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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Engineer

Engineer

Major
Mr T said:
Except that many HongKongese believe Beijing will take that to an extreme and veto any candidate that it thought wouldn't do exactly what it wanted on all key issues. The nomination committee rules are too strict to allow for meaningful choice at the moment.
Click to expand...
If Hong Kong people believe that then they only have themselves to blame for fearmongering. Also, nomination is practised in Western democracies too, and people there don't get any say aside from one ballot on election day.

Mr T said:
I think they do, but they're increasingly getting hacked off with Beijing's attitudes. Remember that for years they patiently waited for universal suffrage. Each time they were patronisingly told "you're not ready", when actually it was Beijing that wasn't ready. But they still waited. Then when the so-called reforms come along, it looks like it will only be choice from the pro-Beijing camp. That's not choice.

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...
Hostility toward Beijing exists even before handover of Hong Kong. This hostility means Beijing's proposals are rejected for no reason other than being from Beijing. Political reform in Hong Kong can go nowhere as a result. On top of this, some pro-democrats used filibuster to the extreme in recent years, which essentially paralyses the Hong Kong government. Why are people remotely surprise that their government cannot get anything done?

Mr T said:
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...
We know from empirical evidences that politicians being accountable to the people first doesn't happen in Western democracies. Even if Hong Kong people got their dream to come true, they won't have any more ability to ensure their leaders being accountable than at present. Also, there is the factor of the oppositions, who have their own agendas. Even if the current chief executive does put the people first, there is nothing he could have done more because the opposition opposes anything for the sake of opposing.
 
Last edited:
A

airsuperiority

Captain
I'm just wondering who has watched that video or understood that video I threw out. It's a very important video explaining what the people are fighting against. If you don't know why, then now you get it. If you're like me who knew of those things, this video reminds you why.

And Brumby thanks for watching the video. It seemed like you understand what they're saying at least. What's your thought of it? And probably as you noticed, I'm right when I said it's not as much as about economic reasons but a whole array of other things and the dysfunct of the government that's causing this anger today.

Oh and as you know, HK culture has a very strong smart humor and sarcastic tone towards it, especially criticizing each other. And so calling people pig is yes, pretty much the worst insult without using profanity or mentioning someone's family.
 
SampanViking

SampanViking

The Capitalist
Staff member
Super Moderator
VIP Professional
Registered Member
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...

Yes it is a strange one and all the stranger for really being a technical dispute over the interpretation of a section of basic law.

The technical solution is actually quite simple - you have a Judicial Review, presided over by a panel of senior constitutional lawyers. You set up the Review and an associated Public Hearing, you invite the representatives of the various interested parties to make their submissions and their Worships will then retire to consider their verdicts, which will be a clear interpretation/definition of all the clauses of the aforementioned section of the Basic Law. If they find some clauses which defy clear definition, then these will be sent to Beijing for the Supreme Court to settle.

The real beauty of course is that this takes months to set up, will sit for ages and take months again for the verdict. Further consideration by Beijing would take longer and if one party was dissatisfied with the judgement it could always go to appeal. That of course would be another process......
 
Engineer

Engineer

Major
Blackstone said:
Excuse me, Air, but what does the part in bold means? If pla101prc is correct, then HK's agreement with Beijing never gave it full democracy. Is that true from your understanding? If so, what exactly is Beijing trying to take away?
Click to expand...
I think you meant Britain's agreement with China, and yes, your interpretation is correct.

Chapter I, Section 45 of Basic Law states:
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.

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 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".
Click to expand...

Note in the first paragraph, whomever elected as the chief executive must be officially appointed by the Central Government, giving China the last say in the matter. Also in the second paragraph, you can see the nomination process is written into the constitution, and can't just be dispensed with.
 
