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

SinoSoldier said:

An excellent and insightful read, Bltizo. Mr. Jacques is certainly correct on the fact that Beijing has been far too quiet on this matter. Perhaps the leadership is letting tensions cool for a while, but when the physical aspects of the protests die down, Beijing needs to mete out a deal with those leading the protest. Ignoring this entire issue would only breed division between China and HK, and the long-term affects of such negligence would affect the mainland's political clout very negatively. On the other hand, opening up to the concerns of the citizens and perhaps even voicing Beijing's own inputs on the matter shows responsible leadership and a mutual basis on which the two seemingly-conflicting parties could conduct basic dialogue. It is the latter than will ultimately give Beijing the upper hand when it comes to the crucial task of winning over the hearts and minds of HK citizens in light of future relations. Hopefully Beijing will be a bit more attentive to the issue without resorting to patronization, threats, or abrasiveness; cool heads are what will make the region stable, the politics civil, and the economics healthy.

Click to expand...

actually i think the CCP is smart to avoid direct involvement as much as possible. there can be no good reception to any response by the protesters save a total capitulation of its position as established in the national people congress's decision, and i dont see that happening. now waiting out has the benefit of eroding the protesters' patient, and trust me they go fast. I have time and again iterated the importance of "end game" for several reasons and one of them is its function to sustain a loosely organized protest (in comparison to say an army unit, which is highly organized, and even with them morale go pretty fast especially in a rainy day). when people know exactly what they are fighting for, and exactly what victory looks like, then they are more likely to go on so long as that victory is achievable. this is not the case in HK, it is generally accepted that total victory, which i define as an abolition of NPC's provision on HK's election laws, is impossible.

so with total victory out of question, the protesters will have to settle for a lesser goal, which raises question on what that should be and this will 100% be a point of debate amongst the leadership. I am not saying anyone involved in this particular movement is incompetent, but simply that this is a dynamic common to all organized action that ever took place in human history. failing to clearly define a goal is dangerous, no different from all the screw-ups the US has committed in Iraq and Afghanistan. With this in mind, while we all hope for a swift conclusion of OC movement, all parties involved here MUST have a game plan for a stalemate.

as for the CCP it has significantly less at stake in the stability of HK compared to the parties that are directly involved (ofc they still would like to see that things are in control), so why get their hands dirty for no apparent gain. Beijing either has not yet developed a game plan, or that their plan was to wait to begin with, i think it could be a bit of both, but jumping into the fray early when the protest is at its peak is generally not advisable.

Haven't follow up this event very closely since the beginning but I don't know if you guy have noticed that or not, to my personal opinion, someone is trying to make another Tiananmen square. If my assumption is true or partially true, this is quite worrying.

Brumby said:

I am simply reporting the facts on the ground concerning two specific social and economic issues confronting HK people by individuals injecting tension into the system. The fact that I reference groups of individuals by construct and meaning is to separate it from the body of the main group. I would make a generalised statement of a group if stereotyping was my intention. You are making an assertion without warrant.

Click to expand...

That is the very definition of stereotype, since you seek to draw a such board strokes on a group of people! I hope even you aren't that stupid.

Brumby said:

Yes that HK and Beijing are physically not in the same location and 1989 is not 2014. I also know that the people making the decisions in 1989 are no longer the same people. However I also know that the decision making body still operates under the same banner and that this body is capable and willing to make certain decisions as demonstrated by history. Does that answer the question?

Click to expand...

And why on Earth would they do that. It's like saying that Obama would get ride of ISIS by nuking eastern Syria. It's theoretically possible, but so are the humanoid reptoids.

I accept your concession.

Mr T said:

Hostility towards Beijing in Hong Kong increased as time has gone on and reforms have been held back, whilst the city has faced increasing problems - largely as a result of inaction/policies from the Hong Kong administration. If Beijing won't let Hong Kong elect its leaders directly, of course they're going to be angry if those people aren't doing a good job.

Click to expand...

What kinds of problems are you talking about? Is it just the ability to elect the chief executive, without Beijing's approval? Are the protesters irrational enough to believe electing their own devil will make their dreams come true, while having appointed ones wouldn't? It's true any official acceptable to Beijing would toe its line enough not to be ousted, but it doesn't mean they can't be effective at running Honk Kong and making most people's lives better.

