Chinese General news resource thread

[airsuperiority]

So, both of Shinzo Abe's grandpas were convicted Class-A war criminals? No wonder he's so desperate to whitewash Imperial Japan's militaristic history.

Well as my Japanese professor had said, the original politicians from pre-war Diet were not ousted from power, so they got to keep their jobs. Next thing she told us was, politicians run their careers like a family business in Japan, where they pass on the tradition from one generation to another to their descendants. That said, this means it's no surprises they will inherit the thinking of their grandfathers. That being said, essentially the thinkings of the Japanese Diet never really changed; just the same people with renewed DNA and flesh and bones.

When you have that big of proportion of right-wingist running your country, your country is on a dangerous path. This is why Japan is quite f*cked. Oh and all of this thanks to MacArthur, who also conveniently granted amnesty to the war criminals and doctors of Unit 731. Let's not forget he also proposed invading China and using atomic bombs on Beijing.

 

[Janiz]

So, both of Shinzo Abe's grandpas were convicted Class-A war criminals? No wonder he's so desperate to whitewash Imperial Japan's militaristic history.

None of the were convicted A (or B or C or whatever) war criminals. His second grandfather (Kishi) was in prisoned after the war as any government high official but got released with ban on any public duty (as other governemnt high office holders before the end of the world were). Abe Kan, as I mentioned earlier, was in opposition against general Tojo at the time and the group he created won the first US-approoved elections after the war (which means lots considering the situation).

It seems China's making some headway in weakening US-ROK-Japan alliance, and the US was either unwilling or unable to keep South Korea from considering membership in the rival Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank. My first impression is the former, but upon reflection, I'm having second thoughts.

I doubt that as it means anything more like a wonder way to get some hard millions to leak millions from public cash to the private accounts of the people that support them or family and get later on go to live in US/Eastern Europe.

 

[Equation]

Beyond the geopolitical implications, this rail line would also have significant practical challenges for China. The proposed region for laying track is extremely prone to earthquakes, landslides, and floods. It is also beset by insurgency and sectarian violence.

“Will they have stomach for that at that point of time?” asked Behurai.

Chandrasekharan emphasized that planning a rail link through disputed territory brings to light the Chinese regime’s aggressive attitude in foreign policy, especially in dealing with India.

“They were talking about a ‘peaceful rise.’ This is not the ‘peaceful rise’ of China. It looks like more of an aggressive rise,” he said.

What India Can Do
The Chinese move has a greater India-China dimension to it. Recently the Chinese regime unveiled a map showing part of India’s territory—including part of the disputed Gilgit-Baltistan and Arunachal Pradesh—within China’s borders.

“So [China] has several strategic aspirations here,” Bahuria said.

Bahuria said the Chinese regime is warning India, because India is more inclined towards the United States.

“NEW DELHI—The Chinese regime has commissioned a preliminary research study for building a controversial international rail link. It would connect China’s Xinjiang region to Gwadar Port in southwestern Pakistan.

“It’s more than economic. It’s more to dominate the area and to help Pakistan for strategic purposes,” said S. Chandrasekharan, Director of the South Asia Analysis Group in New Delhi.

The issue is extremely contentious from India’s point of view. The project would pass through Gilgit-Baltistan, a disputed territory controlled by Pakistan but claimed by India.

The rail link is part of a multi-billion-dollar economic corridor between China and Pakistan that also includes work on a road link. The Chinese regime also has its eyes on the Iran-Pakistan natural gas pipelines through the region, which will significantly reduce the distance for China to import oil from Central Asia.

“China should have avoided building a corridor—and such a crucial corridor, as they call it—through a disputed territory, because that also in a way is an illegitimate act, and Indians have expressed their concerns about it in the past,” said Dr. Ashok K Behuria, Head of South Asian Center at the Institute of Defence Studies and Analyses in New Delhi.

China’s Strategic Alliance With Pakistan
Experts say that apart from trade prospects, China’s commissioning of this study could be a political move.

