China Geopolitical News Thread

[Brumby]

The Basic Law makes no guarantee of universal suffrage, but rather universal suffrage upon nomination by the committee. Furthermore, the Basic Law guarantees Beijing to always have a say in the matter. You only quoted part of Article 45. The

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

is as follow:


Emphasis is added by me.

Within

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

, the very first article says:

Emphasis is added by me.

The full version of article 45 and the annex doesn't change anything that I have said and in fact it rather affirms my understanding. The annex talks about following the Law which specifically in this case refers to article 45. Article 45 (in bold my emphasis) states "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.

The main legal contention if you will is whether the nomination committee is subservient to the process i.e. whether the nomination committee is the means to an end or a means to an end.

 

[Brumby]

The CCP governs China. Whether it does a good job or not it will be judged by Chinese people through a duration of time.

How do you propose that judgement will be measured and reported? It is easy to make a statement without having to be accountable.

 

[Brumby]

Maybe you want to actually learn what its like to live in modern China before regurgating the same old media manufactured BS.

How would the experience of actually living in modern China affirms your statement?

 

[Brumby]

I was visiting hongkong a few years prior to 1997 and saw most of the television documentary END OF EMPIRE (made by Channel 4 and grenada television) on local ATV. each episode of the documentary series talked about the process of one british colonies path to independence from the british empire. this although was a british production it spared no punches and told the truth and ugliness of british colonialism and it's desperate attempt to keep it's empire despite the global tide of self governance and independence. if you could find it I really recommend this tv series, it will give you a whole new prespective of what the british have done in the years of the empire. and when Blackstone says the brits have tossed a grenade to china's lap before leaving, that's an understatement.

Jesus said "He who is without sin let him throw the first stone" If you have a bone to pick on someone or a country, there would obviously be plenty of opportunity. Making a speculative accusation is different to that of making a case. At a minimum, I would like to see the premise laid out to justify the conclusion.

I am not here to defend the British or their acts. My comments were concerning the current political news in HK. I have no interest in historical vendetta as it is surely a path to no where.

 

[Engineer]

The full version of article 45 and the annex doesn't change anything that I have said and in fact it rather affirms my understanding.

What the Basic Law says and what you are trying to sell is not the same.

The annex talks about following the Law which specifically in this case refers to article 45. Article 45 (in bold my emphasis) states "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.

The main legal contention if you will is whether the nomination committee is subservient to the process i.e. whether the nomination committee is the means to an end or a means to an end.

Let goes through Article 45 one paragraph by one paragraph:

The Chief Executive of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region shall be selected by election or through consultations held locally and be appointed by the Central People's Government.

Note the bold part. Along with election and local consultation, the paragraph essentially says Beijing has a say in the selection of Chief Executive. The use of "and" indicates it is not merely an alternative. This paragraph is also part of Article 45, which you can't just cut out because it is inconvenient for you.

Now to your favorite paragraph:

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.

The ultimate aim is universal suffrage with preconditions, not standalone universal suffrage. The statement doesn't just end after universal suffrage as there is no period there.

The specific method for selecting the Chief Executive is prescribed in Annex I: "Method for the Selection of the Chief Executive of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region".

And in Annex I, the very first article repeats what is said in the first paragraph of Article 45. So there can be no ambiguity whatsoever of Beijing's authority in Chief Executive's selection process.

There is no legal contention, because the Basic Law actually spells things out very clearly. The issue here is the cherry picking on the part of pro-democracy politicians, selecting some words then disregarding the rest of the paragraph, kind of like what you are doing here.

 

[Brumby]

The ultimate aim is universal suffrage with preconditions, not standalone universal suffrage. The statement doesn't just end after universal suffrage as there is no period there.

You are suggesting it is a conditional precedent clause. Let's take this deeper. What conditions?

 

[A.Man]

It is like the plane is going down and the passengers start demanding a greater say in how the plane should be saved, while completely lacking in flying experience and knowledge of aircraft's systems. Yep, that will turn out extremely well.

Where were you?

Nice to see you again.

 

[mr.bean]

Jesus said "He who is without sin let him throw the first stone" If you have a bone to pick on someone or a country, there would obviously be plenty of opportunity. Making a speculative accusation is different to that of making a case. At a minimum, I would like to see the premise laid out to justify the conclusion.

I am not here to defend the British or their acts. My comments were concerning the current political news in HK. I have no interest in historical vendetta as it is surely a path to no where.

you don't need to quote me jesus because i'm not a Christian. stating how the brits had ruled the colony of HK and how they didn't want to return it to china but had no choice is not 'bone picking'. it's interesting how some westerners always like to quote jesus or some parts or verse of the bible when they have conversations with others. I've never met an indian guy who would say ''you know Vishnu said............." or a scientologist say "you know Ron Hubbard said........."

 

[Janiz]

it's interesting how some westerners always like to quote jesus or some parts or verse of the bible when they have conversations with others. I've never met an indian guy who would say ''you know Vishnu said............." or a scientologist say "you know Ron Hubbard said........."

Maybe because both New and Old Testament are full of allegories and parables and you have to think while reading to understand them which makes them actual today and makes the book one of the greatest in the history of human kind?

What Ron Hubbard or Vishnu said don't work that way. Sorry for this off-topic post but many atheists think that christains take what's written in the Bible word for word (well, some of them do of course! but that's minority).

 

[jobjed]

Maybe because both New and Old Testament are full of allegories and parables and you have to think while reading to understand them which makes them actual today and makes the book one of the greatest in the history of human kind?

What Ron Hubbard or Vishnu said don't work that way. Sorry for this off-topic post but many atheists think that christains take what's written in the Bible word for word (well, some of them do of course! but that's minority).

Quotation may be a serviceable substitute for wit but is by no means guarantors of valid premises or arguments. If the best to which a party can resort are quotations from the Bible, then it's a telltale sign that their argument is devoid of reason and logic.

By corollary, individuals who rely on blind faith in religious texts to support their animosity against China naturally compel the Chinese people to be dismissive and bestow ridicule in response.