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

Status
Not open for further replies.
SampanViking

SampanViking

The Capitalist
Staff member
Super Moderator
VIP Professional
Registered Member
I think this thread will need some watching as some posters are getting a little over excited and veering somewhat wide of the topic.

All I will add, is that it is clear that many posters do not fully understand what a "Regime" actually is and how this differentiates from a Government and therefore the difference in consequences/implications in changing either one of them.
 
wtlh

wtlh

Junior Member
Mr T said:
If Hong Kong is to thrive, it needs someone who is willing to champion the city's interests and, if necessary, say to Beijing "your policy is hurting my city, you need to change it". 90% of the time you can get a mutually beneficial agreement, but sometimes you have to be willing to have an argument.
Click to expand...


Let's see, currently:

1) Hong Kong does not pay a single penny to the national coffer. All of its tax revues stays inside the city. This is markedly different from the situation during the British rule.

2) Hong Kong has its own legal system

3) Hong Kong has its own educational system

4) Hong Kong has its own health care system

5) Hong Kong has its own social welfare and pension system

6) Hong Kong has its own currency

7) Hong Kong has its own tax system

8) Hong Kong is not bound by any national policies and regulations that are passed in Beijing, except for the specific amendments in regards to its basic law.

9) There are visa restrictions and quotas for mainland citizens going into Hong Kong, but there are no restrictions going the other direction.

In this light, what could a Hong Kong chief executive lobby on Hong Kong's behalf in regards to Chinese national policies that would give further benefits to Hong Kong? Demolish Shanghai and force all trade to go through Hong Kong?

It is all well talking about fighting the central government and campaigning for the local interest of Hong Kong, but that soon becomes rather hollow when you look at the maximum amount of privileges and power Hong Kong already enjoys.

Since the central government policies cannot affect Hong Kong directly, the only policies that are relevant would be those concerning the development of competitors like Shanghai. But, when you are paying zero tax to the central government, what leverage do you have in lobbying for (suicidal) central government policies that would restrict the development of competitor cities like Shanghai, which is a big tax payer, just so to ease the competitive pressure on Hong Kong?
 
Last edited:
kwaigonegin

kwaigonegin

Colonel
xiabonan said:
Most people, people everywhere, are irrational, ignorant and self-interest driven. Even if they're indeed rational, sensible, altruistic, and moral beings, not everyone has the amount of information and/or knowledge required to make policies and govern the country.

All successful governance share one very simple trait: that they do what is right for the country and her people, taking into consideration of all international dynamics and plan for the future, at a time scale of years if not decades. They don't do what is popular with the people, or change policies to cater to the interest of any particular group within the society.

Fundamentally, I do not believe that people have to be given a choice in how they're governed. That's only one of the means towards an end. The ultimate goal is better standard of living for the people.

Someone brought up the example of Singapore. I've been studying and living in Singapore for six years now. I can honestly tell you that Singaporeans do not have a real say in politics, nor do they feel so.

The government recently banned a documentary on how the Communists in Singapore were purged and eradicated from politics by Lee Kwan Yew. The government recently banned children's books in the National Library just because they showed two male penguins loving each other. The government still canes criminals, hangs criminals to death. Gay marriage is illegal. The government still upholds the Internal Security Act which gives it the executive power to detain ANYONE without trials in the court for a certain period of time. The government built two casinos despite huge domestic opposition. The government continues to welcome foreign talents despite increasing xenophobia.

You can't post anti-government comments online. You can't go on a strike because a cabinet Minister heads the nations' "workers' union". You can initiate a "civil disobedience"--like the OC movement, or else the ISA will immediately kick in. You can't even destroy a picture of the Prime Minister, or else you'll be sued and have to pay a huge sum of fine.

You can't vote the party out, because the opposition is simply too weak. Furthermore, gerrymandering is done all the time to ensure the PAP holds on to power.

In many ways the Singaporean government is more authoritarian than the Chinese government. It's just that Singapore is such a small country hardly anyone from the outside world keeps an eye on her domestic politics.

But the Singapore government is one of the most competent in the world. The economy is managed so well, and the city as well. She has one of the highest growth rates among developed nations, one of the lowest crime rates, unemployment rates, drugs, and corruption. Her citizens enjoy one of the highest GDP per capita in the world. Being one of the most densely populated island-state, Singapore's home ownership rate is surprisingly one of the highest in the world. A degree-holder is able to purchase a large government flat within years of graduation, which is impossible to imagine in Hong Kong. She's rated as one of the best places to do business.