“The Chinese regime…they are very, very clever. They want to send a signal to Indians, to Americans, that we are not going to backpedal on our relationship with Pakistan because Pakistan is a strategic country in the region and it has an immense value—for stability of Afghanistan, even for stability in the West Asian region, and in the Middle East,” Behuria said.

On one hand they want to threaten India that by so doing we (China) are consolidating our strategic ends in Pakistan and Afghanistan, and if you are aligning yourself with US and trying to re-balance us, then beware. We are not far away from you. We are here. We are watching you,” he said.

According to the Times of India, the Indian Government has already expressed to China its specific concerns about the rail link. But these concerns seem to have fallen on deaf ears.

Behuria suggested that India should do more than just express concern; it should look for balancing strategies.

“The balance I see is Chabahar, developing the Chabahar port and enabling the corridor to Central Asia through Chabahar and Afghanistan. So [India] can bypass Pakistan and carry out their trade and commerce through Chabahar port,” Behuria said.

Chabahar is a seaport in southeast Iran on the border with Pakistan. It’s about 43 miles from the Gwadar, the port China wants to build a rail link to.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

 

[solarz]

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Trust the NY Times to come up with this kind of China-bashing garbage:

Like most of the world, China allowed the death penalty for much of its history, along with an array of other harsh punishments that included at various times servitude, tattooing and castration. But beginning in the Han Dynasty (206 B.C.-220 A.D.), Confucian scholars emphasized a humanitarian approach to justice. The purpose of punishment, they argued, was to morally rehabilitate offenders and restore social harmony, not to secure revenge.

One crucial precept was chuli ruxing — that only when gentler means fail should punishment be used. While brutal executions certainly occurred, for centuries emperors regularly intervened to issue acts of da she, or great mercy, by pardoning offenders entirely. Some went further. In the 8th century, Emperor Xuanzong briefly abolished the death penalty, making China one of the few feudal countries to do so.

By late imperial times, Chinese execution practices were moderate compared with those in Europe. During the Qing dynasty (1644-1911), imperial edicts suggest that China largely avoided the carnival-like killings then common in France, Germany and Britain. Public executions were solemn, orderly events, with guards discouraging rowdy spectators.

That changed drastically when Mao Zedong came to power in 1949. Using the death penalty as a political tool, he introduced bloody punitive campaigns in which suspects were rounded up en masse and summarily killed. From 1950 to 1953, during the campaign to suppress counterrevolutionaries, the regime executed more than 710,000 political foes. State-condoned killings spiked again during the Cultural Revolution (1966-1976), and later during the “strike hard” campaigns initiated under Deng Xiaoping.

No mention of Chinese Emperor's tendency for 满门抄斩: killing every family member associated with the condemned. No mention of the "Death by Thousand Cuts": not a spectacle? When the last Ming emperor idiotically executed his best general by this method, the watching crowds were whipped into such a frenzy that they fought each other for a piece of the general's flesh.

A 2007-2008 survey of nearly 4,500 people in three provinces funded by the European Commission found that only 58 percent supported the death penalty — compared with nearly 60 percent in the United States. Perhaps most revealing, respondents to the survey were aware of the death penalty’s uneven implementation. Sixty-nine percent believed, accurately, that poor offenders were more likely to be put to death than wealthy ones, while 60 percent thought that innocent people might be wrongfully convicted.

Wow, only 58% compared to almost 60%! Such a huge difference!

I'm sure the death penalty is evenly applied in the US, right? Surely there are no visible minorities disproportionately represented on the death row?

Finally, to infer from a single, exceptional case that China is relaxing the death penalty is rather foolish. While it is true that China has been executing less people in the past decade, this has been a long, gradual trend that has simply reflected improvements in the Chinese judicial system.

I am generally opposed to the death penalty, but there are some crimes that are so heinous, the perpetrator deserves nothing less than death. One example would be the guy who killed a baby girl over an argument with the baby's mother about a parking spot! In cases such as these, I prefer to see the swift action of the Chinese justice system rather than the years, sometimes decades, that such cases would take in North America.

 

[solarz]

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

This is very good to hear!

