> wasn't the governor of Hong Kong just appointed by the English monarch
In the same way Australia, Britain, Canada and New Zealand’s prime ministers serve at the King’s pleasure. It’s ceremonial, much like the monarchy itself.
> elections where "Hong Kong’s chief executive be drawn from candidates vetted by Beijing" actually seems closer to self determination
They had a full democracy after 1997. That was self determination.
The wikipedia page does not point to being a ceremonial role. It says "most of the civil functions of this office went to the chief executive of Hong Kong" and "no serious attempt was made to introduce representative government, until the final years of British rule."
Hong Kong wasn’t a democracy before 1997. But it also wasn’t under the Crown per se after WWII [1].
It was a British colony, ruled partly by increasingly-elected councils and executives, including the Governor, appointed by London (not the monarch, except in name) with consultation with the locals. The last time the Hong Kongese rioted against the British was in 1967 [2].
There isn’t a comparison between British Hong Kong circa 1990 and the present iron grip Beijing holds over it; freedom of speech, for instance, prevailed as did the rule of law. There is much less comparison one can make between free Hong Kong after 1997 and the mess Xi has turned it into today.
> The last time the Hong Kongese rioted against the British was in 1967
From TFA, also 1981, 1982, and 1984. (Admittedly, these were generally economics-driven)
>> After the [1967] riots, the British Hong Kong government publicly reflected on its failure to address certain social grievances and carried out major social reforms. However, another series of riots would occur in 1981.
I think it's fair to say the 80s riots were 'riots against the economic policies of the current administration, which was British.'
Given that the 1967 riots were explicitly CCP-supported, they've a clearer line to regime change as a goal.
And given the CCP was somewhat busy in the late 70s and early 80s rendering Mao's excesses anathema [0], it's unlikely they saw formenting revolution in Hong Kong as a priority.
> In the same way Australia, Britain, Canada and New Zealand’s prime ministers
> serve at the King’s pleasure. It’s ceremonial, much like the monarchy itself.
This is incorrect: the British monarchy is not ceremonial. Australia, Britain, Canada and New Zealand were self-governing dominions of the British Empire, with their own parliaments, and each nation still has a governor-general who is nominally approved by the monarch but who is actually selected by the government of each nation from time to time. Hong Kong was a Crown Colony, a.k.a. Overseas Territory, and had a governor who was selected by the British government in London and approved by the monarch. Governors-general and governors are quite different things. Governors-general are the representatives of the monarch and exercise the monarch's reserve powers according to the constitution of the nation. The Hong Kong governor was a colonial governor and had much more power over administration than the governor-general of a dominion.
>They had a full democracy after 1997. That was self determination.
This is incorrect: The creation of a democratically elected administration in Hong Kong was fiercely opposed by the People's Republic of China from 1949 onwards, even threatening violence to prevent it. The last governor of Hong Kong, Chris Patten, created a parliament, the Legislative Council, which was partially elected by universal suffrage. The Legislative Council was declared illegitimate by the PRC and was immediately and permanently shut down after the PRC takeover of Hong Kong. The government of Hong Kong since the handover consists entirely of people selected and appointed by Beijing who are all, or mostly all, members of the Chinese Communist Party.
> each nation still has a governor-general who is nominally approved by the monarch but who is actually selected by the government of each nation from time to time. Hong Kong was a Crown Colony, a.k.a. Overseas Territory, and had a governor who was selected by the British government in London and approved by the monarch
Sorry, badly worded on my part. The monarch’s role is entirely ceremonial in the appointment of the Governor of Hong Kong much as they don’t actually select the governors or PMs of Britain nor Australia.
> The government of Hong Kong since the handover consists entirely of people selected and appointed by Beijing who are all, or mostly all, members of the Chinese Communist Party
Wasn’t aware. Do you have a good source? I thought there was opposition in the LegCo.
In the same way Australia, Britain, Canada and New Zealand’s prime ministers serve at the King’s pleasure. It’s ceremonial, much like the monarchy itself.
> elections where "Hong Kong’s chief executive be drawn from candidates vetted by Beijing" actually seems closer to self determination
They had a full democracy after 1997. That was self determination.