All these thanks to a government that does not bow to popular views, keep an iron fist on opposition, ensures stability, and make sure meritocracy is key.
Click to expand...

I concur with everything you said however I don't necessarily see it as a good thing. Imagine a bird in a cage. The owner feeds it the best bird food money can buy, he takes it out everyday to play, buys all kinds of bird toys and what not, keep it safe at all times. If the bird is sick he takes it to the best vet in the country.. basically the bird doesn't EVER have to worry about looking for his own food, fear of other predators or worry about building a nest etc. He will probably live longer than most birds in the wild and die of old age.

Do you want to be that bird? I don't.
 
Doombreed

Doombreed

Junior Member
wtlh said:
So what you meant was that they have brainwashed people better in the US and UK?
Click to expand...

Well, if you're comparing democracy to better brain washing, then what else is there to talk about? Never knew that Chinese were against democracy itself as a concept. I've always thought that your(read: Chinese nationalist's) argument was that democracy has inherent values, but it is unsuitable for China at the moment and will be difficult to correctly implement. That I can accept.

But to infer that the democracy I'm currently enjoying and is currently working for us in the west is just better brain washing? That's pretty offensive.
 
Doombreed

Doombreed

Junior Member
xiabonan said:
Most people, people everywhere, are irrational, ignorant and self-interest driven. Even if they're indeed rational, sensible, altruistic, and moral beings, not everyone has the amount of information and/or knowledge required to make policies and govern the country.

All successful governance share one very simple trait: that they do what is right for the country and her people, taking into consideration of all international dynamics and plan for the future, at a time scale of years if not decades. They don't do what is popular with the people, or change policies to cater to the interest of any particular group within the society.

Fundamentally, I do not believe that people have to be given a choice in how they're governed. That's only one of the means towards an end. The ultimate goal is better standard of living for the people.

Someone brought up the example of Singapore. I've been studying and living in Singapore for six years now. I can honestly tell you that Singaporeans do not have a real say in politics, nor do they feel so.

The government recently banned a documentary on how the Communists in Singapore were purged and eradicated from politics by Lee Kwan Yew. The government recently banned children's books in the National Library just because they showed two male penguins loving each other. The government still canes criminals, hangs criminals to death. Gay marriage is illegal. The government still upholds the Internal Security Act which gives it the executive power to detain ANYONE without trials in the court for a certain period of time. The government built two casinos despite huge domestic opposition. The government continues to welcome foreign talents despite increasing xenophobia.

You can't post anti-government comments online. You can't go on a strike because a cabinet Minister heads the nations' "workers' union". You can initiate a "civil disobedience"--like the OC movement, or else the ISA will immediately kick in. You can't even destroy a picture of the Prime Minister, or else you'll be sued and have to pay a huge sum of fine.

You can't vote the party out, because the opposition is simply too weak. Furthermore, gerrymandering is done all the time to ensure the PAP holds on to power.

In many ways the Singaporean government is more authoritarian than the Chinese government. It's just that Singapore is such a small country hardly anyone from the outside world keeps an eye on her domestic politics.

But the Singapore government is one of the most competent in the world. The economy is managed so well, and the city as well. She has one of the highest growth rates among developed nations, one of the lowest crime rates, unemployment rates, drugs, and corruption. Her citizens enjoy one of the highest GDP per capita in the world. Being one of the most densely populated island-state, Singapore's home ownership rate is surprisingly one of the highest in the world. A degree-holder is able to purchase a large government flat within years of graduation, which is impossible to imagine in Hong Kong. She's rated as one of the best places to do business.

All these thanks to a government that does not bow to popular views, keep an iron fist on opposition, ensures stability, and make sure meritocracy is key.
Click to expand...

Brilliantly argued why democracy isn't needed. Or even, dare I infer, even prefered. kwaigonegin above has already alluded to the Gilded Cage argument for democracy. I'll expand on that. Self actualisation is at the top of the pyramid of need. For that you need self determination. Did you listen to everything your mum tells you to do? What if it means less suffering for you due to her years of experience and wisdom? Why don't you let her plan your life out? Well. Actually, now that I think about it. A lot of Chinese does do that. But I digress.