 

[joshuatree]

Neat little infographic

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

 

[airsuperiority]

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

London: Britain's parliament has rejected Chinese calls to scrap an inquiry into Hong Kong's progress towards democracy, a senior lawmaker said, warning that reforms there may violate a 1984 deal on the former British colony's sovereignty. The US has also backed universal suffrage in Hong Kong in comments likely to anger China.

Britain handed Hong Kong back to China in 1997 under an agreement which said it could keep its wide-ranging freedoms and autonomy. But pro-democracy activists say a Chinese decision to tightly curb nominations for a 2017 leadership vote means Hong Kong risks ending up with a "fake" democracy.

With tensions rising in the special administrative region, Britain's parliament launched an inquiry in July, prompting the Chinese ambassador to Britain and the National People's Congress Foreign Affairs committee to robustly demand it be shelved.

But Richard Ottaway, chairman of the British parliament's Foreign Affairs Committee, said on Tuesday that members of parliament would not heed the Chinese calls.

Advertisement
"We are not stopping the inquiry. We met yesterday afternoon and decided to continue," Mr Ottaway told Reuters.

Britain's relations with China took a nosedive in 2012 after Prime Minister David Cameron met the Dalai Lama, the Tibetan spiritual leader whom Beijing says is a separatist.

Ties have mostly recovered since. Mr Cameron visited China last year and Chinese Premier Li Keqiang flew into Britain in June on a trip that sealed billions of dollars of trade deals and advanced London's push to become an offshore yuan trading hub.

Mr Ottaway's inquiry is meant to examine how China and Britain's joint declaration on the transfer of sovereignty over Hong Kong to China is being implemented.

The city was never fully democratic during 150 years of British colonial rule and China says its reforms amount to a "historic milestone" that will allow "one person one vote" when it comes to the Hong Kong chief executive position.

Activists say, however, that the vetting process will make it almost impossible for opposition democrats to get on the ballot.

"My job is to see if Britain is living up to its side of the undertakings and secondly if China isn't living up to their undertakings then what is the British government doing about it," said Mr Ottaway. "This is not interfering in the internal affairs of China; that would be completely inappropriate."

Breach of sovereignty deal?

Separately, Mr Ottaway told BBC TV that China's reforms may flout the 1984 Sino-UK agreement about Hong Kong sovereignty.

"If you have a committee which is not neutral in nominating a limited number of candidates, there seems to be a prima facie case that the undertakings given have been breached," he said.

"I don't particularly want to irritate the Chinese. I want them to understand the way we work."

A spokesman for Mr Cameron said the work of parliament's select committees was "rightly and appropriately entirely independent". He said the government was looking carefully at Sunday's decision by the Chinese authorities.

"Our position hasn't changed ... We think the best way to preserve Hong Kong's strengths is through a transition to universal suffrage which meets the aspirations of people in Hong Kong within the parameters of the Basic Law," he said.

The Basic Law is Hong Kong's mini-constitution.

China's letter to British lawmakers warned them to "act with caution on the issue of Hong Kong, bear in mind the larger picture of China-UK relations and Hong Kong's prosperity and stability, (and) stop interfering in Hong Kong's affairs," according to the BBC.

When asked about the matter, a spokesman for China's Foreign Ministry made it clear on Tuesday that Beijing was unhappy about the British inquiry.

"Hong Kong is a special administrative region of China. On the matter of political reform, it is an internal affair of the Hong Kong special administrative region, it is China's internal affair. (We) will not allow foreign forces to intervene," the spokesman told a daily news briefing.

The Chinese Embassy in Britain could not be immediately reached for comment.

US weighs in

The United States has thrown its weight behind pro-democracy protestors in Hong Kong after Beijing refused to grant the territory's residents full voting rights.

"The United States supports universal suffrage in Hong Kong in accordance with the Basic Law and the aspirations of the Hong Kong people," State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki told reporters on Tuesday in comments likely to infuriate China.

"We believe that an open society with the highest possible degree of autonomy and governed by rule of law is essential for Hong Kong's stability and prosperity."

Ms Psaki added the legitimacy of the future Hong Kong chief executive -- the city's leader -- would "be greatly enhanced" if the next one was selected by "universal suffrage" -- as is "the ultimate aim of the Basic Law."

