Occupy Central...News, Photos & Videos ONLY!!

Status
Not open for further replies.

Equation

Lieutenant General
Whilst not guaranteed, it's possible he (she is unlikely right now) having been elected by the people directly, rather than owing his success to getting on a small pre-approved list through Beijing's consent, would see the local citizens as being the people he needed to seek approval from. Much like mayors in most democratic countries are cheerleaders for their cities trying to get concessions from the national government, rather than cheerleaders for the national government trying to get their citizens to accept the national government's agenda.


Well the same can be said about "democratically elected officials" what makes you think a popular contest can guarantee a more qualify candidate than what China is doing? The people don't have to time in their days to go research every assets of the candidates qualifications. Even democratic countries are forcing their citizens to accept unpopular programs that became into law like Obamacare for example.

Again, I didn't say they did. I said that Occupy's point was that in order to put the city's interests first, they needed to be able to elect their leader directly and freely.

But Not ALL of Hong Konger doesn't want what the these Occupiers are suggesting. Electing candidates directly and freely isn't all that either. I rather have a boring very qualify candidate to lead the city than say a popular contest where the least qualify candidate wins (admit it, this happens all the time in every free election). The Occupiers just wants things their way so that they can a person that represent ONLY their interests. That means church groups and special interests groups will dominate the advertisement campaign dollars to promote their candidates instead of a very careful selection of candidates. It will turn into a mess of a popularity contest, and as a result the needs and interests of the entire public is not serve expediately and effectively. In politics their is no time for mistakes.
 
People who are likely to do what they're told by Beijing, and/or see their primary goal is to keep to Beijing happy rather than Hong Kong people.

By defining "pro-Beijing" that way you are making the faulty assumptions that 1) if someone is "pro-Beijing" then they must be taking orders from or kissing up to Beijing rather than serving their own interests, and 2) if Beijing is happy then Hong Kong people can't be happy.

I didn't say that's not true. The issue is, what do you do if Beijing wants one thing but Hong Kong needs another?

What if Hong Kong needs one thing and these protesters want another?


Again, I didn't say they did. I said that Occupy's point was that in order to put the city's interests first, they needed to be able to elect their leader directly and freely.

Whilst not guaranteed, it's possible he (she is unlikely right now) having been elected by the people directly, rather than owing his success to getting on a small pre-approved list through Beijing's consent, would see the local citizens as being the people he needed to seek approval from. Much like mayors in most democratic countries are cheerleaders for their cities trying to get concessions from the national government, rather than cheerleaders for the national government trying to get their citizens to accept the national government's agenda.

Are you saying you actually don't know? You think all of Hong Kong's needs are being adequately served and there are no significant problems?

Are you saying you don't know what Hong Kong's problems are and how they are currently being served or may be served differently?

Just like the Occupy protesters when you are asked what Hong Kong's problems are beside from the political process and what they plan to do differently to address them there is no answer. That means no alternative is being offered.

Local governments the world over have to balance their local residents' interests and those of the larger entities they belong to. That is exactly what the Hong Kong government has been doing so far.

In today's globalized economy, especially for an international trading port like Hong Kong, the local government, elite, and general population all need to adapt to the changing world of global economics, finance, and trade. This is where most of Hong Kong's frustrations and problems are rooted, Occupy Central has not been able to identify these, nor have they offered a way on how they would handle these.

It's the nominating committee itself that is arguably Beijing's veto/pre-approval system because the majority of the members appear to be pro-Beijing and accordingly only pro-Beijing candidates will get enough votes to be nominated.

That is once again full of faulty assumptions about the nominating committee which is made up of Hong Kong locals blindly serving Beijing's interests instead of their own, and that their interests cannot be good for Hong Kong.

Anyway, I had a feeling last night some members didn't want to cover this ground again. Does this mean that actually people do want old arguments rehashed?

It seems like everyone is continuing to agree to disagree.
 

