There’s also heavily subsidized healthcare offered to all members of the population of Hong Kong, which I think isn’t available in the PRC proper.
I largely agree with december’s list, but I would differ with december on the word “considerable democratic control”, since the Legislative Council was largely appointed by the Governor, and only ever partially publicly elected (can’t remember the proportion; less than 20% IIRC - this was one of Patten’s too-little-too-late reforms). Furthermore, I don’t know enough about economic freedoms or the lack thereof in China to comment.
Back in '95, when asked to predict post-handover conditions, I predicted some public show of strength by the Chinese govt. (didn’t really happen, unless you count the PLA crossing the border on handover night, while everyone in HK ignored them), then a gradual drip-drip erosion of personal freedoms. I believe this is happening.
First off, to really discuss this topic IMHO one has to accept a sweeping generalization that the rights of society and rights of the individual are looked at very differently in most of Asia versus the West and especially the US. In the US, individual rights are paramount and in China the individual must conform to the good of society. Take gun ownership for example. Again another sweeping generalization but owning guns is an inalienable American right (and the problems such as handgun deaths that come with it), whereas in Asian countries including China individual gun ownership is illegal. Does this mean that in Asian countries that they lack an “inalienable” human right?
When talking about China one has to make sweeping generalizations because this is a big country with so many people. also that policy may not be implemented in a local village. Time and again you see what perhaps is an isolated incident somewhere in China and that is extraplolated to being government sanctioned policy. For example, you can check out a recent one child policy thread or look at the Aids epidemic spread via ignorant collection practices in the countryside. None of these is government policy nor condoned in general, but does happen. Same way that small county jails and hick cops in the US may flagrantly abuse human rights in their jurisdiction, but no one calls this Bush’s policy.
Also, you’ve got 1.4 billion people to govern with a very limited amount of arable land. IMHO you don’t have the luxury of having the same level of human rights as you can in an affluent country. Certainly, there are basic universal human rights that all countries should have.
– freedom of religion
Mainstream religions accepted by the state including Christianity and Catholicism. Again, this does not mean that all religions have freedom. For example, the Moonies would not be acceptable in China but are legally protected in HK.
– freedom of the press
Internet is your friend. You can get just about everything on the internet. Also, the state control of the press is much less than it used to be. Put it another way, I have seen a steady improvement in press freedom over the past 20 years. Certainly more room for improvement. HK has a “freer” press, but the HK press has long had it’s own issues with impartiality, pandering to owners and special interests. Willy Wo Lap Lam and others at the SCMP would be an example.
– considerable democratic control of issues, via their elected Council
*As pointed out earlier, HK has never had considerable democratic control. China actually has “significant” democratic control at the township and county level. That said for every good example, one can find at least a matching case of abuse in China
– freedom of speech
Speech is “pretty” free in China as long as you don’t question the supremacy of the Government. It’s not like 20 years ago when any political discussions were held behind closed doors. Again, I would point out that freedom of speech has been on an upward slope and continues to improve. Yep, HK has more freedom of speech.
– enormous economic freedom in HK vs. very little in Shanghai
You need to define this. Shanghai is a very capitalistic place. Don’t know if it is more or less free than in HK, but I would call it parity. Both have government involvement. HK has powerful cartels and hongs that don’t exist at the same level in Shanghai.
Shanghai is certainly free enough to support sustained annual economic growth in excess of 10% over the past 20 years. That economic growth is likely to continue through the World Expo in 2010. That is something you can’t say about HK.
That’s enough for a saturday morning. There are topics for multiple GD threads here, but if debaters are not willing to accept that the individual/society rights is different, then there is really nothing to debate.
Interesting and thought-provoking response, China Guy. I confess not to have thought about the individual/society distinction when writing the OP. After you raised the point, I realized that I intended the OP to refer to individual rights, but worded the title as if it referred to societal rights. Thank you for pointing out the distinction.
The one area of economic freedom that I know something about is the insurance business. I visited the PRC with a delegation of insurance experts some 5 or 10 years ago. At that time it was easy to set up an insurance company in HK, but almost impossible in PRC. The PRC had a total of only 7 insurance companies. The government company, Peoples Insurance Company of China, was dominant. There were 4 Chinese regional companies, a Dutch company (International Nederlanden) and an US company (American International Group).
Since then I have read that the PRC has attempted to make it easier to set up new insurance companies.
I would presume that it was also a lot easier to establish businesses other than insurance in HK than in the PRC.
Incidentally, the restrictions on insurance operations were not required by law. It was the way the law was enforced. New companies needed state approval (which is normal), but the regulators were extremely unwilling to give that approval.
It is a sign of their insecurity that HK and Shanghai (and Singapore for that) persist in comparing themselves with one another. There basically is no comparison between HK and SHA.
HK has no capital controls, it has a pluralist political culture with opposition parties/demonstrations, it has a free press, it has a per capita GDP 4.5 times that of SHA, it has a clean judicial system, you can find an internet cafe, etc etc. It’s not SHA.
To set up an insurance co in the PRC you now need (under WTO admission rules wef 02/2003) a minimum US$5bn in global assets and have a 30 year track record at home (and have had a PRC representative office for several years). Few do. There are also strict rules on maximum ownership (51% for the foreign co, IIRC). And what do you invest your funds in?
SHA enjoys fast growth, but it’s from a low base. It’s impressive - my last visit was 3 months ago and you can see a big change from just 5 years before. But there’s something contrived about it. Requiring all banks to move to Pudong so they can can have a “financial hub” that looks suspiciously like HK… They’ve even copied the curved roof of HK’s exhibition center. Ultimately, it’s not natural evolution but central planning.
Unlike Cantoville, however, SHA has brilliant lamb/mutton restaurants.