Reuters, AFP




Read more:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Ever since the National People's Congress announced that candidates will be limited to 2-3 nominees who are approved by special committees, the Occupy Central movement/demonstrations have returned.

While I understand CCP's attitudes towards HK's desires for direct election, I still think CCP should stop meddling with HK public's desire for direct election. CCP isn't fulfilling its pledge of non-interference towards HK's domestic politics of the 1984 Joint Declaration.

Finally, CCP shouldn't think throwing a hardline attitude can actually quelsh the HK public's values, desires, attitudes for direct democracy. HK isn't gonna ever gonna back down from this demand. And to think forced actions can force a "successful" assimilation with China is folly. Just as how Xinjiang, Tibet, etc, requests special administrative rights, the same will be for HK. The reason is because these are areas where they have their own established cultural nations, therefore to ask them to "join/assimilate" to the "mainstream mainland rule" is equivalent of ignoring their society, identity, existence, etc. In other words, such an attempt to dissolve their identity to assimilate is not gonna work. Consider the same of the Canadian government's attitudes towards the First Nations. Assimilation failed(Canadian Residential School) miserably and didn't work, and instead the need for the Canadian government to recognize First Nations rights becomes paramount.

My theory is this: when a society has an overwhelming majority mainstream culture and a very weak presence for minority, assimilation works

when a society has minority groups with a significant voice, assimilation is no longer the ideal policy because the voices of those minority groups now matter enough to make a vocal difference. therefore, this would instead require multicultural approach to create a truly integrated society. the benefits of such though, would be multicultural societies can permit the cross-cultural learning of multiple parties to reinforce each other for a more greater integrated identity.


I understand CCP can be considered as being particularly lenient towards HK in the eyes of many, but from HK's perspective where human rights and society is essentially equivalent to First World levels and values, what HK seeks is perfectly legitimate. Asking HK to compromise will not work or really make sense because it's same as requesting a professional firefighter to lower its work ethics, values, professionalism so the less competent peers can have a chance.

Therefore I feel it is more important for CCP to understand what HK public is actually thinking, and that by giving HK their preferred direct elections, it will not trigger domino effect or some other slippery slope buttery effects that can threaten CCP's legitimacy. HK's loyalty to the Chinese identity is mostly based on rational treatment rather than sensational patriotic sentiments, therefore to obtain HK public's loyalty, it all rests on how CCP respects the rights and differences and understanding of what HK wants, rather than the other way around. CCP can only earn such loyalty, and not actually buy it off with nationalistic education and the likes.

CCP can earn HK's favour by letting HK grow naturally. Cultural-wise, the differences between HK and China will remain, in particular to rule of law, mannerisms, social values, etc. until eventual gaps between both sides diminish, whereas then the integration will also become a more natural process. Enforcing identity loyalty is probably one of the most effective way to backfire.

A similar psychological phenomenon described with rational vs sentiment would be Elaboration Likelihood Model (ELM), which looks at central and peripheral persuasion:

Two "Routes" to Persuasion
Petty and Cacioppo (1986a, 1986b) state that there are two outes� to persuasion: central and peripheral. The central route to persuasion consists of thoughtful consideration of the arguments (ideas, content) of the message. When a receiver is doing central processing, he or she is being an active participant in the process of persuasion. Central processing has two prerequisites: It can only occur when the receiver has both the motivation and the ability to think about the message and its topic. If the listener doesn care about the topic of the persuasive message, he or she will almost certainly lack the motivation to do central processing. On the other hand, if the listener is distracted or has trouble understanding the message, he or she will lack the ability to do central processing.

The peripheral route to persuasion occurs when the listener decides whether to agree with the message based on other cues besides the strength of the arguments or ideas in the message. For example, a listener may decide to agree with a message because the source appears to be an expert, or is attractive. The peripheral route also occurs when a listener is persuaded because he or she notices that a message has many arguments -- but lacks the ability or motivation to think about them individually. In other words, peripheral cues, like source expertise (credibility) or many arguments in one message, are a short-cut. I don want to or can think carefully about the ideas in this persuasive message, but it is a fair gamble to go ahead agree with the message if the source appears to be knowledgeable or if there are many arguments in support of the message. This route occurs when the auditor is unable or unwilling to engage in much thought on the message. Receivers engaged in peripheral processing are more passive than those doing central processing.

