Hong Kong....Occupy Central Demonstrations....

[Geographer]

Three arguments keep getting made against the student and Occupy Central protestors, and those who support them.

1) "I support the protestors' goals of democracy but think Beijing will never change its policy so it's wasted effort."

2) "Hong Kong citizens should take whatever Beijing gives them without complaint. The Basic Law does not stipulate democracy of the kind the protestors want so they have no legal ground to stand on."

3) "Communism is superior to democracy in China, including Hong Kong, protests are illegal and inevitably lead to violence, so of course I'm not going to support pro-democracy protestors."

 

[Blitzo]

Nicely done, now, care to sum up the three arguments for the protesters and those who support them?

And make sure to put them in speech marks too >_>

edit: I quickly rehashed what you wrote...


1) "I support the protestors' goals of democracy and who cares whether Beijing will change its policy so we should make an effort anyway."

2) "Hong Kong citizens shouldn't take whatever Beijing gives them without complaint. The Basic Law absolutely stipulates democracy of the kind the protestors want so they have a solid legal ground to stand on."

3) "Democracy is superior to communism, protests are legal and won't lead to violence, so of course I'm going to support pro-democracy protestors."

----

Also, I don't think anyone said communism is superior to democracy... and as for the Beijing won't change its policy part, that is meant to imply the protesters won't have all their demands met by Beijing anyway, so should consider some more realistic approaches.

Oh and regarding violence, that goes for any protest, not only this one.

 

[pla101prc]

Very true. Unfortunately the damage has been done. Coupled with undeserved sense of superiority HKers tend to display, I am afraid it would be very difficult for protesters to garner support from MLers.

the only leverage HK protesters really have over Beijing is the prospect of their grievance finding its resonance in mainland cities. However given HKer's reputation nowadays one can safely assume that such leverage are not in play in the scenario at hand, which means the potential ramification of defiance and inaction by CCP is negligible. This is bad news for the protesters because they cannot continue to riot indefinitely. momentum in this kind of movement, especially one in which students are the mainstay, often run out quickly.

there is however another approach that can perhaps sustain this movement and even convince Beijing that it deserves proper attention. If the protesters were to occupy main government buildings and replace the city government's executive branch with the connivance or even collaboration from the city council, then Beijing will no longer be able to sit idly and watch. I have a good feeling that this is the path occupy central will eventually resort to if it finds itself to be losing momentum.

 

[bajingan]

president Xi has said that he and president Putin shared similar personalities which is strong and uncompromising leadership, the event in hong kong will tell whether his statement is true or not, if Xi backed down now he will be seen as weak.

 

[texx1]

Three arguments keep getting made against the student and Occupy Central protestors, and those who support them.

1) "I support the protestors' goals of democracy but think Beijing will never change its policy so it's wasted effort."

Perfectly reasonable position for realists among us. Beijing won't offer any substantial concessions. The best protesters can get is the sacking of current chief executive.

2) "Hong Kong citizens should take whatever Beijing gives them without complaint. The Basic Law does not stipulate democracy of the kind the protestors want so they have no legal ground to stand on."

HKers can complain and protest which they are doing now. But Basic Law is pretty clear on degree of autonomy Hong Kong enjoys and Beijing's veto power.

3) "Communism is superior to democracy in China, including Hong Kong, protests are illegal and inevitably lead to violence, so of course I'm not going to support pro-democracy protestors."

Whether Communism or democracy is superior for China is a question of political belief and personal philosophy and beyond the scope of this discussion. Personally I don't support violent protesters regardless of their aim or agenda. So far the protest in HK has been relatively peaceful.

 

[MwRYum]

the only leverage HK protesters really have over Beijing is the prospect of their grievance finding its resonance in mainland cities. However given HKer's reputation nowadays one can safely assume that such leverage are not in play in the scenario at hand, which means the potential ramification of defiance and inaction by CCP is negligible. This is bad news for the protesters because they cannot continue to riot indefinitely. momentum in this kind of movement, especially one in which students are the mainstay, often run out quickly.

there is however another approach that can perhaps sustain this movement and even convince Beijing that it deserves proper attention. If the protesters were to occupy main government buildings and replace the city government's executive branch with the connivance or even collaboration from the city council, then Beijing will no longer be able to sit idly and watch. I have a good feeling that this is the path occupy central will eventually resort to if it finds itself to be losing momentum.

Indeed, it's very unlikely to find kindred spirits in the Chinese masses. More and more voices takes this as an opportunity to "end" HK and let the likes of Shanghai or Guangzhou to rise. Overall, Mainlanders "welcomed" HK to "commit suicide" in such a fashion, up to and including Central Government to make it into an "assisted suicide" for HK.

 

[Blitzo]

Indeed, it's very unlikely to find kindred spirits in the Chinese masses. More and more voices takes this as an opportunity to "end" HK and let the likes of Shanghai or Guangzhou to rise. Overall, Mainlanders "welcomed" HK to "commit suicide" in such a fashion, up to and including Central Government to make it into an "assisted suicide" for HK.