Equation

Lieutenant General
So much for peaceful and "well behaved" demonstration.:mad:

2014-11-18T180753Z_1240419099_GM1EABJ05VJ01_RTRMADP_3_HONGKONG-CHINA.JPG


HONG KONG (Reuters) - A small group of Hong Kong pro-democracy protesters broke into the city's legislature via a side door early on Wednesday, and police stopped others forcing their way in as tensions in the Chinese-controlled city escalated following a period of calm.

The flare-up came just hours after court bailiffs managed to clear part of a protest camp in the heart of the city that has been occupied by pro-democracy demonstrators for nearly two months, while leaving most of the main protest site intact.

About 100 riot police with helmets, batons and shields stood guard outside the government building in the early hours of Wednesday, facing off with protesters who are demanding free elections for the city's next leader in 2017.

"Police retreat!" the protesters chanted.

It was the first time protesters had broken into a key public building, defying the expectations of many political analysts who had predicted that Hong Kong's most tenacious and protracted protest movement would slowly wind down.

Police officers use pepper spray to stop the pro-democracy protesters breaking the glass window of t …
The escalation came in the early hours of Wednesday when a small group of protesters charged toward the legislature and used metal barricades and concrete tiles to ram a glass side door. They eventually smashed through, with several managing to get inside, according to witnesses.

Scores of riot police, some with shields and helmets, rushed over, using pepper spray and batons to keep other demonstrators from also smashing their way in.

Police raised red signs warning protesters to stay back as the activists held up a wall of umbrellas to defend themselves against the pepper spray.

A democratic lawmaker at the scene, Fernando Cheung, said he and other protesters had tried to stop the small group of radical activists from breaking through.

"This is a very, very isolated incident. I think it's very unfortunate and this is something we don't want to see happen because the movement so far has been very peaceful," he said.

On Tuesday, about 30 court bailiffs arrived at the 33-storey Citic Tower, also in the Admiralty district, to enforce an injunction forbidding street barricades after a request from the building's owners.

A similar injunction has been issued, but not yet enforced, for a street in the gritty district of Mong Kok, across the harbor, which has seen some of the most violent clashes of the past seven weeks.

Hong Kong was returned to China from British colonial rule in 1997 under a "one country, two systems" formula that gives the city more autonomy and freedom than the mainland, with an eventual goal of universal suffrage.

The protesters are demanding open nominations in the city's next election for chief executive in 2017. Beijing has said it will allow a vote in 2017, but only between pre-screened candidates.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 
Last edited:

wtlh

Junior Member
Seriously, I cannot see how the current candidate vetting system differs fundamentally from most of the Western democracies. In the UK, the political parties choose their candidate in local elections, in fact, the party leadership chooses the candidate. In the US, again, electoral colleges and the parties literally control who gets to become presidential candidates; it is never the people themselves. And if you just look at all those politicians, no matter which party they afflicted to, they all belong to the same old-boys club. There is not much difference between them and the Hong Kong Tycoons.

All of these systems are designed to avoid precisely the situation of what those Hong Kong protesters are demanding: everyone and anyone becoming a candidate, and protest votes and populism taking over the political sphere, making the democratic system unworkable.

If one look at Beijing's criteria for the candidates, they are in fact very reasonable: all they ask is for the candidate to "love the country" and "love Hong Kong". Just imagine a US president candidate not being patriotic, can that ever happen? And the vetting of candidates by an electoral committee is clearly stated in the Basic Law. The very meaning of the word "committee" and "selection" process means it contradicts with what the protesters want. It is quite amazing that some of the leaders of the protester groups are law professors, yet they seems to want to avoid debating this very important legal point. To implement what the protesters want means a significant change to the Basic Law, Hong Kong's defacto constitution, which however does not seem to be what the protesters want either?!

To me, if Hong Kong wants to become truly democratic, then the electoral committee is actually the correct way forward. It just needs to be improved perhaps in the future, be more inclusive, for example, and include more sections of the society, especially the poor. In this, I think Beijing could even give a forceful hand to breakup the old-boys club in the future, by forcing changes to the committee. I am actually thinking that the occupy central movement is damaging and delaying the prospect of this happening, because they have much radicalised and polarised the subject, and is ultimately damaging the interest of the poor in Hong Kong.