Why does it matter which oute� an audience member takes when hearing or watching or reading a persuasive message? A key prediction of the ELM is that attitudes which are changed through the central route to persuasion will have different effects from attitudes changed via the peripheral route. Petty and Cacioppo explain that ttitude changes that result mostly from processing issue-relevant arguments (central route) will show greater temporal persistence, greater prediction of behavior, and greater resistance to counter persuasion than attitude changes that result mostly from peripheral cues� (Petty & Cacioppo, 1986a, p. 21). It should be obvious that these are important outcomes: Surely in most cases, persuaders would very much want to know how to make attitude change last longer, have a greater influence on behavior, and be more resistant to change. However, even though central processing has advantages, receivers do not always oblige us by having the motivation and ability to think about the message. We need to understand both of these processes of persuasion because both of them occur in receivers.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

 

[solarz]

Ever since the National People's Congress announced that candidates will be limited to 2-3 nominees who are approved by special committees, the Occupy Central movement/demonstrations have returned.

While I understand CCP's attitudes towards HK's desires for direct election, I still think CCP should stop meddling with HK public's desire for direct election. CCP isn't fulfilling its pledge of non-interference towards HK's domestic politics of the 1984 Joint Declaration.

Can you elaborate on what you mean in the first paragraph? Which candidates are you referring to? What are those special committees?

Or, even better, could we get clarification on the following two points?

1- What specifically are the "Occupy" movement's objections to the way the Chief Executive of Hong Kong is selected/elected/appointed (whatever the case may be)?

2- What is the *actual* process of the next selection of Chief Exec?

 

[airsuperiority]

Can you elaborate on what you mean in the first paragraph? Which candidates are you referring to? What are those special committees?

Or, even better, could we get clarification on the following two points?

1- What specifically are the "Occupy" movement's objections to the way the Chief Executive of Hong Kong is selected/elected/appointed (whatever the case may be)?

2- What is the *actual* process of the next selection of Chief Exec?

Before I start, I must say I still know very limited picture of everything that's going on. A lot of political terms are translated into Chinese that I don't understand (kinda like how you're used to using English version of Office and suddenly you're using a Chinese Language interface version with all the terms, commands, jargons in Chinese).
Another thing is I still feel very unsure about the Occupy Central movement.

1. The Occupy Central movement of HK, which unlike OWS, is HK's version which focused more on political discontent by the public, rather than for economical reasons. The OC are objecting to these things in particular:

I hope this paragraph helps:

On August 31, 2014, the Tenth Session of the Standing Committee of the Twelfth National People's Congress set limits for the 2016 Legislative Council and 2017 Chief Executive elections. While calling for "universal suffrage," the decision imposes the standard that "the Chief Executive shall be a person who loves the country and loves Hong Kong" and requires that "the method for selecting the Chief Executive by universal suffrage must provide corresponding institutional safeguards for this purpose." The decision states that for the 2017 Chief Executive election, a nominating committee, similar to the present Election Committee system, be formed to nominate two to three candidates, each of whom must receive the support of more than half of the members of the nominating committee. After popular election of one of the nominated candidates, the new Chief Executive "will have to be appointed by the Central People's Government." The process of forming the 2016 Legislative Council would be unchanged, but following the new process for the election of the Chief Executive, a new system to elect the Legislative Council via universal suffrage would be developed with the approval of Beijing.[28]

While Li Fei, a deputy secretary general of the Committee, said that the procedure would “protect the broad stability of Hong Kong now and in the future," pro-democracy advocates viewed the decision as a betrayal of the principle of "one person, one vote," as they feared that candidates deemed unsuitable by the Beijing authorities would stand no chance at being nominated. The Standing Committee decision is set to be the basis for new electoral law crafted by the Legislative Council, where Hong Kong's Democratic Party has already promised to "veto this revolting proposal." As a result of the decision, Occupy Central has said it is planning civil disobedience protests.[29]

