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

Just to add very quickly, and I will shut up and focus back to news and events in Hong Kong.

Japan, Korea, and Taiwan etc are all post-war US vassal states. US dictated to Japan for many years and still has not released her leash---the reason why the Japanese far-right is as much against the US as they are against China. The South Korean regime was again propped up by the US for many decades, and US influence is still very much weaved in its very existence and society.

And for Japan, its political sphere still has a strong lineage to its feudal past, with old elite families still monopolising the parliamentary politics and parties, and it is very difficult to break into the political sphere without a good family lineage.

To argue that China should automatically and inevitably become ideologically similar to these states in the future is borrowing from colonial logic.

The Chinese system may or may not become similar to these states in the future, but that solely depends on the Chinese people's own trial and errors and their own experiences---and not depended on any notion of "universal values" or any other similar dogmas---just like any other free and independent nationhood would.

This will be my last take on this subject.

Doombreed said:

Understand the need to get back to Hong Kong. But I would like to make one last point.

Japan, Korea, and Taiwan. All east asian cultures. Are the Chinese so fundamentally different to them? How is it, when these east asian cultures that shares tremendous amount of values with China, they are still able to produce vibrant democracies. When their social development allows.

Again, no one is telling you that China should go democratic now. But what you and some of the other posters seems to imply is that somehow China and the Chinese are on a divergent social development trend to the other east asian cultures.

That somehow the Chinese through her "own unique set of natural environments and historical circumstances", will never be receptive to democracy.

What I'm getting at is that Hong Kong has reached the same social development level as Japan, Korea and Taiwan. Therefore the people naturally seeks out self determination and democracy. When mainland China reaches the same social development level, I deduce that they will have similar needs.

You seems to think otherwise. And that I call exceptionalism.

Click to expand...

Why not bring up Afghanistan, Cambodia, India, Pakistan, Philippine and Thailand as well given these countries are also located in Asia? Perhaps it's because these countries get associated with poverty and corruption. Using rich and well off places to demonstrate success of democracies doesn't work when there are just as many poor and corrupted democracies. So the argument in your post actually contradicts itself, making it a fallacy called .

Also, what vibrant democracies? What does that even mean? I will tell you what it means: nothing. It has as much meaning as saying "vibrant dictatorship" or "vibrant monarchy". "Vibrant" is just a weasel word. Some people also use the same word to refer to economies, but when one takes a look at the economy of Japan, Korea and Taiwan, things are actually stagnate. Hong Kong is pretty stagnate as well. The irony is that these places were vibrant before democracy and became stagnate as a result of implementing democracy.

So, if a government wishes to castrate itself, democracy would be the way to go. Now the question is, will you castrate yourself? Most people wouldn't, so it is kind of ridiculous to call this "exceptionalism".

This is becoming just like the Cultural Revolution, when red guards turned on each other.

A group of pro-democracy protesters are planning a demonstration tonight against the leaders of the Admiralty protest camp.

One 21-year-old protestor, who asked not to be named, said some protesters were upset by what he called the “overbearing” manner of the organisers, often referred to as the “main stage” after the stage in Admiralty where leaders give speeches.

On Hong Kong Golden – one of the city’s most popular online forums – posters have encouraged protesters to gather at 7pm at the main stage, with some complaining that the leaders of the months-long occupation are too moderate.

Others have posted messages warning against any attempt to “take down” the main stage.

Citing Mong Kok as example, the protester the Post spoke to said demonstrators could maintain order at protest camps. He said the marshals, organised by the Occupy Central group, were unnecessary.

The protester said about 40 people were planning to remove metal barricades from the main stage on Friday.

The protest camp in Admiralty has been led by the Federation of Students, Occupy Central and Scholarism. Those groups have less influence in Mong Kok, where more radical pro-democracy groups such as Civic Passion hold greater sway.

The leader of Civic Passion, Wong Yeung-tat, advised against dismantling the main stage, calling on protesters to be “calm and rational”.

Zachary Wong Wai-yin, a 56-year-old marshal stationed in Admiralty, said he was unconcerned as there had been other plans to take down the main stage that amounted to nothing.

“This isn’t anything to get worked up about. People have already tried twice to take down the main stage, and we always ask them why. We explain that it’s not an official stage; that’s just the one from the Occupy trio, Scholarism and Federation of Students. Other groups like Civic Passion have their own stages, and if these people want, they’re welcome to set up their own,” Wong said.

Lai Choi-Yin, a 22-year-old member of the federation, said she disagrees with taking down the main stage.

“We can always improve, but the main stage is a platform that brings everyone together. But if they absolutely insist on coming in and taking down the main stage, then maybe we’ll let them and see what the public thinks.”

Lai said some protesters in Admiralty disagreed with marshals who tried to stop people from breaking into the Legislative Council complex earlier this week.

While people should have the right to step in when they see something they do not agree with, Lai said, perhaps marshals should not be the ones doing it.