Nevertheless, no matter what happens, the people of Hong Kong should not hold the illusion that the democratic process won't be a solely rich men's playground (and be that much different from the current system). Hong Kong from the way it developed, is economically structured to be a rich men's playground, and all democratic processes, no matter where you look in the world, is about selecting someone from the rich men's club. No money = no connection = no media support = no chance.

At the end of the day, all Beijing really cares is that they get someone patriotic and loyal, not a Lee Teng-Hui or Chen Shui-bian type trouble-maker. They don't want to micro-manage Hong Kong either, and they don't actually care how Hong Kong is governed, as long as it doesn't mess up Hong Kong or stab Beijing in the back. Given that Hong Kong's future actually ties tightly with that of the China, and there isn't really any real conflicts of interest here. I hope the saner people in Hong Kong will see this.
 
Last edited:

Doombreed

Junior Member
Well the same can be said about "democratically elected officials" what makes you think a popular contest can guarantee a more qualify candidate than what China is doing? The people don't have to time in their days to go research every assets of the candidates qualifications.

Argh....the irrational voter arguement. The battle cry of every benevolent dictator. "But they not know what they do!" Says the Enlightened Absolutist. I wonder why Singapore is not a writhing cesspool yet with all their democracy. Or are you implying that somehow the Singaporean Chinese are different to the Chinese Chinese.
 
Last edited:

Doombreed

Junior Member
Seriously, I cannot see how the current candidate vetting system differs fundamentally from most of the Western democracies. In the UK, the political parties choose their candidate in local elections, in fact, the party leadership chooses the candidate. In the US, again, electoral colleges and the parties literally control who gets to become presidential candidates; it is never the people themselves. And if you just look at all those politicians, no matter which party they afflicted to, they all belong to the same old-boys club. There is not much difference between them and the Hong Kong Tycoons.

It is a matter of history and intent. In the UK and the US, the voter trusts that the intent of the electoral colleges and parties is to represent the will of the people. How they do so is a matter of practicality. For the CCP however, people do not trust them to oversee a completely free and unbiased electoral process. Why you ask? Past behaviour of cause! The CCP is not known for their history of liberal democratic values. Indeed, the CCP is known for power and control. So it's only natural for people to think that this "back door" will be used to influence election outcomes to suits the CCP and maybe not the Hong Kong people.
 
Argh....the irrational voter arguement. The battle cry of every benevolent dictator. "But they not know what they do!" Says the Enlightened Absolutist. I wonder why Singapore is not a writhing cesspool yet with all their democracy. Or are you implying that somehow the Singaporean Chinese are different to the Chinese Chinese.

LOL, Singapore is the closest of all the so-called "democracies" in Asia to a one-party dictatorship. Sowing chaos and slowing the development of other countries via calling for supposed "democracy" is the calling card of the long-time colonial powers looking to undermine others.
 

Doombreed

Junior Member
LOL, Singapore is the closest of all the so-called "democracies" in Asia to a one-party dictatorship. Sowing chaos and slowing the development of other countries via calling for supposed "democracy" is the calling card of the long-time colonial powers looking to undermine others.

But the difference is that Singaporeans chose that particular form of "dictatorship". If the CCP is so confidant of their benevolence and their stewardship, then why don't they give the people the option to choose.

But of cause. But of cause. They not know what they do...
 

solarz

Brigadier
But the difference is that Singaporeans chose that particular form of "dictatorship". If the CCP is so confidant of their benevolence and their stewardship, then why don't they give the people the option to choose.

But of cause. But of cause. They not know what they do...

Oh please, not that tired old refrain again. Singaporeans have as much a choice about their government as the Chinese have about theirs. The Singaporeans simply go through the extra step of a ritual in the form of elections, where the incumbent party faces no credible opposition, in order to legitimize their choice.

The Chinese do not need any such rituals. If they didn't want the CPC as their government, the CPC would not be governing today, and the CPC leadership knows this full well.

Western pundits talk about how the CPC "reinvents" itself in order to stay in power. In any other context, that would be called "accountability". We could only wish "democratic" governments responded to citizen concerns as promptly!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top