The second point I want to make is that Singapore is not the norm, it is an anomaly. Some of the happiest people in the world are all from democracies. Kiwis, Nordics, Europeans. I fundamentally believes that Chinese are just people. There's nothing fundamentally different about a Chinese person when compared to the people I listed above. The same pyramid of need applies to a Chinese person the same as any other. Who are you to say that the Chinese don't want self determination. And all they care about is material advancement?

And that's what democracy comes down to. Self determination. The idea that I am my own master. Even if I make mistakes, they are my mistakes to make.
 
Doombreed

Doombreed

Junior Member
xiabonan said:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


Also, here'a link to an article about some content of national education in Singapore. Every student in mainstream Singaporean schools have to learn these stuff as part of the Social Studies course. They are required to be able to memorise this stuff in-and-out, and regurgitate it out at any time. I used to be able to do it when I was studying it. For anyone interested in how the government of Singapore educates the future of the nation, you can take a serious look at it.

I'll pick out one part for you guys: Leadership Is Key

Governance is more than just a set of institutional arrangements to ensure the effective functioning of society. Many countries have democratic elections, separation of powers and systems to hold their bureaucracies accountable to the legislature but they are not necessarily well governed. Effective systems of governance are necessary but the key is the quality of leadership that resides in all the institutions of governance. In fact, quality institutions of governance follow naturally from good leadership.

My experiences of the drastic changes that happened in my home country, China, and what I've seen and experienced first-hand in Singapore, told me one thing, and that is, the Western democratic system is NOT the only way of governing a society. A nation can progress, in fact, when the ingredients are right, can progress MUCH FASTER and MUCH BETTER when democracy is out of the way. Look at all those new born democracies around the world after WW2 and after the Cold War, how many of them have achieved the kind of spectacular success that China and Singapore achieved in improving the lives of their citizens?

Even long-established Western democracies, how many have a government that's as competent as the Chinese and Singaporean government?

China's paramount leader Deng Xiaoping once famously said , that we must "seek truth from facts". No matter how good democratic ideals sound, when empirical facts do not deliver what it's promised to do, but rather the opposite has taken place, I find it really really hard to convince myself that democracy is the ONLY way to run a country and to become prosperous, as some suggest.
Click to expand...

I agree with you that democracy is not the WAY to achieve prosperity. But democracy is inevitable once prosperity is achieved. People move up the pyramid of need and will eventually seek self determination. And that is the case in Hong Kong. Surely you're not suggesting that some people should never have democracy even if they wanted it.
 
solarz

solarz

Brigadier
Doombreed said:
The second point I want to make is that Singapore is not the norm, it is an anomaly. Some of the happiest people in the world are all from democracies. Kiwis, Nordics, Europeans. I fundamentally believes that Chinese are just people. There's nothing fundamentally different about a Chinese person when compared to the people I listed above. The same pyramid of need applies to a Chinese person the same as any other. Who are you to say that the Chinese don't want self determination. And all they care about is material advancement?
Click to expand...

Do you mean this report?

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


Now where does China rank here...

Wait, there's no China? The most populous country in the world was not part of the survey???

What, did the CPC ban the survey?

Okay, let's see where India ranks then.

Wait a minute... There's no India either???

Huh???

Oh, and according to this report, Singapore ranks 30th, while South Korea, Taiwan, and Japan ranks 41st, 42nd, and 43rd, respectively.
 
Last edited:
Doombreed

Doombreed

Junior Member
solarz said:
Do you mean this report?

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


Now where does China rank here...

Wait, there's no China? The most populous country in the world was not part of the survey???

What, did the CPC ban the survey?

Okay, let's see where India ranks then.

Wait a minute... There's no India either???

Huh???

Oh, and according to this report, Singapore ranks 30th, while South Korea, Taiwan, and Japan ranks 41st, 42nd, and 43rd, respectively.
Click to expand...

What are you on about? Look at the top ten. All democracies.

1 Denmark
2 Norway
3 Switzerland
4 Netherlands
5 Sweden
6 Canada
7 Finland
8 Austria
9 Iceland
10 Australia
...
13 New Zealand

Some of the happiest people in the world are all from democracies. Kiwis, Nordics, Europeans. I fundamentally believes that Chinese are just people. There's nothing fundamentally different about a Chinese person when compared to the people I listed above.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top