“Maybe [some protesters] aren’t happy with some marshals telling them what to do and what not to do....Perhaps if some protesters want to take more drastic actions, marshals can leave it to everyone else to step in if they disagree instead of taking action as marshals,” she said.

Click to expand...

shen said:

This is becoming just like the Cultural Revolution, when red guards turned on each other.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Click to expand...

This is exactly what Mainland Chinese netizens have been predicting about.

Many of us have experienced the Cultural Revolution first hand, or have heard about it from our parents or grandparents. We know how catastrophic it would be to society if the whole society just go nuts on politics. Look at China during the cultural revolution, look at Taiwan where students broke into the legislature and held parties inside and blocked the trade agreement and the Taiwanese people are now worrying the China-Korea FTA can cost Taiwan heavily. Look at Singapore where any kind of illegal demonstration is dealt with harshly. Now look at Hong Kong, what started as a "peaceful" and "loving" protest now turned to violence as they broke the legislature's doors and are now even have huge disagreements within themselves.

Many Western people may see this as a struggle, a process to better democracy, I can sympathize with that view to a certain extent, but to the majority of the Chinese people, this is stupid and laughable. Seriously.

Why waste time doing all these nonsensical things when you can spend time to make more money and make life better? They would argue.

Engineer said:

Why not bring up Afghanistan, Cambodia, India, Pakistan, Philippine and Thailand as well given these countries are also located in Asia? Perhaps it's because these countries get associated with poverty and corruption. Using rich and well off places to demonstrate success of democracies doesn't work when there are just as many poor and corrupted democracies. So the argument in your post actually contradicts itself, making it a fallacy called

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

.

Also, what vibrant democracies? What does that even mean? I will tell you what it means: nothing. It has as much meaning as saying "vibrant dictatorship" or "vibrant monarchy". "Vibrant" is just a weasel word. Some people also use the same word to refer to economies, but when one takes a look at the economy of Japan, Korea and Taiwan, things are actually stagnate. Hong Kong is pretty stagnate as well. The irony is that these places were vibrant before democracy and became stagnate as a result of implementing democracy.

So, if a government wishes to castrate itself, democracy would be the way to go. Now the question is, will you castrate yourself? Most people wouldn't, so it is kind of ridiculous to call this "exceptionalism".

Click to expand...

Cambodia, Philippines, Indonesia etc have all benefited from democratization. Sure, they aren't as economically well developed as some of their wealthier neighbours, but compared to their own history under autocracy, they are faring much better. We often forget the horrors that were committed in Suharto's Indonesia, Marcos's Philippines, Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge.

When we look at the apparent inefficiency of a democratic society, what we forget are the horrors of autocratic societies. It would be like criticsing preflight safety check as a form of inefficiency. A democratic society at its worst is inefficient, an autocratic society in its usual mode of function over the last century has produced Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Suharto etc etc. I would very much like a government who 'castrate' itself rather than a government that castrates its people.

If one prefers a system that doesn't castrate its own people, I guess if one didn't consider a certain group(s) one of their own and treated them just like what an autocratic society would, that would be the only difference. Slavery and genocide happened under and by democratic systems but the only difference is the victims weren't considered "their own."

unfair_reality said:

Cambodia, Philippines, Indonesia etc have all benefited from democratization. Sure, they aren't as economically well developed as some of their wealthier neighbours, but compared to their own history under autocracy, they are faring much better. We often forget the horrors that were committed in Suharto's Indonesia, Marcos's Philippines, Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge.

When we look at the apparent inefficiency of a democratic society, what we forget are the horrors of autocratic societies. It would be like criticsing preflight safety check as a form of inefficiency. A democratic society at its worst is inefficient, an autocratic society in its usual mode of function over the last century has produced Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Suharto etc etc. I would very much like a government who 'castrate' itself rather than a government that castrates its people.

Click to expand...

Sure, democracy is preferable to tyranny, but only those with a special agenda would characterize the PRC's government as a tyranny.

Lest you forget, the Roman Republic produced Spartacus, and Hitler was produced by a democratic system, while some of the greatest golden ages in pre-modern times happened under autocratic rules.

What many from the West don't realize is that the CPC has *never* ruled China with fear. An iron fist, yes, but not fear, and the Chinese people, as a whole, have never feared or hated a single CPC leader.

Mao was worshiped like a god. Even after his death, after the destruction of the cultural revolution, most Chinese still revered him as a hero. Mao was easily the most controversial leader in the history of the PRC. All others: Liu, Hua, Deng, Jiang, Hu, and now Xi, have all left positive legacies in people's minds. Jiang's legacy is probably the closest to neutral, Deng's legacy had the most profound impact, and Liu was the most loved. This is only looking at the Chairmen/Presidents.

When we look at the Prime Ministers: Zhou, Zhu, and Wen, to name the most well-known ones, are all respected as great men. Zhou is easily the most beloved figure in the history of the PRC. Zhu is well-known for his iron-handed campaign against corruption, and Wen earned the respect of the people with his efforts during the Sichuan quake.

unfair_reality said:

Cambodia, Philippines, Indonesia etc have all benefited from democratization. Sure, they aren't as economically well developed as some of their wealthier neighbours, but compared to their own history under autocracy, they are faring much better. We often forget the horrors that were committed in Suharto's Indonesia, Marcos's Philippines, Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge.

