Chinese General news resource thread

[airsuperiority]

1. OC's method became unpopular because the people no longer believes in their ulterior motives.

2. No you think I don't know what I'm talking about, but I do and who are you say I don't? The people you encounter and talked doesn't equates to 100% of the over all people of Hong Kong. I suggests you read some more sources outside your own view points to make better comparison.

3.
But awhile ago you just compare HK to be almost like Singapore and NOW you are back tracking on that claim? Weren't you earlier bragged about it and list all of the "unique"ness of Hong Kong? I smell hypocrisy and lying in you.

4. IF NOT, than why are you getting all worked up and angry about in the first place? It hasn't hindered your right to vote on 2017 does it? NO it doesn't.

Look man, I totally respect you have your opinion and I have mine. I feel we won't agree on this issue anytime soon, and I kinda hope we can leave our opinions as it is. Is that cool with you?

And I hope you understand that for me, I'm from there, and I've been back quite a few times recently and watch things unfold before my very own eyes, so I hope you understand much of what I share here is our attitudes, sentiments, perspectives, of how a lot of people there feel currently. There a lot of concerned folks there and perhaps not everyone can understand, but I do hope even if you guys may not understand, we can come to acknowledge that how the people in HK are feeling is real, and it hasn't been an easy time for them.

 

[solarz]

1. No that's very wrong. The rule of law, freedom of speech, freedom that we have is what mainland China doesn't have, and these nurtured very safe conditions for living and businesses to flourish, not to mention paving a way to many other things. And fyi, ICAC was established back in the days of the crown. Also, are you saying financial successes can buy HKU its place as one of the top 50 spots in terms of world ranking for universities? And financial success buy HKers their health care systems which is world-class? You need good system, good ethics, education, etc, for these types of things to occur. The US has the biggest GDP in the world, but its health care system is still very unforgiving and flawed. Also, I don't think financial success can build a good rule of law. It takes conscious effort, like what Zhu, Hu, and Xi have been doing. The way you're saying all these makes me wonder if you too have been to HK or actually understand the culture, its history.

I'm sorry but I disagree entirely. Rule of law requires solid social institutions that are willing to uphold the law. This requires a stable society where most people do not have to worry about day-to-day necessities. This in turn requires a minimal amount of financial prosperity.

It is evident from a quick survey of the world that the social justice is intricately linked to social wealth distribution. You cannot have rule of law if the judges and police are easily influenced by the wealthy elite.

I believe absolutely that financial success buys health care and education. In turn, education builds ethical citizens. The problem with the US healthcare system is not one of quality, but one of equal distribution. Many wealthy canadians prefer getting treated in the US.

Remember that the US has a far more generous pension system than Canada, and it is this pension system that is creating the biggest burden on the US government budget. The US also has much lower taxes than Canada. In other words, they don't have a universal health care system not because they can't afford it, but because a big part of them don't believe in it.

2. Does the Kowloon Wall City still exist? No. It's gone before the handover. So why are you picking something that's no longer valid, to serve your argument? Also, just because a city has its own ghettos doesn't mean it says anything directly about the rule of law. It only implies there are societal issues and there are groups who are underprivileged, troubled, need help/to be addressed, and not covered by the social safety net. To further my point, Vancouver's DTSE is where prostitution, drug addicts run rampant. However, like HK, Canada still boasts as one of the least corrupted states, therefore this shows your comparison as again, invalid.

Prostitution and drug addicts is nothing special in first-world countries. The Kowloon Walled City, however, gives even the worst third-world slums a run for its money. The two are simply not comparable. Vancouver cops do not stop chasing criminals once they enter Vancouver DTES.

The city was demolished in 1994, largely in anticipation of the hand-over. Before that, for almost 30 years the British government left it alone. Why?

3. Again I think you're also very wrong. Did you read the paragraph I had written up there as well as the FP's article? Both had explained clearly what we are going through. I honestly think a lot of you probably never been exposed to HK too much, so you guys don't really understand the people and culture there and even underestimate us. (quite similar to how you guys accuse the West of undermining China). People in HK since '98 long knew this is the inevitable. Do you honestly believe as one of the top 4 IFC we won't have this foresight, or see what's going on, or the trend is going? We had experienced the Asian Financial Crisis and would certainly know very well what's in store for us. Also, many people do still think back of the British rule because at least we prosper as a society and our values, identities, are intact. What HK is experiencing now is the exact opposite.

