Pro-democracy demonstrators vow to continue protests, because Chinese Communist Party wouldn't allow direct and open elections in Hong Kong. My question is how much civil unrest will the Communist overlords tolerate, before sending in the PAP to put down the insurrection?
Clearly these Communist overlords already allow and tolerate plenty of voting and protesting, more than a lot of non-Communist overlords allow and tolerate. The PAP is unnecessary as Hong Kong has its own riot police unless the protesters take up arms.
Obviously, Britain played politics during the separation negotiations in a way that would at least be perceived as honourable rather than tainted. It is a well known that Chairman Deng make the point to Thatcher that China could anytime walk in and take HK by force and there is nothing that Britain can do about it. Thatcher famously replied that that may indeed be the case but that HK would not be worth a dime to China. Herein lies the basis of the Basic Law that was drafted for HK to ensure continuous prosperity, stability and freedom that would be worth more than a dime to China.
I was an expat living in HK at that time and a tremendous amount of our time like many multinationals were focussing on assuring the local employees that there would be no major changes to their way of life under a communist regime because of the protection enshrined under the Basic Law of "one country two systems". The politics today in HK concerns the interpretation of the Basic Law. All the other comments about history on what Britain could or should have done to the political system during their time is really irrelevant to current events.
Of course history is relevant, including but not just that having to do with British rule. Hopefully a full spectrum historical discussion will spur talk about the as yet unmentioned real cause of these protests, which as the protesting group's name of Occupy Central indicate stem from everyday economic grievances, remember Occupy Wall Street anyone? Or is that a censored or self-censored topic?
The British ruled by appointees and committees of special interest groups during their entire time governing Hong Kong, playing up expectations for democracy to the local population in the final years of British rule after agreeing to the handover to China thereby setting up the future government for the fall in this regard.
The long term lack of political empowerment, conscious emphasis on wealth, and let's not forget both personal experiences and stereotyping from the Chinese Civil War and Cold War, during British rule and since, created and fuels a social status and ego issue, pride and prejudice, among a segment of the Hong Kong population centered around personal wealth and knee jerk disdain for the mainland Chinese government and/or people.
This is to be expected as a large part of Hong Kong's population are refugees or descendants of refugees from myriad conflicts and turmoil around China from the past century with sensitivities about how things turned out and major as yet unresolved issues, PRC and ROC anyone?
Your comments doesn't suggest to me that you understand the background issues leading to the current demonstration in HK.
The source of the problem is with article 45 of the Basic Law which states ""The method for selecting the Chief Executive shall be specified in the light of the actual situation in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region and in accordance with the principle of gradual and orderly progress. The ultimate aim is the selection of the Chief Executive by universal suffrage upon nomination by a broadly representative nominating committee in accordance with democratic procedures." As it is commonly stated, the devil is in the details. Essentially the HK constitution guarantees universal suffrage but how quickly and the means in getting there is currently the source of contention and demonstration. The nominating body for putting a candidate unto the ballot has to be by way of the 1200 member body. In the last election, a pro democracy candidate was able to get onto the ballot box. This seems to have unnerved Beijing which has now tightened the requirement to at least a majority nomination instead of previously 20 % (from memory). As the majority of nomination body of members are Beijing aligned, this change effectively exclude any pro democratic candidates. This is a major contentious point for the pro democratic movement because the promise of universal suffrage as enshrined within the Basic Law is seen as essentially a farce. Additionally from Beijing's standpoint, the promise of universal suffrage is conditional upon the principle of being gradual and orderly and Beijing is moving it at the pace it is comfortable with but not shared by the pro democratic movement.
The current contention is strictly a tension between two opposing political system working through the issues. Please don't bring other Sino-British history into the picture as it is simply a local issue.
Actually none of this is the real issue, they are just technical details scratching the surface. The media's reporting on the demands and protests regarding expanded democracy and direct elections of certain Hong Kong officials universally fail to mention the underlying issue of why the protesters are demanding more political power and direct participation by the average Hong Kong local.
Which brings us back to the name Occupy Central and its relation to Occupy Wall Street. The protesters want more political power to address worsening everyday issues for the average Hong Kong local including the lack of well paying jobs, the lack of affordable housing, and policies on a wide range of issues from the environment to the lack of a social safety net which all in some way relate back to big business being favored at the expense of everyone else.