Yeah, I wonder what the mainland internet population's view of this is.

They're a mostly savvy bunch. Of course there are reports of them supporting the protesters and what not, but I wonder what the distribution in opinion is.

 

[Blackstone]

president Xi has said that he and president Putin shared similar personalities which is strong and uncompromising leadership, the event in hong kong will tell whether his statement is true or not, if Xi backed down now he will be seen as weak.

CCP Chairman Xi Jinping is more nuanced than most writers or journalists give him credit. I like

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

description of Xi as a leader that will response to hard power with even greater hardness, but if approached with gentleness, he's likely to respond with greater gentleness. It's just a one liner, but there's probably some truth to it.

 

[Geographer]

Let's look at what the protestors can accomplish.

1.) Convincing LegCo to veto Beijing's new system for the 2017 elections. Considering a 2/3 majority is needed to accept it, and the Pan-Democrats have more than 1/3 of the seats, this was probably going to happen even without the protests. But now that a large mass of the population has expressed their opposition to Beijing's plan in phone polls and on the streets, it's virtually guaranteed to be vetoed.

Vetoing the plan keeps HK's governance in the status quo, and defers things until the 2022 elections. Beijing will have new leaders then so Hong Kong might get a better deal. Or a worse deal. Or no deal at all.

2.) Put pressure on the top business leaders, CK Leung, the ministers, and the pro-Beijing crowd in Hong Kong, who might then put pressure on Beijing. Beijing might ignore the protestors but they might not ignore the pro-Beijing business elite. The business elite do not want instability in Hong Kong, and they don't want a 1989-style suppression of the protestors either because they would hurt Hong Kong's image and business environment far worse than the current protests. These business elites could convince Beijing that giving Hong Kong full democracy would satisfy the protestors and ensure stability in the city.

The cynics would say that Beijing will never grant Hong Kong full democracy for fear than an anti-CCP Chief Executive will win the election. But so what if that happened? Nobody in HK wants independence, and even if they did there is no way they could achieve it. What else does China want from HK other than for HK to be officially part of China? HK already hosts Chinese democracy organizations, Tienanmen Square Massacre memorials, the Falun Gong, pro-democracy newspapers, and open internet. What's wrong with letting Hong Kong citizens choose the person who will run their government, manage their taxes, appoint the heads of government agencies, and help make internal laws?

 

[Blitzo]

Let's look at what the protestors can accomplish.

1.) Convincing LegCo to veto Beijing's new system for the 2017 elections. Considering a 2/3 majority is needed to accept it, and the Pan-Democrats have more than 1/3 of the seats, this was probably going to happen even without the protests. But now that a large mass of the population has expressed their opposition to Beijing's plan in phone polls and on the streets, it's virtually guaranteed to be vetoed.

Vetoing the plan keeps HK's governance in the status quo, and defers things until the 2022 elections. Beijing will have new leaders then so Hong Kong might get a better deal. Or a worse deal. Or no deal at all.

The status quo would be acceptable to Beijing, but would it be acceptable to the protesters? Their demands are pretty clear, they want everything, now.

2.) Put pressure on the top business leaders, CK Leung, the ministers, and the pro-Beijing crowd in Hong Kong, who might then put pressure on Beijing. Beijing might ignore the protestors but they might not ignore the pro-Beijing business elite. The business elite do not want instability in Hong Kong, and they don't want a 1989-style suppression of the protestors either because they would hurt Hong Kong's image and business environment far worse than the current protests. These business elites could convince Beijing that giving Hong Kong full democracy would satisfy the protestors and ensure stability in the city.

The cynics would say that Beijing will never grant Hong Kong full democracy for fear than an anti-CCP Chief Executive will win the election. But so what if that happened? Nobody in HK wants independence, and even if they did there is no way they could achieve it. What else does China want from HK other than for HK to be officially part of China? HK already hosts Chinese democracy organizations, Tienanmen Square Massacre memorials, the Falun Gong, pro-democracy newspapers, and open internet. What's wrong with letting Hong Kong citizens choose the person who will run their government, manage their taxes, appoint the heads of government agencies, and help make internal laws?

Because lack of veto power and indirect control means it could be used as a much stronger base to subvert central government power. HK also sets a precedent for other territories -- they can have autonomy, but they must be answerable to beijing on a few important matters.
And the independence question is not something I would so willingly dismiss either. I wouldn't put it past any anti china chief executive to selectively read the Basic Law or ignore it altogether -- or even be influenced by foreign powers to seek independence just to create further consternation for the central government.

If there is a way for a number of "hard limits" to be set for any candidates, then that might be acceptable for beijing, but the protesters won't accept anything less other than full autonomy and independence in all but words. More importantly, any conditions that beijing sets probably won't be enough no matter how reasonable.
If there was a single and credible leader that was willing to make more nuanced negotiations, then sure, maybe something could be worked out. But I think the crowd has been whipped to a point where anything less than everything will be unacceptable.