Also, another "mandatory requirement" sought for from the candidate is "Love Hong Kong, Love Party"

Love China and love Hong Kong[edit]
On 24 March 2013, Qiao Xiaoyang, chairman of the Law Committee under the National People's Congress Standing Committee (NPCSC) stated that Chief Executive candidates must be persons who love the country and love Hong Kong, who do not insist on confronting the central government. Observers stated that Qiao comment was to screen out candidates from the opposition pro-democracy camp.[9]

Li Fei, Qiao's successor as chairman of the NPCSC Law Committee stressed the similar statement on 22 November 2013, "the chief executive is accountable to the central government as well as Hong Kong. This means that the post must be taken up by a person who loves the country as well as Hong Kong - anyone opposed to the central government cannot [take it]."[10]


Basically to wrap it all up, a bunch of powerful elites, supposively "representing different sectors of society", will be in the nominating committee, and they will screen out candidates to only 2-3 of them, who only then do the public gets to choose. The problem is, this committee are basically rubber stamps of CCP, and also the requirements of "love china love hk" again, as mentioned above, means if the CE is deemed gonna oppose CCP, then they will be removed. What you have will be a rigged election where you're given a choice of 2 filtered candidates instead of the original baskets of all the nominees. Or, put it in Canadian terms, Harper creates a committee for Ontario's provincial election. the committee, essentially business elites etc who probably have benefits to the feds, will look at all the candidates from all the parties applying for the position, then filtering the undesirables to the federal/central government. That being said, NDP, Liberals, Green, etc..all be rooted out except the Conservatives. Now, 2-3 candidates from the Conservatives are what's left for the people of Ontario to vote.

This is the fear, but HK public has good reason to feel that way. in the previous election of chief executive 2012 when CY and Henry Tang was competing, Henry Tang was ahead in the beginning, and it's also speculated he was preferred by beijing. however at this time, most of the votes that mattered were still not submitted yet. however, when henry said some things that could threaten CCP in the final days of the race, CCP changed to prefer CY instead, and at this moment, 689 all quickly went to CY leung. this is to imply the elections committee were essentially getting orders from beijing from who to cast their votes. such controlled election process showed the power that CCP yielded in those sectors, and hence you can imagine how such elections committee could again control and filter out pan-democrats or non-pro-china camp.

2. the joint declaration by UK and china stated that China will not meddle with HK's sovereignty and political rights, but this NPC, which is dictating HK's political system, is doing just that. in other words, CCP is eating on their words

