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

Status
Not open for further replies.

Franklin

Captain
Anyone has an opinion on this ?

The (NED Financed) Hong Kong Riots

Some organized "student groups" in Hong Kong tried to occupy government buildings and blocked some streets. The police did what it does everywhere when such things happen. It used anti-riot squads, pepper spray and tear gas to prevent occupations and to clear the streets.

The "western" media are making some issue about this as if "western" governments would behave any differently.

The alleged issue in question is the election of new Hong Kong chief executive in 2017. According to Hong Kong's basic law, which was implemented when Britain gave up its dictatorship over the colony, there will be universal suffrage - everyone will be allowed to vote - but the candidates for the position will have to go through some pre-screening by a commission. This is what China had promised and this is what the students, falsely claiming that China is backtracking from its promises, want to change.

Peter Lee aka Chinahand has an excellent piece on the issue at Asia Times Online. But Lee is making one mistake in that he does not consider outside influence:

Occupy Hong Kong decided to light it, starting with a class boycott and demonstrations organized by the Hong Kong Federation of Students. And, since I’m never afraid to mix a metaphor, the Hong Kong government poured fuel on the fire by pepper-spraying and teargassing it.

Who really "decided to light this"? To me the protests, and the "western" reporting about it, have the distinct smell not of tear gas but of some expensive Color Revolution perfume of "western" origin.

So lets look up the usual source of such exquisite fragrance. The 2012 annual report of the U.S. government financed National Endowment of Democracy, aka the CCA - Central Color-Revolution Agency, includes three grants for Hong Kong one of which is new for 2012 and not mentioned in earlier annual reports:

National Democratic Institute for International Affairs - $460,000

To foster awareness regarding Hong Kong's political institutions and constitutional reform process and to develop the capacity of citizens - particularly university students - to more effectively participate in the public debate on political reform, NDI will work with civil society organizations on parliamentary monitoring, a survey, and development of an Internet portal, allowing students and citizens to explore possible reforms leading to universal suffrage.

So the U.S. government in 2012 (2013 numbers are not yet available) hands over nearly half a million to "develop the capacity" of "university students" related to the issue of "universal suffrage" in the election of Hong Kong's chief executive.

Two years after the money starts to flow from the U.S. government university students in Hong Kong provoke street riots with demands exactly on the issue the U.S. government money wanted to highlight.

That is just some curious coincidence - right?

---

PS (1): There is no reason to believe that a majority of the people in Hong Kong are supporting the U.S. induced demands of the "students". Hong Kong has some 7 million inhabitants. Ten to twenty thousands protesting amounts to some rather marginal 0.2% of the population.

PS (2): We noted earlier that the new Color Revolution scheme 2.0 - see Libya, Syria, Ukraine - now includes lots of violence:

Color revolutions in the old form had become too obvious a scheme to be of further use. The concept was therefore extended to include intensive use of force and mercenaries and to support those forces from the outside with weapons, ammunition, training and other means.

While earlier Color Revolutions employed mostly peaceful measures the aim now is blood in the streets and lots of infrastructure damage to weaken the forces resisting the regime change attempts. Accordingly the authorities in Hong Kong should prepare for much more than just unruly demonstrations.

PS (3): The NDI through which the NED money was funneled is the Democratic Party arm for regime change campaigns. It also does quite a bit of other Hong Kong meddling by financing various other organizations. Such foreign agents need to be restrained.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


China (Hong Kong)

American Center for International Labor Solidarity
$139,532
To continue to advance worker rights by building the capacity of democratic trade unions in Hong Kong. The Solidarity Center will work with its partners to advocate for collective bargaining rights, utilize local and international mechanisms to improve working conditions, and promote understanding of worker rights abuses and developments in China among the international labor movement and human rights community.

Hong Kong Human Rights Monitor
$155,000
To raise the standards of human rights protection and democratic representation in Hong Kong. The Monitor will carry out human rights monitoring, casework, campaigning, and public education drawing local and international attention to civil rights and human rights developments in Hong Kong.

National Democratic Institute for International Affairs
$460,000
To foster awareness regarding Hong Kong's political institutions and constitutional reform process and to develop the capacity of citizens - particularly university students - to more effectively participate in the public debate on political reform, NDI will work with civil society organizations on parliamentary monitoring, a survey, and development of an Internet portal, allowing students and citizens to explore possible reforms leading to universal suffrage.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 

AssassinsMace

Lieutenant General
I saw a story from a Canadian source that said Canada should stop a government trade mission to China because of the "crackdown" on Hong Kong protestors. What crackdown?
 

Equation

Lieutenant General
I saw a story from a Canadian source that said Canada should stop a government trade mission to China because of the "crackdown" on Hong Kong protestors. What crackdown?

Desperate measures calls for desperate rumors by the media trying to stir up something that wasn't there, a "crackdown".
 

Equation

Lieutenant General
only bigots tell people to leave like that.

bigot
One who is narrrowly or intolerantly devoted to his or her opinions and prejudices. This word is a general term that applies to everyone (racists, anti-Semites, misogynists, homophobes and xenophobes).

Quote Originally Posted by AssassinsMace View Post
Then they should get out of Chinese territory. They should stop stealing Chinese culture and calling it their own. It's not an identity when all you do is point out what's different when hypocritically they do them too. Chinese tourist bad behavior stereotypes started with Hong Kongers and Taiwanese. Mainland Chinese tourist only recently started to travel overseas. Those stereotypes have been around for decades.

