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

texx1 · Oct 4, 2014

Brumby said:
Totally agree. Beijing is the only one that can ultimately grants it. I have consistently been saying these because it is reality. It is for that reason I have also said consistently that any solution has to be within the framework of the Basic Law and more importantly within Beijing's comfort zone. A comfort zone approach is working with Beijing with the aim of enlarging the zone. What we have currently is unfortunately a more antagonistic approach which doesn't enhance comfort level. I don't know enough of HK politics to comment further and so I will leave it as is.

There are actually a number of tangible benefits.
(i)Basic Law promises universal suffrage. There is no dispute over that. Delivering it to HK is fulfilment of a commitment and that Beijing honours it in the eyes of international community. World image cultivation is an important rehab coming off 1989.
(ii)What is being played out in HK is also for consumption by Taiwan that Beijing can be reasonable of democracy within certain framework.
(iii)A CE truly elected has legitimacy in the eyes of the HK population and also accountability. Accountability enhances rule of law especially over corruptive practices - a major issue in China. Such a political model is absent in China even though China has universal suffrage with Chinese characteristics. Such a test bed could prove useful for CCP's own political survivor rather than a threat.

(i) Article 45 says the method of selecting CE 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 protesters want immediate change through disorderly means.

As long as China remains a serious challenge to US primacy, cultivation of positive image in western media is a lost cause.

(ii) Not granting universal suffrage now doesn't mean never granting universal suffrage. China would grant it when Bejing is comfortable with HK's loyalty. As I have mention before Taiwan can be enticed with trade. The importance of Taiwan angle is debatable.

(iii) Accountability only exist when there are mechanisms holding politicians accountable to their election promises. No effective mechanisms currently exist not even in developed democracies. Universal suffrage doesn't make politicians accountable only makes them accountable to their funders.

Hong Kong doesn't lack mechanism to combat corruption. Corruption in Hong Kong is dealt with by Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC), a local agency.

Please explain what is this notion of threat to China's territorial integrity?

Are you serious? You did read posts by Sampan, Blizo and many other members here right?

The separatist movement in OC could co-opt and corrupt OC movement's aim to seek full independence from China by supporting a pro-independence CE with the help of foreign backed NGOs.

Brumby · Oct 4, 2014

Blackstone said:
Just how much influence does Beijing has over the HK courts, some, little, or none?

In theory none but progressively the truth is increasingly. I am relative sure that procedurally, NPC has the final say on interpretation of the Basic Law and so it is pointless going to the court over interpretation.

Brumby · Oct 4, 2014

texx1 said:
(i) Article 45 says the method of selecting CE 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 protesters want immediate change through disorderly means.

As long as China remains a serious challenge to US primacy, cultivation of positive image in western media is a lost cause.

(ii) Not granting universal suffrage now doesn't mean never granting universal suffrage. China would grant it when Bejing is comfortable with HK's loyalty. As I have mention before Taiwan can be enticed with trade. The importance of Taiwan angle is debatable.

(iii) Accountability only exist when there are mechanisms holding politicians accountable to their election promises. No effective mechanisms currently exist not even in developed democracies. Universal suffrage doesn't make politicians accountable only makes them accountable to their funders.

Hong Kong doesn't lack mechanism to combat corruption. Corruption in Hong Kong is dealt with by Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC), a local agency.

I have either address them in different post or are off track items and so I would not comment further. Regarding the mechanism of ACA I would just say that having a mechanism in place is just one but important component to deal with corruption. China probably has its own body to deal with it but look where things are until leadership start to take it seriously.

texx1 said:
Are you serious? You did read posts by Sampan, Blizo and many other members here right?

The separatist movement in OC could co-opt and corrupt OC movement's aim to seek full independence from China by supporting a pro-independence CE with the help of foreign backed NGOs.

Honestly I don't take those comments seriously because I think they are rants without any thoughts being placed on what is being said. Taiwan with a reasonable robust army behind it would not go the route of declaring independence but yet somehow an elected CE with the PLA station in HK may end up seeking full independence.

pla101prc · Oct 4, 2014

Brumby said:
In theory none but progressively the truth is increasingly. I am relative sure that procedurally, NPC has the final say on interpretation of the Basic Law and so it is pointless going to the court over interpretation.

of course its not pointless, the OC camp can at least point to the court decision (provided that it is a favourable decision) and say that it was overturned by a commie rubber stamp parliament. the risk being if the court sides with Beijing they will lose absolutely everything, not even the US gov will speak in their favour by then, so its a gamble they might take after if they fail to stop the passing of this current election law.

xiabonan · Oct 4, 2014

The OC people has done something extraordinary. They've made some HKers feel that CCP is right in 1989.