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Hong Kong (CNN) -- Pro-democracy Hong Kongers have reacted angrily to a Chinese government white paper affirming Beijing's "comprehensive jurisdiction" over the territory, released days after more than 100,000 demonstrators gathered in the city calling for greater rights.
The 14,500-word document, which stresses that Hong Kong does not have "full autonomy" and comes under Beijing's oversight, was released amid fierce debate between residents of the former British colony over impending electoral reform and the nature of the "one country, two systems" concept.
Published by the State Council Information Office, the unprecedented white paper states that "many wrong views are currently rife in Hong Kong" with regard to the "one country, two systems" principle that governs the territory's relationship with Beijing.
Some residents are "confused or lopsided in their understanding" of the principle, it adds.
"The high degree of autonomy of the HKSAR (Hong Kong Special Administrative Region) is not full autonomy, nor a decentralized power," said the paper. "It is the power to run local affairs as authorized by the central leadership."
It is a sea-change to our understanding of what 'one country, two systems' should be
Hong Kong lawmaker Alan Leong
Hong Kong lawmaker Alan Leong, leader of the pro-democracy Civic Party, said he was "completely taken aback" by the document, which had sent a shiver up (his) spine."
"It is a sea-change to our understanding of what 'one country, two systems' should be," he said.
He argued that the notion that judicial decisions made in Hong Kong should take into account the needs of China was a new concept, and one that was "totally repugnant to our understanding of the rule of law as an institution which we hold very dear to our hearts."
"I am surprised that my country could go back on the promises and undertakings that had brought about such a smooth reversion to Chinese sovereignty," he said.
A warning to democrats?
Many analysts view the release of the paper, the first official document since the 1997 handover to set out Beijing's authority over the territory, as a warning to campaigners pushing for the introduction of universal suffrage by 2017, when the city will choose its next chief executive.
Tiananmen vigil: We will never forget Hong Kong journalists protest censorship
Joseph Cheng, professor of political science at City University of Hong Kong, said the paper represented an attempt by Beijing to shape the debate around electoral reform.
"I think this is part of a campaign to warn Hong Kong people that we have to accept the electoral system soon to be imposed on us, which probably will follow the proposal set out by pro-Beijing groups," he said.
An article of Hong Kong's Basic Law, which serves as the territory's constitution, states as an eventual goal that the chief executive should be selected through universal suffrage. In 2007, the Chinese government settled on 2017 as the earliest that this may occur.
But the prospect has proven controversial, with pan-democrat Hong Kongers wanting the general population to be able to choose its next chief executive without restrictions, and the city's pro-Beijing politicians arguing that only candidates who "love China" should be eligible.
Currently, Hong Kong's chief executive is chosen by a 1,200-member committee, mainly composed of pro-Beijing and business figures.
Cheng said the white paper's main thrust was that, while Hong Kong enjoyed a high degree of autonomy, Beijing was ultimately in control, with China's interests and national security paramount.
The emphasis is on China's state interests, China's sovereignty, on one country ahead of two systems
Joseph Cheng, professor of political science at City University of Hong Kong
"The main point is that whatever power Hong Kong has comes from the central government -- no more," he said. "The emphasis is on China's state interests, China's sovereignty, on one country ahead of two systems."
Mixed opinions
Cheng said the paper had been met with "concern, resentment, dissatisfaction."
"We are all concerned that if Beijing chooses to deny giving Hong Kong people a democratic electoral system, then the SAR (special administrative region) government will be seen to be illegitimate."
But Mo Pak-hung, an associate professor at Hong Kong Baptist University's department of economics, did not see a cause for alarm, saying Beijing was sending a signal that it intended to be increasingly involved in Hong Kong's political evolution while supporting economic growth.
"It means that Hong Kong will be relatively stable politically and... (the) risk (to) the economy is reduced," he said. "To the investors and businessmen in Hong Kong, these signals are positive."
Under the "one country, two systems" principle, Hong Kong has been allowed to develop as a more liberal, capitalist city within socialist China -- the only place within Chinese territory where large pro-democracy demonstrations are tolerated.
Still, many of its residents are worried that the city's freedoms are steadily eroding, and Beijing's efforts to draw the territory nearer are often resisted.
In February, journalists organized a 6,500-person rally decrying what they said were increasing levels of coercion against the Hong Kong press, and last week, as many as 180,000 people turned out to a candelight vigil commemorating the 25th anniversary of the Tiananmen Square massacre, according to organizers.
Occupy Central
Later this month, a pro-democracy group called Occupy Central plans to hold an unofficial citywide referendum asking Hong Kong's citizens to vote for their preferred type of electoral reform, a move that has irked the city's pro-Beijing establishment.
If the results show support for public nomination and elections, Occupy Central says it will block traffic in Hong Kong's crowded downtown to pressure the government to adopt its reforms.
A January poll by the non-partisan Hong Kong Transition Project found 38% of Hong Kongers supported Occupy Central's proposed civil disobedience, while 54% opposed it.
China's vice president has warned that such a protest would be "unlawful" and would "wreck the stability and prosperity" of the city.
On Friday, the South China Morning Post reported that Beijing was drafting a similar white paper on Macau -- the former Portuguese colony that is China's other Special Administrative Region.
The newspaper quoted a researcher as saying the paper would cover similar ground to the Hong Kong report, and address public order issues in the wake of recent protests in the territory.

