Thanks for this!

"Once in awhile we get shown the light, in the strangest of places, if we look at it right" - Hunter/Garcia

Her article mostly deals with economic and social matters, but she points out the issue of the "functional constituencies", the consequence of which is that the parliament is not elected by universal suffrage. She sees this as an inheritance from the British that suits the Chinese government while not bothering most inhabitants of HK :

Héritage des négociations de rétrocession entre Britanniques et Chinois, ce système se comprend mieux si l'on se souvient que Hongkong est aussi une ville chinoise : le conservatisme économique va de pair avec un conservatisme politique favorable au régime de Pékin. Pour ce dernier, le risque de prolifération idéologique est trop élevé pour laisser une démocratie à suffrage universel se développer sur un territoire chinois, même autonome. Aussi, tout comme sur le continent, la prospérité économique est un élément-clé d'un statu quo politique fondé sur un postulat : le régime ne sera pas remis en cause par la population aussi longtemps que l'économie restera florissante.

Legacy of the retrocession negotiations between British and Chinese, this system can better be understood if one recalls that China is also a Chinese city : economic conservatism goes hand in hand with political conservatism favourable to the Pekin regime. For the latter, the risk of ideological proliferation is too high to let a universal-suffrage democracy grow on Chinese territory, even autonomous. So, as on the continent, economic prosperity is a key element in a political status quo based on a postulate : the regime won't be questioned by the population as long as the economy is flourishing.

My own feeling is that there is no doubt about the responsibility of British imperialism for the lack of democracy in HK; but neither do I have too many illusions about the Chinese leadership's will for democracy anywhere it holds power.

Isn't there a parallel between this and, more broadly, the profits Western capital is making in China while keeping quiet about human rights and democracy?

...the Chinese are using the Basic Law set down by the British themselves for the Legislature...

   * The Basic Law was drafted by a Committee composed of members from both Hong Kong and the Mainland. A Basic Law Consultative Committee formed purely by Hong Kong people was established in 1985 to canvass views in Hong Kong on the drafts.

    * The first draft was published in April 1988, followed by a five-month public consultation exercise. The second draft was published in February 1989, and the subsequent consultation period ended in October 1989. The Basic Law was formally promulgated on 4 April 1990 by the NPC, together with the designs for the flag and emblem of the HKSAR.

    * Some members of the Basic Law drafting committee were ousted by Beijing following the 4 June 1989 Tiananmen Square incident, after voicing their views supporting the students.

A couple of things, in no particular order. Britain is indeed extremely hypocritical about this, seeing as they ruled the place without anything that even looked like democracy until the final few years. 'Looked like' is important, because HK's system of functional constituencies amounts to a gerrymander by profession instead of locale: businessmen, doctors, lawyers, teachers and social workers get to vote twice (the last two categories are maybe anomalous in terms of their class awareness and possible voting preferences, but I'm sure it was figured out that these potential lefties would be well and truly out-voted by everyone else, so the sop was affordable). So, of the sixty Legco seats, thirty are chosen in more or less 'one man one vote' fashion, twenty are chosen by good solid reliable bourgeois types, and just to make sure, the last ten get picked by a small committee of business people (or maybe Mainland Chinese business people ... I can't remember.)

So the whole thing is purely for show, and even then it's rigged to make sure the show is the right one. And these were arrangements by Britain, not China. Add to that that the Legco is pretty much powerless anyway in executive terms.

I shouldn't need to point out why the aversion to democracy by both Britain and China. HK is run in the interests of its business class, and one thing that dread is the introduction of proper labour laws. If there is even a semblance of democracy, you can kiss goodbye to unpaid overtime (virtually the only type: OT means working for nothing for most people here), twelve hour shifts six days a week (e.g. for security guards and bus drivers), sacking people whenever you like, and so on.

Incidentally someone once figured out that HK's weak labour laws actually cost business and the economy some phenomenal amount of money annually,  because employers hire and fire without much scrutiny of a potential employee's real capacity, and staff turnover is high due to disatisfaction with crap working environments.But the essential insight that one must invest in personnel is lost on Hong Kong's business owners, who still live very much in the Victorian era in terms of their primitive views on productivity ('work 'em as many hours as you can every single day').

I have other incoherent things to say but I must be off to work.

Thanks for ET.