Hostility towards Beijing does not equate to hatred of China. The protesters are trying to effect change that will benefit their lives by ensuring their leaders are accountable and put Hong Kong and its people first, not the corporations or Beijing first. A system (as now proposed) where fighting for nomination is arguably more difficult that winning the popular vote (if there are just 2 or 3 candidates) isn't necessarily going to produce leaders who put the former over the latter.

Click to expand...

Take a moment and look at democracies around the world, and ask yourself how many of their elected leaders put their nation/state/province/city first? The answer is almost never, because the ones that truly put the welfare of the people above all else don't usually get re-elected. Yeah, it's cynical and harsh, but truth is a good defense, and there are overwhelming evidence to support my statement. If the protesters believe otherwise, then they're either inexperienced (in life), unrealistic, or delusional, and are blind to the fact politicians in universal suffrage systems are not mainly chosen on qualifications and ability, but electability. The present occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue is a prime example of that.

And nope, I don't want to live under systems governed by CCP Overlords and plutocrats, and thank God I don't have to. Would I rather see free and open elections in HK and in China? Absolutely! But only if the systems in question are ready for it. India and post-Soviet Russia are prime examples of what happens when you democratize too quickly, and don't have the critical social and political institutions to support universal suffrage governance.

I completely agree with Winston Churchill's narrative democracy (universal suffrage) is the worse form of government, except compared with all other forms of governments that have been tried from time to time. But, timing is everything and fully embracing democracy too early (without proper social, political, and governance institutions) doom those societies to decades of India.

pla101prc said:

actually i think the CCP is smart to avoid direct involvement as much as possible. there can be no good reception to any response by the protesters save a total capitulation of its position as established in the national people congress's decision, and i dont see that happening. now waiting out has the benefit of eroding the protesters' patient, and trust me they go fast. I have time and again iterated the importance of "end game" for several reasons and one of them is its function to sustain a loosely organized protest (in comparison to say an army unit, which is highly organized, and even with them morale go pretty fast especially in a rainy day). when people know exactly what they are fighting for, and exactly what victory looks like, then they are more likely to go on so long as that victory is achievable. this is not the case in HK, it is generally accepted that total victory, which i define as an abolition of NPC's provision on HK's election laws, is impossible.

so with total victory out of question, the protesters will have to settle for a lesser goal, which raises question on what that should be and this will 100% be a point of debate amongst the leadership. I am not saying anyone involved in this particular movement is incompetent, but simply that this is a dynamic common to all organized action that ever took place in human history. failing to clearly define a goal is dangerous, no different from all the screw-ups the US has committed in Iraq and Afghanistan. With this in mind, while we all hope for a swift conclusion of OC movement, all parties involved here MUST have a game plan for a stalemate.

as for the CCP it has significantly less at stake in the stability of HK compared to the parties that are directly involved (ofc they still would like to see that things are in control), so why get their hands dirty for no apparent gain. Beijing either has not yet developed a game plan, or that their plan was to wait to begin with, i think it could be a bit of both, but jumping into the fray early when the protest is at its peak is generally not advisable.

Click to expand...

Well reasoned and hard to refute.

Today I tried to put myself in the shoes of HK people, and I realised they're actually in a quite sad position.

In all normal, civilised countries in this world, excluding those extremely authoritarian ones or religiously extremist ones, people usually have some influence and/or some hope of influencing how their government is run.

This can take many forms. For example, in the mainland, in recent years people have successfully delayed or totally denounced major projects such as PX factory or waste incinerators. The CCP, though widely thought to be authoritarian, does give the people some kind of channel to express their anger/frustration/wishes, and more often than not if these are not related to political agenda, they're more than willing to look into it and take actions if they deem necessary.

The political system in mainland China, although far from completely free, allows some kind of grassroots' influence over higher authorities, and people have hopes to change something.

In the past this hope mainly depends on the petitioning system, but in recent years due to the rise of social media such as Weibo, people are increasingly more empowered.

Needless to say, in the West, citizens have quite some leverage against the government and even if in some cases they can't change government policy immediately, the elections do give them hope and this faith in the fundamental political structure of democracy is very important in keeping Western democracies stable from "revolutions".