So where did it say that AssassinMace hates a certain groups of people again? He's just pointing out to the obvious about some Hong Kongers likes to stereotype main landers to make themselves feel superior that you seem to collectively ignore.
 
Last edited:

Doombreed

Junior Member
So they have no identity of their own by their own logic.

Here's where you're wrong. The Hong Kong identity is well established. Both in Hong Kong and overseas. The fact that you think Hong Kong has no identity of its own, I think, is part of the problem.
 

pla101prc

Senior Member
I didn't say that. They're only form of identity is to point out the differences. And those difference they hypocritically do themselves. So they have no identity of their own by their own logic.

to be fair, it is not entirely out of order to claim that HKers are a different people from their Mainland compatriots. When Hong Kong was first taken over by the British it was just a small village, it flourished and developed its identity entirely under British rule. of course this does not mean that i condone such assertion since the concept of "identity" is so vague, to what degree must a people be different to warrants its own state? this matter is completely irrelevant to the OC movement since its official stance does not deny HK as part of China.
 

Brumby

Major
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.

I am just stating the facts in reply to you. You can undercut them anyway you want. I did not draw any conclusion. You are attempting to make one up by your own electrolytes.
 

Mr T

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

Yeah, when Hong Kong was first occupied there was no universal suffrage in the UK - why was it going to be offered to a colony on the opposite side of the world? Of course as time went on, there were elections and reforms. But the city remained a remote colony that needed a governor.

Is Hong Kong really a remote colony to Beijing that it can't exert any influence over without deciding who goes on the ballot? Come off it, Hong Kong isn't just on China's doorstep it's part of China. Beijing has plenty of influence over Hong Kong without having to try to limit the choice the voters have.

Anyone has an opinion on this?

1. It refers to the protests, which have been largely peaceful, as "riots".
2. It wheels out the usual tired argument that if 51% of the population isn't protesting, the protesters aren't representative of the majority (which I suppose means that every protest and revolution in the world's history is illegitimate because a majority of people are working, sick or don't believe they can make a difference).
3. It's a website I've never heard of. "Moon of Alabama" sounds like one of those weird militias that calls the US government "The Beast".
4. If it looks like dogshit and smells like dogshit, it probably is dogshit.
 
Last edited:

AssassinsMace

Lieutenant General
to be fair, it is not entirely out of order to claim that HKers are a different people from their Mainland compatriots. When Hong Kong was first taken over by the British it was just a small village, it flourished and developed its identity entirely under British rule. of course this does not mean that i condone such assertion since the concept of "identity" is so vague, to what degree must a people be different to warrants its own state? this matter is completely irrelevant to the OC movement since its official stance does not deny HK as part of China.

I never made that assumption. I'm going by their own logic. Every different ethnicity within any country can make the same argument. Here in the US, there are lot of people who don't like anyone having an identity separate from just being American. Americans would never allow a group identifying themselves as different to have what Hong Kongers are demanding going along with that separate identity. Hong Kongers do divide people by what Americans would see as offensive because a lot of it paints a broad brush on a entire group and not individuals.

Hong Kong didn't flourish until the British realized they weren't going to get an extension on the treaty. Hong Kong for the vast majority of its history was a place known for cheap shoddy products made with slave wages. They opened up Hong Kong after that meaning they suppressed Hong Kongers to poverty because that's what colonialists do to restrict potential rebellion. The fact is Hong Kong has been under the same system the British left longer with China. I get confused how people brag about the prosperity of Hong Kong when China even under the British have given them that prosperity.
 
Last edited:

Engineer

Major
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?
Simply because fearmongers scaring themselves is really no different than people stabbing themselves then getting hurt. Also, do you notice that fear is an emotion? Fear mongers play on people's emotion, they don't concern so much with evidences. Certainly, you would call it progress if Beijing gave in and allows election, right? Well, if you were able to understand the skit reposted by air superiority, you would see that such good will is spun as a bait. That's fear mongering.

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.
Proposals from Beijing are rejected, because they came from Beijing. This is why no progress is made in Hong Kong's political reform for nearly 20 years. Then there is also the factor of "Asian democracy" at work, where there can be no compromise. Beijing then gets blamed for it all not because Beijing actually dragged its feet, but simply because Beijing is Beijing.

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.
So it's a nomination.

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.
Your rhetorical question makes it seems as if those people are not prejudiced, and the main thesis of your post is that hostility toward China starts somewhere around zero then increased after Hong Kong was handed over. Yet, the existence of hostility before the handover had even occurred contradicted both your point and your thesis. Also, if people are prejudiced, then it is a futile exercise to try to win them over.

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.
That's red herring. Your list doesn't make pro-democrats' extensive filibustering disappear from history. The irony is that your list is caused by freedom -- free market, freedom of movement, freedom in consuming, freedom of press to report whatever the hell its pleases. Call them contradictions in life.

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.
It does not. Taking notice of the public is not the same as being accountable to people first. Also, power changes hand in democracy all the time. It is the norm, and I hardly see a norm as something serious enough to called accountability.

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?
My position is that the occupy movement has no valid argument to support their cause.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top