Click to expand...

Mind you that Cambodia after the Khmer Rouge, though changed its name and system several times is still under the same party/leader for three decades.

Most discussions on democracy inevitably turn into arguments about loosely constructed analogies as well as making correlations and objections through examples. It is almost impossible for this kind of debate to resolve in a rational and logical manner, not because people here don't try to be rational, but because the concept "democracy" has never been clearly defined and in a way that was agreeable to most people. Despite a tempting desire to believe "" is already here, our advancements (or the lack thereof) in political and social sciences are in fact still very far away from achieving such consensus on democracy.

Some people (including people arguing from both sides) and the mass media tend to use the term "democracy" as an "anti-concept" that represents whatever the regime in China is not. Many were unware or dismissive that the CCP itself has always been an advocate and practitioner of democracy in their own ways, which were actually reflected not just in propaganda but in how decisions were made. Clearly, CCP's understanding of democracy under the context of class conflict and Chinese socialism was different from most western perspectives of democracy under the context of limiting power, so they don't pursue the same forms of elections and separation of powers in designing the government. Whether you agree with this alternative perspective on democracy or not, it would be inappropriate to judge the level of democracy (in essence how people's wills are reflected in governance) only by gauging a system's similarity to stereotypical electoral and parliamentary democracies in the west.

The way I sees it, China is overall more democratic than many countries that adopted a westernized "democratic government", like the Philippines, but at the same time not as democratic as some other countries with similar systems, like the US. Again, democracy is not operationalized so this is not a quantifiable comparison, just my subjective view. This is also not to say China can become more democratic by simply copying the US, because election does not guarantee democracy, and the western perspective on democracy is not inherently "more democratic". I think the CCP's persistent effort to find its own way in democracy is quite valuable.

I know this is not the thread to elaborate on China's level of democracy and how it compares to other countries. My point here is that we should not blind ourselves with the unrealistic duality of "democracy" and "no democracy", especially not when it is equated to the amount of election, universal suffrage, how much HK can distance itself from Beijing, etc.. The term "democracy" has been used too much to identify political spectrum and ideologies instead of referring to democracy itself. With movements like Occupy Central this only gets worse. So I hope in here we could focus more on the roots of HK's predicament in democracy, namely, the discrepancy between what they think, what they need, and what they're facing in current political and economic reality. Without going back to these basic realities that are unique to HK, it would be pointless to argue the good or bad of any type of election.

unfair_reality said:

Cambodia, Philippines, Indonesia etc have all benefited from democratization. Sure, they aren't as economically well developed as some of their wealthier neighbours, but compared to their own history under autocracy, they are faring much better. We often forget the horrors that were committed in Suharto's Indonesia, Marcos's Philippines, Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge.

Click to expand...

People fair better after horrors end, and horrors end when the perpetrators loose power. That's just how inevitability works. Saying this is a result of democratization is reversing the cause and effect. It is the same mistake that people make when they try to attribute a successful economy to democracy, even though the economy has been growing before democratization.

unfair_reality said:

When we look at the apparent inefficiency of a democratic society, what we forget are the horrors of autocratic societies. It would be like criticsing preflight safety check as a form of inefficiency.

Click to expand...

There are plenty of autocracies that don't go around slaughtering people. Cherry picking a few examples does not prove all autocracies are horrible, neither does it disprove that democracies are no better.

Now to your analogy. Preflight safety checks are prescribed by experts to those who are not as knowledgeable. The checks are not for deliberation and take place regardless of whether passengers want it or not. Rather than being analogous to democracies, the analogy is closer in describing the way Chinese government currently functions.

An analogy to inefficiency of democracy is this. An airliner encounters some issues. As a result of these issues the passengers on board decided to remove the pilots from the cockpit and hold an election for new pilots. This occurs while the plane is still going down, with the capability of the candidates come no where close to that of the original pilots. The outcome is obvious.

unfair_reality said:

A democratic society at its worst is inefficient, an autocratic society in its usual mode of function over the last century has produced Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Suharto etc etc. I would very much like a government who 'castrate' itself rather than a government that castrates its people.

Click to expand...

Democracy did not prevent Hitler from getting into power in Germany. With exception of Stalin, the rest got into power through power of gun barrels, rather than a systematic mean of leader selection.

Cultural revolution is a time when China has multi-party democracy, like thousands of unofficial parties, all at the throat of each other. People formed these parties to oppose each other for the sake of opposing. It was mass filibustering on every level of society, with the bonus that people could put opponents of "trials" and executions.

What's going on in Hong Kong right now mirrors what happened during cultural revolution. The exception is that the Hong Kong government is still able to maintain authority, thus we have yet to see those "trials" and executions taking places.