The people of HK do not seem to have any of these. First they can't really change things, second they don't have any hope in changing it.

A lot of people here including myself, have been arguing on the ground that even direct elections come, they probably won't do the ordinary HKers much good. But at the very least, I think, this gives them some hope--"hey, probably we can change something if we work together and elect a better CE the next election".

This hope is very important. Even if it's false hope, even if it's an illusion. There are tonnes of people in this world who would rather be immersed in illusions than to wake up and face the cold hard truths. Right now I think the sad thing is HKers don't even have the choice of immersing themselves in illusions.

They're constantly reminded of the cold hard truths that HK's fate lies entirely in Beijing's hands. If Beijing's happy and HK becomes prosperous then it's good for everybody, if Beijing's not happy and does something to HK--that's it there's no one out there who can help them.

I think it's this frightening thought that's making a lot of HK people anxious.

This reminds me of Deng's meeting with the Iron Lady.

With her recent victory at the Falkland islands, she went to China with confidence and pride. But she stumbled outside the Great Hall of the People after her meeting with Deng.

Deng said that sovereignty is not something that's negotiable. If UK does not return HK when 1997 comes, China will "reconsider the date and the means to take back HK"

I suspect that Thatcher stumbled partly because she realised that she had no real leverage against China if China were really to "reconsider the date and the means to take back HK".

That was 1982. China was much weaker, very unstable internally, has not yet recovered fully from the aftermath of the Cultural Revolution. The UK was arguably at her prime after WW2, and with the recent victory against the Argentinians, Thatcher had good reasons to feel confident. But things didn't turn out well for her. The iron lady was matched by the "steel company".

Today China's no 1982 China. And this time HK does not even have the UK behind her back. Even if she has, it won't make a big difference as well.

One would think that China and the CCP won't do this, won't do that, because of this, because of that. Because they want to show Taiwan that they're serious about "one country, two systems". This is all good and nice and true, and I do believe that the CCP will try its utmost to maintain or improve upon its image.

But even for Taiwan, if one day Beijing just decides that it will "reconsider the date and the means to take back Taiwan", who in this world can stop them?

No one.

airsuperiority said:

it's pretty much a conspiracy website. dont let the name fool you. I had liked them on Facebook before, but after finding every of their articles strangely too wild, I unliked them.

conspiracy theories are terrible for the brains because it's extremely non -critical thinking

if you Google or wiki their founder, you will see what I mean. also, it's strange how a site saying it's researching for globalization has articles anti-globalization and conspiracy theories. I.know my reasons aren't very supportive, but these sites are often hard to verify, and my gut feeling is it's a bit too strange.

also look at the wording of the article. doesn't sound like sth written naturally or objectively. articles with wordings like these should ring a red bell

Click to expand...

This line of argument is a at best, even when one pretends not to see the component.

xiabonan said:

This reminds me of Deng's meeting with the Iron Lady.

With her recent victory at the Falkland islands, she went to China with confidence and pride. But she stumbled outside the Great Hall of the People after her meeting with Deng.

Deng said that sovereignty is not something that's negotiable. If UK does not return HK when 1997 comes, China will "reconsider the date and the means to take back HK"

I suspect that Thatcher stumbled partly because she realised that she had no real leverage against China if China were really to "reconsider the date and the means to take back HK".

That was 1982. China was much weaker, very unstable internally, has not yet recovered fully from the aftermath of the Cultural Revolution. The UK was arguably at her prime after WW2, and with the recent victory against the Argentinians, Thatcher had good reasons to feel confident. But things didn't turn out well for her. The iron lady was matched by the "steel company".

Today China's no 1982 China. And this time HK does not even have the UK behind her back. Even if she has, it won't make a big difference as well.

One would think that China and the CCP won't do this, won't do that, because of this, because of that. Because they want to show Taiwan that they're serious about "one country, two systems". This is all good and nice and true, and I do believe that the CCP will try its utmost to maintain or improve upon its image.

But even for Taiwan, if one day Beijing just decides that it will "reconsider the date and the means to take back Taiwan", who in this world can stop them?

No one.

Click to expand...

To be fair I think the stumble was just a stumble.

Although you are right that Britain had little real means to exert its power at that point.