I hadn't responded to that post because I wanted to do my own research first. Here is what I found, in Chinese, as close to the horse's mouth as we can get:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Note the following resolutions:

一、从2017年开始，香港特别行政区行政长官选举可以实行由普选产生的办法。

　　二、香港特别行政区行政长官选举实行由普选产生的办法时：

　　(一)须组成一个有广泛代表性的提名委员会。提名委员会的人数、构成和委员产生办法按照第四任行政长官选举委员会的人数、构成和委员产生办法而规定。

　　(二)提名委员会按民主程序提名产生二至三名行政长官候选人。每名候选人均须获得提名委员会全体委员半数以上的支持。

　　(三)香港特别行政区合资格选民均有行政长官选举权，依法从行政长官候选人中选出一名行政长官人选。

　　(四)行政长官人选经普选产生后，由中央人民政府任命。

　　三、行政长官普选的具体办法依照法定程序通过修改《中华人民共和国香港特别行政区基本法》附件一《香港特别行政区行政长官的产生办法》予以规定。修改法案及其修正案应由香港特别行政区政府根据香港基本法和本决定的规定，向香港特别行政区立法会提出，经立法会全体议员三分之二多数通过，行政长官同意，报全国人民代表大会常务委员会批准。

　　四、如行政长官普选的具体办法未能经法定程序获得通过，行政长官的选举继续适用上一任行政长官的产生办法。

　　五、香港基本法附件二关于立法会产生办法和表决程序的现行规定不作修改，2016年香港特别行政区第六届立法会产生办法和表决程序，继续适用第五届立法会产生办法和法案、议案表决程序。在行政长官由普选产生以后，香港特别行政区立法会的选举可以实行全部议员由普选产生的办法。在立法会实行普选前的适当时候，由普选产生的行政长官按照香港基本法的有关规定和《全国人民代表大会常务委员会关于〈中华人民共和国香港特别行政区基本法〉附件一第七条和附件二第三条的解释》，就立法会产生办法的修改问题向全国人民代表大会常务委员会提出报告，由全国人民代表大会常务委员会确定。

Reading that article, I get a very different picture from the one in your post.

The first resolution says that in 2017, Hong Kong will have general elections. This is a critical distinction that seems to have been omitted from your post. Previously, HKers did not directly elect their Chief Executives. They selected an election committee and the election committee elected the CE. Now Beijing is saying the CE will be elected by the general population, provided that the candidates are selected by a nomination committee.

Resolution 2.1 says the Nomination Committee will have the same number, setup, and selection process as the previous Election Committee. What this tells me is that instead of the Election Committee electing one candidate for the CE, they will now elect several candidates, and the choice for CE will rest in the hands of the HK people, through the general elections.

This sounds very much like a loosening of power from Beijing. If previously you felt that the Elections Committee was stacked with pro-Beijing figures, now the "opposition", as it were, have the chance of advancing their own candidates, and those candidates will have an equal chance of being elected CE! Please tell me how this is not an improvement from the previous method, from a liberal democracy point of view?

Finally, resolution 4 says if the new method is not legally approved, the election of the CE will simply follow the procedure of the last election. This means that HK literally has nothing to lose. If they don't like this idea, simply go back to the old procedure for 2017 and Beijing will think of something else.

It sounds to me the "Occupy" movement is just not satisfied without being able to advance whatever candidate they want. Sorry, but HK has never had that kind of election, and, and really neither does the rest of the mature democracies like US, Canada, etc. Election candidates in those nations all come from long-established political parties, something Hong Kong does not have. What the "Occupy" movement proposes seems to have more in common with the Iraqi elections.

Finally, I'm not sure what point you were trying to make with the "Love China, Love Hong Kong" principle. Do you think any BC politician can get elected if they profess anything less than absolute love for both BC and Canada? The only exception I can think of would be Quebec, where PQ candidates get brownie points for trashing Canada.

 

[airsuperiority]

I'm sorry but I disagree entirely. Rule of law requires solid social institutions that are willing to uphold the law. This requires a stable society where most people do not have to worry about day-to-day necessities. This in turn requires a minimal amount of financial prosperity.

It is evident from a quick survey of the world that the social justice is intricately linked to social wealth distribution. You cannot have rule of law if the judges and police are easily influenced by the wealthy elite.

I believe absolutely that financial success buys health care and education. In turn, education builds ethical citizens. The problem with the US healthcare system is not one of quality, but one of equal distribution. Many wealthy canadians prefer getting treated in the US.

Remember that the US has a far more generous pension system than Canada, and it is this pension system that is creating the biggest burden on the US government budget. The US also has much lower taxes than Canada. In other words, they don't have a universal health care system not because they can't afford it, but because a big part of them don't believe in it.




