As Hong Kong used to be a British territory, and now belongs to China, it stands to reason that China would ''tighten it's control'' over it.
I wonder if these ''activists'' are like the ''activists'' that the west supported in Ukraine? Or perhaps like the ''activists'' in Syria? Iraq? Afghanistan? Iran, etc? Wherever our governments have supported ''activists,'' there has been bloodshed.
During the meeting, the activists spoke out against whey they described as Beijingâ€™s increasing control over Hong Kong.
China is showing why this is not necessarily such a bad thing. Like elected governments, dictators also have to keep a majority of their populations happy. For example Saudi Arabia's first reaction to the Arab Spring in other countries, was to vastly increase their welfare budget.
They also said they fear that only candidates picked by the central government will be allowed to take part in the 2017 chief executive vote.
First of all, while we have elected governments, all we have in practice is a choice between one main party or the other. Is it better to have a choice between two parties, both of which represent special interests more than they represent the majority people that elect them; or, is it better to have no choice, but to have a government that does represent the people that it governs?
Secondly, our politics is based on blaming everything bad that happens on the opposition, whereas politicians in China have to take responsibility for it themselves, because there is only one political party.
Comparing ''communist'' China to ''capitalist'' India, it's not surprising why China doesn't want the US ''meddling'' in its affairs. There is nothing the US and it's allies would like more, regarding China, than for it to sell off the state assets so that foreign investors can buy them.
When in Rome....