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

Doombreed said:

The very definition of authoritarianism.

Click to expand...

The definition of being an entity being administered by another. You can apply that to any relationship where there is a power differential. An individual under a nation's laws, a private under the command of a higher officer, a town within a larger nation state.

I don't care much for the use of the word authoritarianism, you can use it if you want. But I answered your question and I suspect you knew the answer even as you typed it.

Nailed it. It was never about what's good for Hong Kong.

Click to expand...

Actually, if you want to play this game: it's what is good for Hong Kong (so long as it doesn't infringe on Beijing's core interests). The two aren't mutually exclusive.
Obviously Beijing wants HK to do well, but not at the cost of other interests in the greater picture.

I think a little bit of self introspection is needed here. What is it about the CCP that even your own people don't want to be with you? Maybe a more enlightened government should think about how to make your governance more attractive so people don't want to leave, rather than forcing them to stay...

Click to expand...

I agree with you in principle here -- the best route would be to make the people have more positive feelings towards the CCP, etc. But changing feelings, socializing people in different ways and changing discourses is something which takes decades and longer to do. It should be a long term goal that should be worked towards, but that doesn't preclude the fact that there are shorter term actions that need to be taken in concert, to prevent things from happening which are detrimental to core interests.

So would you also agree with me in principle that it is stupid of Beijing to give HK the potential for secession which could lead to more problems and more difficulty solving it down the road?


You can see the difference between our philosophies. Up to a point, I believe that one's interests and goals should not be overridden by ideology, and that one should change their ideology depending on the circumstance to acheive particular interests. You espouse the reverse, which is fair enough.

Bltizo said:

I agree with you in principle here -- the best route would be to make the people have more positive feelings towards the CCP, etc. But changing feelings, socializing people in different ways and changing discourses is something which takes decades and longer to do. It should be a long term goal that should be worked towards, but that doesn't preclude the fact that there are shorter term actions that need to be taken in concert, to prevent things from happening which are detrimental to core interests.

Click to expand...

Yes, we should look at it this way. Deciding for the groups best interest does not always if often coincide with catering to their feelings. This is why you should have people who know what they are doing in politics and remove it from popularity contest.

And the masses' feelings is a fickle thing.

Doombreed said:

What is it about the CCP that even your own people don't want to be with you? Maybe a more enlightened government should think about how to make your governance more attractive so people don't want to leave, rather than forcing them to stay...

Click to expand...

Tell that to the people of the Ferguson protesters ALL over the country how they feel about the government right now?

Doombreed said:

So what's the problem? Why so hang up on this whole nominating committee thing? Give Hong Kong universal sufferage and everyone's happy. The CCP would look reasonable, magnanimous and reformed. Hell, Hong Kong election is a glorified Mayoral election anyway. What are they gonna do? Seceded? Turn the water off! What the CCP is doing now with the "patriotism" clause, just stinks of paranoia. It's echoing Brezhnev, which only paved the way for Gorbachev.

Click to expand...

Why so hang up on having a few people choosing their own special interests candidate that represent JUST them instead of the whole masses? What's wrong with the CPC system of government that works better than any democratic system out there (supplementing 800 million out of poverty more than qualifies it)?

Doombreed said:

So what's the problem? Why so hang up on this whole nominating committee thing? Give Hong Kong universal sufferage and everyone's happy. The CCP would look reasonable, magnanimous and reformed. Hell, Hong Kong election is a glorified Mayoral election anyway. What are they gonna do? Seceded? Turn the water off! What the CCP is doing now with the "patriotism" clause, just stinks of paranoia. It's echoing Brezhnev, which only paved the way for Gorbachev.

Click to expand...

The truth is that what you Yellow Ribbon fascists demands is not really universal suffrage, it's a fundamentalist concept of "universal suffrage" which has no working model then and now anywhere in the world. It's either free election of no free election in the real world, and even in the West, free election comes with their respective sets of screening and guidelines, like in the US only US-born citizens can run for President.

Your kind always love to draw comparison with N.Korea for scare tactics, but do you people really think the public are that stupid? HK is about the most free place on the planet, we've no standing law against treason (find me a place anywhere else in the world that does! I dare you) nor death penalty; we ain't ruled by despot nor we suffers hunger that need the UN to give us aid,; we've a dysfunctional public housing because the last CE was a real arse but nonetheless we're better off than the most; we've public services and utilities that most could only dream of; one of the lowest crime rate in the world...I can go on.

Like I've said before, what you Yellow Ribbon fascists demands is nothing more than a blank cheque from Beijing, and Beijing's only business is to sign on the dotted line, cash in every bloody dime you put the number on, and ask no question whatsoever. And that's more than just the CE election, it covers the entirety of the HKSAR. In short, de facto independence, separatism. And remember, I stay in HK, and I read all your no holds barred propagandas IN CHINESE! The truth you fascists don't dare to put on English but that doesn't hide the truth. Yeah I read your Mein Kampf and from Day Zero I know where you fascists are going.

So it's nowhere "200,000 of enlightened pioneers v.s. 7,000,000 of fools", instead it's "7,000,000 of those who can see through the smoke and mirrors v.s. 200,000 of cheats, crooks and charlatans", the difference is that, now the 7,000,000 of us finally sees the first-hand result of insurgency by 200,000.