Prostitution and drug addicts is nothing special in first-world countries. The Kowloon Walled City, however, gives even the worst third-world slums a run for its money. The two are simply not comparable. Vancouver cops do not stop chasing criminals once they enter Vancouver DTES.

The city was demolished in 1994, largely in anticipation of the hand-over. Before that, for almost 30 years the British government left it alone. Why?




I hadn't responded to that post because I wanted to do my own research first. Here is what I found, in Chinese, as close to the horse's mouth as we can get:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Note the following resolutions:



Reading that article, I get a very different picture from the one in your post.

The first resolution says that in 2017, Hong Kong will have general elections. This is a critical distinction that seems to have been omitted from your post. Previously, HKers did not directly elect their Chief Executives. They selected an election committee and the election committee elected the CE. Now Beijing is saying the CE will be elected by the general population, provided that the candidates are selected by a nomination committee.

Resolution 2.1 says the Nomination Committee will have the same number, setup, and selection process as the previous Election Committee. What this tells me is that instead of the Election Committee electing one candidate for the CE, they will now elect several candidates, and the choice for CE will rest in the hands of the HK people, through the general elections.

This sounds very much like a loosening of power from Beijing. If previously you felt that the Elections Committee was stacked with pro-Beijing figures, now the "opposition", as it were, have the chance of advancing their own candidates, and those candidates will have an equal chance of being elected CE! Please tell me how this is not an improvement from the previous method, from a liberal democracy point of view?

Finally, resolution 4 says if the new method is not legally approved, the election of the CE will simply follow the procedure of the last election. This means that HK literally has nothing to lose. If they don't like this idea, simply go back to the old procedure for 2017 and Beijing will think of something else.

It sounds to me the "Occupy" movement is just not satisfied without being able to advance whatever candidate they want. Sorry, but HK has never had that kind of election, and, and really neither does the rest of the mature democracies like US, Canada, etc. Election candidates in those nations all come from long-established political parties, something Hong Kong does not have. What the "Occupy" movement proposes seems to have more in common with the Iraqi elections.

Finally, I'm not sure what point you were trying to make with the "Love China, Love Hong Kong" principle. Do you think any BC politician can get elected if they profess anything less than absolute love for both BC and Canada? The only exception I can think of would be Quebec, where PQ candidates get brownie points for trashing Canada.

First of all, I really appreciate you did research to look into the issues. I'm not gonna go in order in terms of the points you've noted, but I will share my thoughts of them. And actually I agree with some of what you say too. Regardless, thank you for the sharing.

I will start from 3, the last one. Actually if you read carefully, I certainly mentioned it in my posts as to why we are concerned. What HK get is theoretically what you've described, but "theoretically" is in terms of IF the Election Committee is fair and does not root out every single candidate that are not pro-China. This is where we are most gravely concerned. Yes the HK citizens gets to pick, but only at the stage where all the final candidates have already been screened, filtered by the Election Committee. However if the Election Committee filters out all the non-pro-China candidates such as the pan-Democrats, then all you're left with will be candidates from parties of one camp. And the problem is, the Elections Committee are essentially pro-Beijing elites, who are almost guaranteed to filter out every non pro-Beijing candidates. With that said, you have a filter where they will only give you multiple pro-Beijing candidates to choose from. That's not fair, equal, balanced. This is what we are most concerned about.


1. I understand what you mean now. If you refer to this, I can accept. However, HK's stability didn't come exactly after all the major financial boom. HK was very corrupted back in the days around the '70s until ICAC came into place, which was the agency that was responsible for being the first pillar of non-corruption. The amnesty granted eventually helped change the RHKPF and the way business practices were. I won't say it's overnight, but HK started changing drastically ever since then to become what it is now. Of course the ethical practices, along with the people working hard, helped uphold HK's modernization and development to this day. Therefore, while I will accept your point that it's built from financial successes, I will say it's only partial reason, and that it also requires the work culture, the society's culture, and the governance to make it happen.

2. I really don't know much about the KLWC because I was still in kindergarten then, but from what I've read, it came around during the Joint Declaration. Honestly given what HK is today, that ghetto would have to go sooner or later, UK or China rule.

