Because the mainland government refused to extend the lease on the island.
Now I'm seeing her in a black, form-fitting jumpsuit. Do not want.
What sort of revisionist history is this? When the British was running the show (and for the entire duration of the British rule), it was a known factor that it will be handed back to China. There wasn't a place to "work hard" for democracy, because whatever system that was in place in Hong Kong at the time would was known to be "subject to change" by China once the handover occurs. The Hong Kong Basic Law, signed by both the British and Chinese, was established as a set of rules for the one country, two system framework that is meant to give autonomy for 50 years after the handover. There's always been a push for actual change for democracy, but this current push is the result of the continuous meddling, and the rise of the 20+ year olds who have now grown up in this new reality, seeing how their future will be impacted by what's been happening. The last 15+ years has seen China test the waters of how much they can get away with meddling without outside interference, and right now, it's just a tactic to see how long they can stall without breaking the society.
They had a similar protest last year, I really hope they can get democracy or independence at some point. A lot of Hong Kongers came here to British Columbia around the time of the handover.
Stuff like this must really piss off the Communist Party:
edit: Oh, and to the above who say that violence is necessary for democracy, I only have to point to Canada as an example. And it's Canada day!
edit2: Oh, and some of the people in this thread need to read some basic Hong Kong history: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_development_in_Hong_Kong As well, Hong Kong did have its own legislative body even before the handover...
Everyday people from the mainland cross the borders (pregnant mainlanders), actual hong Kong people are literally getting bred out, a lot of the people speak with a mandarin accent.
It hasn't imposed taxes, but it's imposed enough puppets and rules to make sure the playing field is as uneven for Hong Kong as they can so that China can bring their own cities up to par (and in that regards, they've succeeded quite well). If you treat China as a unified country, sure, that's fantastic, but clearly in that mindset, this means pulling down Hong Kong as much as they can (and you can see this seeping through in all corners, from mainland investments driving land prices to astronomical heights, to the large parallel goods market that was literally killing the buying power of the Hong Kong people - the baby formula crisis was a great example of that). The fact that China has been meddling with Hong Kong's autonomy (which is suppose to be guaranteed with Basic Law) is enough of an unstabling factor to drive foreign investment away.
IIRC, Hong Kong is self sufficient for electricity. Civil defense (police, special forces) are strictly within Hong Kong (and, also the crux of the protests over Article 23). Water is the odd one out, imported from China through the Dong River. This had always been a source of discussion and worry (and often satirized in political cartoons in HK), that basically if China wants to break HK, all they need to do is just to choke their water supply out.
How was it before? Id really like to know.
Exactly. The bulk of the exodus from Hong Kong to Australia, US and Canada happened post 89 all the way to 97, for many reasons like education, economic growth, and what china's willing to regarding democracy (and 89 scared the hell out of everyone).
People don't speak mandarin to you.
I remember when Hong Kong was featured in Street Fighter.
And so was the USSR.