If you lot truly proclaim democracy, then you'd all go home NOW, think it through and come up with a better campaign to sell your ideology to us, instead of playing street thugs and goons, which serves you no positive purpose other than eroding away every last bit of sympathy we still held for you. When the last shard of sympathy is gone (all thanks to you lot, not the Government), there're 7,000,000 of us who'd be more than delighted to watch you all get beaten half-dead and crippled on live TV.

Bltizo said:

You can see the difference between our philosophies. Up to a point, I believe that one's interests and goals should not be overridden by ideology, and that one should change their ideology depending on the circumstance to acheive particular interests. You espouse the reverse, which is fair enough.

Click to expand...

Funny thing is, in my humble opinion, the circumstances in Hong Kong calls for more democracy.

The issues that matters the most to the people of Hong Kong has nothing to do with Beijing and the CCP. The challenging issues there are the lack of economic opportunity and the near stanglehold the Hong Kong elites have on the city. If Hong Kong is given universal sufferage. It decouples the CCP from their problems. No one can point fingers at Beijing when their economic situation worsens.

The show of initial popular support was never about the pure expression of democracy. It was aimed at the Hong Kong elites as much as Beijing, as the "nominating" process heavily favors the entrenched interests. The real goal of the Hong Kong people is more about removing the elites from Beijing's protection and giving the poor more economic opportunity.

The CCP however, being a very successful autocracy is having trouble switching lanes and really gaining the support of the everyday Hong Kong people.

Equation said:

...the CPC system of government that works better than any democratic system out there...

Click to expand...

[Citation Needed]

Doombreed said:

Funny thing is, in my humble opinion, the circumstances in Hong Kong calls for more democracy.

The issues that matters the most to the people of Hong Kong has nothing to do with Beijing and the CCP. The challenging issues there are the lack of economic opportunity and the near stanglehold the Hong Kong elites have on the city. If Hong Kong is given universal sufferage. It decouples the CCP from their problems. No one can point fingers at Beijing when their economic situation worsens.

The show of initial popular support was never about the pure expression of democracy. It was aimed at the Hong Kong elites as much as Beijing, as the "nominating" process heavily favors the entrenched interests. The real goal of the Hong Kong people is more about removing the elites from Beijing's protection and giving the poor more economic opportunity.

The CCP however, being a very successful autocracy is having trouble switching lanes and really gaining the support of the everyday Hong Kong people.

Click to expand...

But the majority of the Hong Kong people don't share your opinion. Why else would they been calling for the Hong Kong SAR government to take immediate actions against these Occupy Central protesters along with 1.8 million signatures? It seems that the longer these HK Occupy Centrist keeps on being stubborn to have things their way at all cost the more the people realized that democracy would mean more of these corrupt people will have a chance in office in which would NOT do them any favor or for the public.

Doombreed said:

Funny thing is, in my humble opinion, the circumstances in Hong Kong calls for more democracy.

The issues that matters the most to the people of Hong Kong has nothing to do with Beijing and the CCP. The challenging issues there are the lack of economic opportunity and the near stanglehold the Hong Kong elites have on the city. If Hong Kong is given universal sufferage. It decouples the CCP from their problems. No one can point fingers at Beijing when their economic situation worsens.

The show of initial popular support was never about the pure expression of democracy. It was aimed at the Hong Kong elites as much as Beijing, as the "nominating" process heavily favors the entrenched interests. The real goal of the Hong Kong people is more about removing the elites from Beijing's protection and giving the poor more economic opportunity.

The CCP however, being a very successful autocracy is having trouble switching lanes and really gaining the support of the everyday Hong Kong people.

Click to expand...

I don't disagree with you, and I believe greater participation and a stable method of voicing discontent and to rectify those matters should be implemented.

However any such reform should be conducted with everyone knowing clear and simple that any potential threat to core interests will not be tolerated.
The movement for the last few months (years, even), clearly presents the opportunity for those interests to be threatened in future. So Beijing will be resolutely against them.

While I can understand how events may have led to the present stance, and I also appreciate that the central govt and HKSAR do have some responsibility for the present situation, the fact still remains that they will not waver on the core interests. If the movement really wanted reform from the beginning they shouldn't have used the meaningless big words and catchy phrases which sound good on paper but are next to impossible to practically realize. They should have presented a united front with realistic and specific goals that do not step on Beijing's toes, rather than an incoherent emotional mass whose only vague demands seemed to have been wanting a blank cheque without any Beijing oversight at all.

They should have known that Beijing held all the cards from the beginning, and should have swallowed their spite for Beijing and pride in democracy to negotiate in realistic terms. Instead, they've made their original, reasonable greivances into a generalized anti-CCP movement with leadership figures who've stated their ambitions beyond only HK but also to overthrow Beijing and the like. De facto or formal separatism is of course not an unrealistic scenario if those idiots get into power.

So of course beijing is going to ignore them.

Doombreed said:

[Citation Needed]

Click to expand...

You mean to tell me that any government system that uplifted so many people out of poverty is NOT a good system at all?