 

[solarz]

I will start from 3, the last one. Actually if you read carefully, I certainly mentioned it in my posts as to why we are concerned. What HK get is theoretically what you've described, but "theoretically" is in terms of IF the Election Committee is fair and does not root out every single candidate that are not pro-China. This is where we are most gravely concerned. Yes the HK citizens gets to pick, but only at the stage where all the final candidates have already been screened, filtered by the Election Committee. However if the Election Committee filters out all the non-pro-China candidates such as the pan-Democrats, then all you're left with will be candidates from parties of one camp. And the problem is, the Elections Committee are essentially pro-Beijing elites, who are almost guaranteed to filter out every non pro-Beijing candidates. With that said, you have a filter where they will only give you multiple pro-Beijing candidates to choose from. That's not fair, equal, balanced. This is what we are most concerned about.

Yes, I suspected that when we come down to it, the Election/Nomination Committee would be the contentious issue. Given that I think the new elections procedure has not been ratified yet, and thus the Nomination Committee does not exist, I think it would be fair to say that the distrust is aimed squarely at the current (and previous) Election Committee.

Now, I brought up this article before:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

From a cursory glance the Committee seems to be stacked with mainly professional associations. I don't think it's a stretch that middle-class professionals would prefer the stability offered by Beijing to the unknown quantity that comes from antagonizing Beijing.

However, that does not make it any less democratic. It is a fallacy that all opinions should be given equal voice. Much like the anti-vaccination or climate-change denial crowd, vocal opposition does not mean popular support. Just because the Elections Committee is pro-Beijing, doesn't mean it doesn't reflect the values of the HK people.

Now, I do not doubt that that there are a significant portion of HKers who are dissatisfied with Beijing, for a variety of reason. However, just because this number is significant doesn't mean it necessarily gets to have a political voice. Take, for example, our own Green Party. It garnered 3.9% of the popular vote, equal to 10% of the Conservative votes, but got only one seat in the parliament, compared to 143 Conservative seats. In previous elections, it didn't get even a single seat.

Anything short of a direct democracy will result in this kind of phenomenon, and there are good reasons almost no country in the world uses direct democracy.

 

[solarz]

In the end, I would like to point out that even (especially) if one is dissatisfied with the Elections Committee, the new process would be an improvement upon the previous one. It would be unrealistic to see a dramatic change in the process, as those in the Occupy movement seems to advocate.

 

[airsuperiority]

Yes, I suspected that when we come down to it, the Election/Nomination Committee would be the contentious issue. Given that I think the new elections procedure has not been ratified yet, and thus the Nomination Committee does not exist, I think it would be fair to say that the distrust is aimed squarely at the current (and previous) Election Committee.

Now, I brought up this article before:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

From a cursory glance the Committee seems to be stacked with mainly professional associations. I don't think it's a stretch that middle-class professionals would prefer the stability offered by Beijing to the unknown quantity that comes from antagonizing Beijing.

However, that does not make it any less democratic. It is a fallacy that all opinions should be given equal voice. Much like the anti-vaccination or climate-change denial crowd, vocal opposition does not mean popular support. Just because the Elections Committee is pro-Beijing, doesn't mean it doesn't reflect the values of the HK people.

Now, I do not doubt that that there are a significant portion of HKers who are dissatisfied with Beijing, for a variety of reason. However, just because this number is significant doesn't mean it necessarily gets to have a political voice. Take, for example, our own Green Party. It garnered 3.9% of the popular vote, equal to 10% of the Conservative votes, but got only one seat in the parliament, compared to 143 Conservative seats. In previous elections, it didn't get even a single seat.

Anything short of a direct democracy will result in this kind of phenomenon, and there are good reasons almost no country in the world uses direct democracy.

Very well-said again. Again, great thanks and appreciation of you taking time to research to understand the issue, and yes you have nailed exactly on the head what is going on and how HKers are feeling. What you've said is also very very correct and aligned with the majority of the HK people and spoken the minds of the representatives of those professions . This is why those representatives are "pro-China"(exactly why they are pro-China). HKers know prosperity comes from stability, and again like one of my earlier posts, this is why I said HKers had long since knew it's inevitable and eventual that HK integrates with Beijing, and mainland Chinese strengths will surpass HK. Also it will be China giving HK economic opportunities and and all the opportunities are in China these days, thus for the sake of prosperity, stability, those people try to be on the good side of Beijing. I won't be surprised if they believed they are doing HKers good by "helping" HK win favor points. However at the same time, it is undeniable the cultural shock and differences are too huge, and again also somewhere as I've reiterated, HK is 90%+ locals, therefore immigrants, particularly those from different cultural backgrounds, are expected to assimilate. (My earlier theory was that a society with an overwhelming majority tends to lok at assimilation of minorities, while more societies with more significant minorities pursue multiculturalism where they can get represented.) However, of course local HKers ain't gonna give in at home turf or give up what they deemed is right, and this recent Election Process controversy is exactly what it's all about.