Last edited:
AssassinsMace

AssassinsMace

Lieutenant General
There are articles that try to compare this with 1989. Problem is there's one element that's starkly different. Hong Kongers have made it only about Hong Kongers. The media is charging China is censoring this on the mainland because of fear it will spread. It isn't going to catch fire in other cities like what happened in 1989. It's another example of short-sightedness displayed ever since 1997 that resulted in shooting themselves in the foot. Hong Kongers through the years have emphasized in creating an identity for themselves... solely at the expense of bashing Mainlanders. And Hong Kongers don't care! Because it has always been about only them. Hence why they're looking for outside help. It's like Harry Wu. He made no contact with Chinese human rights organizations. It was all about him not about human rights in China.

They say the Mainlanders complained about in Hong Kong are rich. Is that true? I can see some of the behavior of Chinese in general, not excluding Hong Kongers and Taiwanese, crosses all socio-economic lines. But other behavior is more of a result of people who just didn't experience modern luxuries so there's a level of ignorance on proper behavior. Would the rich have their kids poop anywhere? It's extraordinary where you have complaints of the effects of the rich spending money in your city. It's usually the other way around where people complain about poor people affecting you. But that would look snobbish and elitist. Is that why they say they're the rich Mainlanders?
 
Mr T

Mr T

Senior Member
Engineer said:
If Hong Kong people believe that then they only have themselves to blame for fearmongering.
Click to expand...

Eh, why? What evidence do they have that Beijing will allow a plethora of candidates with diverse views, especially ones that might not be in Beijing's best interests? Beijing's repeated statement on democracy in the past was "you're not ready for it". Beijing has dragged its feet on universal suffrage for nearly 20 years.

Also, nomination is practised in Western democracies too, and people there don't get any say aside from one ballot on election day.
Click to expand...

I'm not going to write an exhaustive list, but in the UK the ruling party doesn't choose who can stand for election across the country. They get to nominate one candidate in each seat (the current Coalition is made of two parties, so they're going to nominate a candidate from each of their parties). There's no cap on nominations or a national committee to decide who can stand.

Hostility toward Beijing exists even before handover of Hong Kong. This hostility means Beijing's proposals are rejected for no reason other than being from Beijing.
Click to expand...

So you're blaming HongKongese for being prejudiced? That's not far off the "HongKongese hate China, they're so ungrateful" line. You're not going to win people over with that.

On top of this, some pro-democrats used filibuster to the extreme in recent years, which essentially paralyses the Hong Kong government. Why are people remotely surprise that their government cannot get anything done?
Click to expand...

The democratic legislators didn't cause the cost of housing crisis, the problem of mainland Chinese women coming to Hong Kong to give birth, air pollution, concerns over media self-censorship, etc.

We know from empirical evidences that politicians being accountable to the people first doesn't happen in Western democracies.
Click to expand...

Err, it does. Which is why they get voted out or change their policies depending on public opinion. The fact some politicians don't bow to public opinion doesn't mean that no one ever takes notice of the public.

Besides, what is your position? Are you saying that it would be better to have no elections in Hong Kong, or that HongKongese are too stupid and need Beijing to tell them who is eligible to seek election?
 
AssassinsMace

AssassinsMace

Lieutenant General
Mr T said:
Besides, what is your position? Are you saying that it would be better to have no elections in Hong Kong, or that HongKongese are too stupid and need Beijing to tell them who is eligible to seek election?
Click to expand...

The British had the same sentiments when they occupied Hong Kong.
 
Engineer

Engineer

Major
airsuperiority said:
I.

Don't.

Care.
Click to expand...

Of course you don't. Neither do you care about rationality. In the end, it becomes a matter of pride and oppose for the sake of opposing. By the way, those positing pictures and videos on social media to show the good side of protesters are committing a fallacy known as
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
.

So, when one strips away all the fallacies from the arguments presented by the current movement, there is nothing left to support their cause. Not even legality stands on their side.
 
Doombreed

Doombreed

Junior Member
AssassinsMace said:
Hong Kongers through the years have emphasized in creating an identity for themselves...
Click to expand...

With all these talks about democracy and elections, I think the most fundamental issue has been ignored. Hong Konger are not Chinese. They don't want to be Chinese and never will be Chinese. Sure, they're ethincally Chinese. But Singapore is 74% ethnic Chinese. What's your point? Full democracy in Hong Kong will not solve this fundamental issue. Secession and Independance is.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top