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

In The Netherlands some six people are killed each year by police fire arm use. Doesn't the police in HK carry fire arms?

Btw I took a look at the 2012 subsidies by NED for "independent" organisations in Ukraine. That's a very long list.

delft said:

In The Netherlands some six people are killed each year by police fire arm use. Doesn't the police in HK carry fire arms?

Click to expand...

They do but they hardly ever draw their guns.

for the meme.

Mr T said:

OMG, being poked with umbrellas - how awful!

Come on, who is this guy? Aren't police officers supposed to be trained in dealing with tense situations? If they use tear gas and pepper spray when they're jabbed with umbrellas, what do they do if there's a real disturbance - ask the PLAAF to carry out strafing runs?!

Click to expand...

It's important to remember fundamental differences in how different cultures around the world view authorities, their role in society, and their standings among the populus. Don't castigate HK police simply you don't understand Confucian-based cultures fundamentally view authority differently than the Anglo-American culture.

Franklin said:

I don't know to what extend there is foreign involvement in these protest. But if there are it may backfire on them as it seems that the OC protesters are angering and alienating more and more people in HK by the day. I'm surprised that tempers in HK have frailed so quickly as it has only been 7 days. I don't know how long these protests will continue but it seems to me that these students are no longer listening to either their parents or the organizations leaders. They are staying on the streets despite calls from both of them to leave.

Click to expand...

Well I think its very much like what happened when the Chinese government suddenly lifted all the filters during the 2008 Tibetan unrest and it was like scales falling from people's eyes.

Despite all the spin and misdirection, the genesis and much of the fuel of the OC movement came from foreign and local HK media's biased reporting.

HK's special status meant the bulk of its people were insulated from the mainland and did not have much objective, independent frame of reference so believed every word the China-bashers wrote.

Its no accident or co-incidence that the people who travel to the mainland frequently also tend to not have such a negative view towards Beijing or the mainland. That is as much to the do with the fact they get to see with their own eyes what China is like as it is with the economic interest of their business connections. The fact that the OC and 'pro-democracy' lot would so casually and categorically brand all those people as somehow agents of Beijing is a clear indication that those people value idealogical purity over reality.

The biggest factors, in my view, over the sea change in popular attitudes amongst ordinary HKers is that they are seeing first hand what is happening on the streets, and then recognising that what the foreign media is reporting isn't anything like what is happening.

Its a watershed moment that makes them question everything else the foreign media has force fed them over the years - hence all the soul searching about people's previous attitudes towards past events and behaviour, such as 89 and the annual vigils.

Add to that the very real economic costs the OC movement has imposed on so many, and its not hard at all to see why so many would turn against it.

It is still far too early to tell, and a lot could still go badly, but if HK handle the end of this protest well, the whole thing make actually end up being a positive for China as a whole.

Far from presenting themselves as a credible alternative, the OC and pro-democracy lot have made themselves into the champions of chaos and disruption, and made the status quo far more preferable to a great many ordinary, hard working people in HK.

I found a couple of good videos I want to share with you guys. Unfortunately they are in Cantonese (again). For those who know Cantonese, please have a look.

[video=youtube;wA96XeyRhFs]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wA96XeyRhFs&feature=youtu.be[/video]

[video=youtube;VXGfGwKQDWw]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VXGfGwKQDWw[/video]

Brumby said:

Your premise is Britain as a colonial power cannot reasonably introduce a democratic process into a departing colonial outpost. You have to demonstrate why such a behaviour is mutually exclusive or at least is an unreasonable act. I have already outlined the reason. You have to undercut that reasoning at the minimum. Whether Britain care or not does not preclude other reasons outside of care.

Click to expand...

I never claimed colonial powers and introduction of democratic processes are always mutually exclusive; I'm sure scholars could produce successful examples of said process. My clam is Britain, vis-a-vis Hong Kong, didn't introduce fully a democratic process, even after they allowed the locals to enjoy universal suffrage and freedom of assembly. I say that because to claim the mantel of democratic governance, in the Western sense of the phrase, you must have universal suffrage, the rule of law, equality under the law, freedom of expression and association, and freedom of movement/travel. Hong Kong had universal suffrage from 1994 till the handover in 1997, and they also had freedom of assembly and association, but not equality under the law (compared with British subjects in England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland), nor freedom of travel within the British Empire. So, I say again, the tossed out imperial power window-dressed democracy, but ultimately failed to live up to their own concepts of democratic process and equality under the law.

Blackstone said:

I never claimed colonial powers and introduction of democratic processes are always mutually exclusive; I'm sure scholars could produce successful examples of said process. My clam is Britain, vis-a-vis Hong Kong, didn't introduce fully a democratic process, even after they allowed the locals to enjoy universal suffrage and freedom of assembly. I say that because to claim the mantel of democratic governance, in the Western sense of the phrase, you must have universal suffrage, the rule of law, equality under the law, freedom of expression and association, and freedom of movement/travel. Hong Kong had universal suffrage from 1994 till the handover in 1997, and they also had freedom of assembly and association, but not equality under the law (compared with British subjects in England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland), nor freedom of travel within the British Empire. So, I say again, the tossed out imperial power window-dressed democracy, but ultimately failed to live up to their own concepts of democratic process and equality under the law.

Click to expand...

Wait, Hong Kong never had universal suffrage from 1994 to 1997 AFAIK.

Jura said:

I don't know what are you saying now ... on those videos, I saw people charging the Police, don't know what happened after that (or you referred to things which happened before?)

Click to expand...

Oh I was trying to guess the timeline. But I thought for a moment and forfeit that. I couldn't tell. Just knew it's very very early on..or is it?

Oh I remember. I think this is 9/29 when the OC people are in the streets and the police began to use pepperspray. One elderly then got pulled over and sprayed in the eye. Gotta go out first.

Mr T said:

From

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

.



It's comments like these that will just further the perception that in Hong Kong the primary backers of the political status quo are the rich, who give two fingers to the rest of the population including the protesters.

Click to expand...

So, Hong Kong's rich are just like rich people all over the world, right...?