I see this long thread on a local forum (40+pages long) with people expressing how they "regretted" supporting the students back then by donating money; "regretted" joining each year's 6.4 parade. Many pointed out that the media is heavily biased in HK now that anti-OC voices can hardly be heard. Therefore they argue: if in today's open and connected HK the true feelings of many citizens can be ignored and twisted by media, wouldn't the Western media twist facts or cover at least part of the truth back then?

Validity of the argument aside, facts and truths of the Tiananmen incident aside, the sentiment itself already shows how unpopular OC has become among some citizens....

texx1 · Oct 5, 2014

Brumby said:
Honestly I don't take those comments seriously because I think they are rants without any thoughts being placed on what is being said. Taiwan with a reasonable robust army behind it would not go the route of declaring independence but yet somehow an elected CE with the PLA station in HK may end up seeking full independence.

Elected CE could create referendum demanding China to remove PLA presence.

HK would become a hotbed as well as a jumping point for anti-china hostile forces with the implicit approval and support of pro independence CE .

Anyway, Let's agree to disagree. You can dismiss reasonable concerns from Beijing and from more cynical posters here.

But your dismissal of Beijing's concerns regarding the potential negative impact of separatist segments within OC only makes your analysis on the subject less accurate and one-sided as you are missing the biggest and most obvious piece of the puzzle from Beijing's perspective.

Brumby · Oct 5, 2014

pla101prc said:
of course its not pointless, the OC camp can at least point to the court decision (provided that it is a favourable decision) and say that it was overturned by a commie rubber stamp parliament. the risk being if the court sides with Beijing they will lose absolutely everything, not even the US gov will speak in their favour by then, so its a gamble they might take after if they fail to stop the passing of this current election law.

The practical side of politics is that Beijing becomes more accommodating on the threshold of candidate selection in light of the protest. If mass protest can't change Beijing's mind, the court certainly would not especially by law the final arbiter is NPC. I would be surprise if the court is willing to hear the case if constitutionally NPC has the right to interpret the law. The lawyers would probably be happy to do it.

Brumby · Oct 5, 2014

texx1 said:
Elected CE could create referendum demanding China to remove PLA presence.

Such statement shows ignorance of the Basic Law and the one country two systems arrangement. PLA cannot be removed because it is a defence policy. Defence does not come under the HKSAR administration. Such referendum is unconstitutional to begin with.

texx1 said:
HK would become a hotbed as well as a jumping point for anti-china hostile forces with the implicit approval and support of pro independence CE .

That is fictional reasoning without a dose of reality

texx1 said:
But your dismissal of Beijing's concerns regarding the potential negative impact of separatist segments within OC only makes your analysis on the subject less accurate and one-sided as you are missing the biggest and most obvious piece of the puzzle from Beijing's perspective.

Please elaborate. I think such concerns by Beijing only exhibit an administration still ruling by fear rather than strength and being unsure of itself even though so much progress has been made economically and militarily.

Blitzo · Oct 5, 2014

Brumby said:
Such statement shows ignorance of the Basic Law and the one country two systems arrangement. PLA cannot be removed because it is a defence policy. Defence does not come under the HKSAR administration. Such referendum is unconstitutional to begin with.

If an anti mainland CE is elected on the wings of widespread anti mainland sentiment, do we think it would be impossible for them to seek and renounce parts of the constitution? (Case in point, many of the OC groups have clung onto some parts of the basic law/article 45 specifically, while ignoring others.)

Perhaps at that point, the PRC could use political and economic means to bring the situation under control, or maybe some more moderate elements in HK would make their own demonstrations. If all things get out of hand, then and only then PLA would be used.

But Beijing would prefer to prevent a CE with such "radical" aims to enter power in the first place. Prevention of an adverse outcome is typically more effective and reliable than trying to treat it, in every discipline, health, military, and politics all included.

Brumby · Oct 5, 2014

Bltizo said:
If an anti mainland CE is nominated on the wings of widespread anti mainland sentiment, do we think it would be impossible for them to seek and renounce parts of the constitution? (Case in point, many of the OC groups have clung onto some parts of the basic law while ignoring others.)

I presume you mean elected CE rather than nominated CE. The constitution cannot be amended without NPC. It is a non starter.

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

texx1

Junior Member

Brumby

Major

Brumby

Major

pla101prc

Senior Member

xiabonan

Junior Member

texx1

Junior Member

Brumby

Major

Brumby

Major

Blitzo

Lieutenant General

Brumby

Major