clause was 'for slavery' or some such I would be legally bound to the decision. Contracts are between willing parties. The residents signed no such contract.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/23/2009 4:38:54 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/23/2009 4:14:10 AM, Puck wrote:
By that reasoning, if my current government sold itself to China, even if the clause was 'for slavery' or some such I would be legally bound to the decision. Contracts are between willing parties. The residents signed no such contract.

Which is why I noted my argument in favour below, which goes along those lines.

But, anyways this is too populist of a stance for me; by your reckoning, all contracts signed between states must have the approval of the population. This means any free trade deals, any co-operation on military, economic, environmental and political fronts, down to the smallest agreement, must be ratified by the population.

We elect governments to do these things for us, and turf them when we don't like what happened. That is how democracy works, without being jumbled up in popular opinion all the time. The difference though is that Hong Kong never would have had the chance to democratically choose against it, which I agree is wrong; but the Chinese smartly offered democracy to Hong Kong in order to by-pass any resentment in this case.
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/23/2009 9:34:45 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
Hmm..Hard topic.

1) Britain, and insofar as that NATO, should have maintained a base of operations in Asia to put pressure on China

2) Britain should not have handed it's citizens to a Communist state without Democracy. The fact that tens of thousands emigrated because of communism proves people were afraid of the Communist Chinese government.

3) Hong Kong is an important economic area for China (Look at stats for more on this). Britain shouldn't have given this economic opportunity to a state such as China.
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
regebro
Posts: 1,152
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2009 3:55:18 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/23/2009 4:14:10 AM, Puck wrote:
By that reasoning, if my current government sold itself to China, even if the clause was 'for slavery' or some such I would be legally bound to the decision. Contracts are between willing parties. The residents signed no such contract.

The residents moved to Hong Kong willingly. mostly from China, can be noted.
So prove me wrong, then.
Norphin
Posts: 13
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2009 7:11:51 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Thanks guys, this is what I've come up so far:
1. The contract for HK was made between 2 different parties (China was still in it's Imperial phase, the Communist Party was in power when HK was taken) and was not approved of democratically (millions left HK etc.)

2. China cannot handle it's own country, why should they be given Hong Kong? (Look at some Chinese cities that degenerated during the 99 years, vs. Hong Kong in those 99 years)

Any ideas or comments?
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2009 7:39:31 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/24/2009 7:11:51 PM, Norphin wrote:
2. China cannot handle it's own country, why should they be given Hong Kong? (Look at some Chinese cities that degenerated during the 99 years, vs. Hong Kong in those 99 years)

This is contentious, because Chinese cities during when this treaty was written up were crappy to begin with, versus the huge juggernauts that exist now and in the 1990's. China's economic power has also been magnified many times, and the inclusion of Hong Kong doesn't necessarily mean Hong Kong's own economy will falter, especially given the fact that the Chinese rulers gave HK the basic equivalent of "Home Rule" in the UK.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/25/2009 2:59:15 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
Hong Kong should not have been passed over to China because,

1: Britain was under no obligation to do so, Hong Kong Island, Kowloon Peninsuala, Stone cutters Island had been ceded to Britain. Only Lantau Island (the new territories) was subject to a 99 year lease.

2: China is a dictatorship, it suppresses basic freedoms, lacks free and fair elections.

3: The residents of Hong Kong had not expressed the desire to join China.

4: Hong Kong was/is worth a shed load of moolah.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Norphin
Posts: 13
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/25/2009 6:01:36 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/25/2009 2:59:15 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
Hong Kong should not have been passed over to China because,

1: Britain was under no obligation to do so, Hong Kong Island, Kowloon Peninsuala, Stone cutters Island had been ceded to Britain. Only Lantau Island (the new territories) was subject to a 99 year lease.

Yeah, China refused to give Britain those portions because the treaties were "unfair" I think
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/25/2009 6:26:10 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/25/2009 6:01:36 AM, Norphin wrote:
At 10/25/2009 2:59:15 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
Hong Kong should not have been passed over to China because,

1: Britain was under no obligation to do so, Hong Kong Island, Kowloon Peninsuala, Stone cutters Island had been ceded to Britain. Only Lantau Island (the new territories) was subject to a 99 year lease.


Yeah, China refused to give Britain those portions because the treaties were "unfair" I think

The treaties were unfair yes, but still binding and observed. Was China threatening consequences?
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Norphin
Posts: 13
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/27/2009 6:03:01 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Um, not sure, but what it means is that China demanded Britain to follow through on a contract that benefited them, but refused to go through with contracts that benefited Britain (giving them the rest of Hong Kong)
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2009 4:18:34 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/27/2009 6:03:01 PM, Norphin wrote:
Um, not sure, but what it means is that China demanded Britain to follow through on a contract that benefited them, but refused to go through with contracts that benefited Britain (giving them the rest of Hong Kong)

But the only contract to be actioned was the ending of the 99 year lease.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
banker
Posts: 1,370
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2009 8:52:54 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
As always volkov is right on the money,I admire volkovs wisdom . I like to add that even if china would not be able to justify its acts cina would have the green light from obama,just like obama ignored chinas brutal occupation of tibat..!
the most important source for muslim Arabs:

"And thereafter We [Allah] said to the Children of Israel: 'Dwell securely in the Promised Land. And when the last warning will come to pass, we will gather you together in a mingled crowd'.".

- Qur'an 17:104 -

Any sincere muslim must recognize the Land they call "Palestine" as the Jewish Homeland, according to the book considered by muslims to be the most sacred word and Allah's ultimate revelation.

Ibn Khaldun, one of the most creditable
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2009 6:34:23 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
Also, China of 100+ years ago was b4 the communist revolution wasn't it? So the dictatorship that is "China" is not the same government in any sense which they made a contract with is it?
For example if I owed money to my friend, but an alien came and took over his body, I don't think I would owe money to that alien, even if he argues that it's the same body.

I think Body is analagous to Body of land, or Body of people. Now I don't know what form of govt. China had at the time, so maybe it wasn't that different, but it wasn't promised to the Communist Party of China, which essentially claims ownership over both bodies of China.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."