25
PRINT A A A
It was, the influential South China Morning Post proclaimed, a reminder of “who’s the real boss”.

Ads by Google

Hong Kong Life Insurance
Get Quotes & Compare the Market 30% Savings with NowCompare.Com

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Russia - China relations
"Russia reorients to the Orient" New monthly memo from Russia Direct

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Asia White Paper
Market Intelligence White Papers. Subscribe to the Latest Insights!
globalintelligence.com
China’s government released a key policy document this week, spelling out its interpretation of the “one country, two systems” model that was negotiated as part of Hong Kong’s handover from British rule in 1997.

That system, enshrined in Hong Kong’s Basic Law, had granted the territory a high degree of autonomy within China and allowed a fiercely capitalist city and global financial centre to flourish – with significant civil liberties and a largely free press and judiciary – under China’s one-party Communist rule.

But many in Hong Kong now worry that those liberties are under threat as Beijing asserts what has been described as “total control”.

Beijing reaffirmed its promise to allow universal suffrage in 2017 in the election for Hong Kong’s top political post, the chief executive. But at the same time, it made clear that the Chinese government would retain the ultimate say and that only “patriots” would be allowed to run for the job.

“Loving the country is the basic political requirement for all of Hong Kong’s administrators,” said China’s “white paper”, widely interpreted as meaning that nobody seen as inimical to Beijing would be allowed to assume key posts in Hong Kong.

At the same time, Beijing emphasised that it has “comprehensive jurisdiction” over Hong Kong, which was just “one of the local administrative regions of the country”. It warned that the territory’s “high degree of autonomy is subject to the central government’s authorisation” and that the principle of “two systems” is subordinate to the idea of “one country”.

Beijing said some people had a “confused and lopsided” understanding of what the Hong Kong model meant. It also warned “outside forces” against using the city as a way to interfere in China’s domestic affairs – understood to be directed mainly at the US and Britain, whose governments have stressed that China needs to keep its promise to grant Hong Kong democracy.

Although Hong Kong’s government welcomed Beijing’s white paper, pro-democracy politicians burned copies of it on Wednesday, and the Federation of Students held up a roll of toilet paper made up of pages of the Basic Law.

The Hong Kong Bar Association said the white paper threatened the “core value of judicial independence” and complained that it lumped judges in with politicians and bureaucrats as administrators who must be “patriotic”.

The New York-based Committee to Protect Journalists has also condemned the recent detention of two Hong Kong journalists in mainland China, complaining that media freedom was “under pressure”.

The release of the white paper came at a time when the government of Chinese President Xi Jinping seems to be winning back support among ordinary Hong Kongers. An annual opinion poll carried out by Hong Kong University and released last week showed that six per cent more people held a positive view of the Beijing government than held a negative view. That compares with nine per cent more people holding negative views than positive in 2013. Analysts said this could reflect Xi’s efforts to combat corruption and bring pollution under control.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

These 2 articles are reporting what happened earlier this year when CCP released the White Paper. The August 31st convention reaffirmed CCP's direct interference.

 

[AssassinsMace]

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

I wonder when they'll blame it on Mainlanders. The last person standing after the blame game is done will be a spoiled snob who doesn't know how to cook and clean for him or herself.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

A self-hater obviously wrote this article as a distraction. This article is about Ferguson.

Top quotes from this article:

Nearly half of those deaths were inflicted by police — in most cases, by gunning down alleged perpetrators who are usually reported as having been armed with knives, axes and, occasionally, vaguely-defined explosives.

Why doesn't the writer just say China is lying killing innocent people instead of hiding behind disproportionate use of force? Like the police have to pull out axes because the terrorists are using axes? Yeah avoid the part where deadly force is used to stop someone from using deadly force in criminal activities. You want to teach criminals a lesson? Publicly execute criminals with blade weapons. No sanitized non-graphic bullet holes where you can't really see what kills them and lay their bodies in the street for their friends and family and everyone to see. That's proportionate equal force.

Elsewhere in China, police rarely use firearms to quell violence or mass unrest, preferring to deploy tear gas, water cannons and riot police with truncheons and shields.

What happened in 1989?

Special police units in cities such as Beijing and Guangzhou have recently been authorized to fire without warning at suspected terrorists engaged in violence.

Yeah and it's wrong because...?