The police force, as with the legislature, the executive, the legal system, the fiscal system, the department of prosecutions and the judiciary all remained under the direct control of the HK SAR Government as part of the joint declaration between China and UK, and this affirmed under the HK Basic Law (the local constitution) passed by the CPCC that enables the 'One Country, Two Systems' principle under which HK operates as a self-administered and highly autonomous region of China.

 

You are also incorrect in saying that the lease was not renewed by China. In fact there were three leases, two expired in 1997, the third (the oldest accounting for the entire Hong Kong Island and the southern part of the Kowloon peninsula) was made in perpetuity, and there is evidence to suggest that China, even at the height of the Cultural Revolution, actively sought to NOT regain control of HK, and that the troubles there in 1967 were not sanctioned by Beijing. The 1984 agreement reached between UK and China gave up both the expiring leases as well as the one 'in perpetuity'. Some sources say this was at UK's initiative as evidenced by papers released a few years ago that detailed how the UK FCO wished to return HK to China in the 60s.

In effect, the stationing of a garrison in HK and the State responsibility for military protection is in no way different to that exercised by UK up until 1997. The Chinese garrison is significantly smaller than that maintained by UK (even with the claimed additions) and many of the military bases taken over remain empty. The local garrison members also enjoy much less freedom than the former UK counterparts, in fact none at all. They are not allowed to leave barracks except on escorted sightseeing trips.

 

I would have expected a page dedicated to strategy to be much better sourced, researched and analyzed.

That was a pretty aggressively-phrased comment.

 

Do you work for the Chinese government or something?

On your first point, there is nothing aggressive in pointing out factual errors, or in commenting on the level of professionalism in research.

 

On your second point, no.

 

Let me add that I followed a link from a regional news outlet quoting the incorrect information in this article, and I did not realise at the time that this site appears to be primarily aimed at gamers, rather than strategists. However also having been a tactical wargamer for around 30 years as well as responsible for designing real-life-based tactical and strategic exercises, I look for accuracy when researching scenarios. This article lacked that in many ways.