 

[airsuperiority]

In the end, I would like to point out that even (especially) if one is dissatisfied with the Elections Committee, the new process would be an improvement upon the previous one. It would be unrealistic to see a dramatic change in the process, as those in the Occupy movement seems to advocate.

Very well said again. If you recall, when you asked me what it's all about, my first sentence was, "I don't know how to feel about the OC movement", and you have basically stated my thoughts and reasons. I also mentioned to Equation that the OC are losing some appeal and it's due to their more "extreme", disruptive methods, and that's also another major reason. Basically it's these 2 reasons to why I feel unsure about OC, and why people who aren't pro-Beijing but still opposes OC. However one must understand why OC has such a voice. Even if one argues OC may eventually doom us all, we still know that the grassroot concerns of OC is fighting for HK's rights and privileges. So even if people are very tired and wary of OC and that some thinks they are a bunch of whiners, they're still more "liked" than the current impotent CE.

 

[Blackstone]

Andrew Brown has a good piece in The Guardian on Communist Party's heavy handed, but effective methods to limit the free exchange of information and impose censorship on the Chinese people.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

The Great Firewall of China is one of the wonders of the modern world. Hundreds of thousands of censors are employed to ensure that as little as possible is published on the internet that might inconvenience or threaten the government. The tendency among western liberals and pro-democracy types is to suppose that this must make the state less efficient. But suppose the censorship is so fine-tuned that it actually strengthens the repressive apparatus by making it cleverer, rather than simply squelching all opposition?

The classic argument has always been that, compared with democracies, totalitarian states have always been less efficient and prone to making much larger mistakes, because in a society where the truth is dangerous, even the rulers find themselves operating in a fog of lies.

The Chinese government may have found a way around this. In a remarkable study published in Science, a group of researchers studied the Chinese censorship regime from the inside by setting up a social media website inside China, buying approved software, and asking the censorship authorities how they should operate it. As it drily reports: “The ‘interviews’ we conducted this way were unusually informative because the job of our sources was in fact to answer the questions posed.”

As well as this site, they also posted in various ways on 100 Chinese social media sites (and the two largest have more than half a billion users each) to see which messages got through.

The result, which confirms earlier results, is that you can say pretty much anything you like on Chinese media, providing that it does not lead to any kind of action. “Chinese people can write the most vitriolic blogposts about even the top Chinese leaders without fear of censorship, but if they write in support of, or [even] in opposition to an ongoing protest – or even about a rally in favour of a popular policy or leader – they will be censored.”

Even more subtly, the volume of protests is used to gauge whether any given leader is sufficiently unpopular that his removal will make things go more smoothly. In this way the information signalling part of a market economy is co-opted to the service of an authoritarian state. It turns out that you can say what you like – and this includes all the kinds of hashtag activism. All you may not do is influence events away from the keyboard, or even refer to them. If there is a news story that suggests there might be a role for protest in the physical world, all comments referring to it are removed, whichever side they take.

This study ought to be the final nail in the coffin of techno-libertarianism. Over the past few months there have been plenty of stories to remind us how loathsome the internet can be to women or anyone else singled out for bullying. But even when it empowers nasty people, this is forgiven or at least defended on the grounds that it empowers good people too. The Chinese example shows that it empowers nasty regimes as well as nasty people, providing they are subtle and intelligent enough.

It is also a blow at the idea of artificial intelligence and algorithmic censorship. If the internet is to capture information of use to the ruling party, it has to be operated by human censors. There are lists of keywords that will get a post blocked or at least reviewed, but these are very crude and easy to circumvent.

There is an improbable precedent for all this, from another ruthless imperial power that was setting out to impose itself on the world: the England of Elizabeth I. She also had a vast apparatus of spies and censors, although they were concerned with religious heresy rather than democracy. When she said that she “would not make windows into men’s souls” it seemed to be a great statement of tolerance, but it was in fact exactly the same as the Chinese policy: think what you like, providing you never dare act on it. This is future George Orwell never saw: a jackboot poised above a human face – and the face talks on and on about kitten pictures.

 

[Blitzo]

Being able to say anything as long as it doesn't lead to physical action against the party ain't exactly heavy handed IMO, if anything it shows restraint.

 

[Player 0]

Protesting is also allowed too, as we've seen protests go on against local business decisions but the crackdowns are more local government than central government. The physical act of trying to destroy the government is treason and that's considered a crime in every country all throughout history, if that's the litmus for automatically being considered an oppressive country than every country on earth qualifies