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

Status
Not open for further replies.

Brumby

Major
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.
Your point is not amplified or substantiated by making derogatory remarks about a person or group of person who just doesn't share your point of view.

Universal suffrage is a not a fundamentalist concept as you would like to paint it but is the fundamental principle to have choices - period. The problem in HK is not in the concept but those in power on how they wish to interpret the meaning and those opposing a particular view of that meaning.

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 no US-born citizens can run for President.

Those screening and guidelines are instituted there for practical reasons and can be changed any time by the electorate. They have choices. As to the eligibility to run for President, I think you mean non US born rather than no US born citizen. As I understand the system, that criteria can be changed if there is sufficient motion for it. That falls within the preview of choices.
 

shen

Senior Member
The short answer to that is: NO.

The long answer to that is: after the death of Szeto Wah, the opposition no longer has any character who has the same degree of integrity, nor the same pragmatism.

So after the death of Szeto Wah, though we've seen lots of new faces popped up in the opposition camp, the overall quality of the camp actually deteriorates very sharply, as the rise of fascism in the radical spectrum and the "death of moderates" speaks volume of this disappointing trend. If you ask me, the "torch" didn't pass on, but they snuffed it out themselves, then lit it with a false flame and shamelessly claim it's still the real deal.

Personally, for 20 years I've been more sympathetic towards the pan-democratic cause, but from 2011 onwards, that camp has the smell of rot so obvious that only the most deluded still sided with them. It's from then on I found myself lean towards conservative camp and characters like Regina Ip, who at least seems fresh and have more sense than them lot; and from 2014 onwards, I couldn't believe that I'd use words like "bleeding heart liberals" against those who sided with the Yellow Ribbon goons, many were long time friends and relatives who now, should opportunity present itself, I'd bayonet them on the spot with pleasure.

That's unfortunate. I've been doing some reading about HK since this OC nonsense started. Uncle Wah was a man one can admire even if you disagree with him. And apparently the central government was willing to deal with him. Unlike the fools leading the opposition today. Regina Ip seems like an even headed technocrat. But is she charismatic enough to win elections?
 

Zool

Junior Member
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 the point is that China will do what is in the best interests of the nation as a whole. Hong Kong being an integral part of said nation.
Similar to a Federal States system where Federal Law trumps states rights in many arena's. Even more to the point - I don't think the person you are engaging with here wants to have an honest discussion in any of this. Seems to have an entrenched position, if not specific agenda in this topic. My opinion only of course, from reading the various posts.
 

Brumby

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

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

The problem is when you want to isolate the discussions into a narrow band i.e. economics as a primary measure. I am not saying it is not an important measure. Having watched many Chinese dramas on different dynasties, the favourite hand me down wisdom from one Emperor to the heir is to make sure the people are well fed so that there will be no rebellion. Unfortunately power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Typically each dynasty has an average lifespan of about 200 to 300 years - indicative how slow the decay sets in. Where I am going with this - checks and balances are important and having choices is an important piece of that equation. China and HK (as part of it) will have to do the necessary balancing act.
 

MwRYum

Major
Your point is not amplified or substantiated by making derogatory remarks about a person or group of person who just doesn't share your point of view.

Universal suffrage is a not a fundamentalist concept as you would like to paint it but is the fundamental principle to have choices - period. The problem in HK is not in the concept but those in power on how they wish to interpret the meaning and those opposing a particular view of that meaning.



Those screening and guidelines are instituted there for practical reasons and can be changed any time by the electorate. They have choices. As to the eligibility to run for President, I think you mean non US born rather than no US born citizen. As I understand the system, that criteria can be changed if there is sufficient motion for it. That falls within the preview of choices.

Necessary corrections have been made in my original post, thanks for the heads up.

Probably I should say their version of universal suffrage is a fundamentalistic interpretation of "universal suffrage", like how jihadists promote their brand of Islam. If you can read their non-whitewash version of propaganda in Chinese, you'd certainly agreed that their vision is more than just delusional, but one that only lead to a quicker downfall of HK.

And what those young "revolutionaries" don't realize, is that they are woefully equipped for the future, if not wasted too much time on streets politics - how they can compete when they lack the necessary working attitude, instead paked with all the "I deserves this and that" mentality, utter refusal of all things China, and have their re-entry pass to Mainland China revoked, if not further burdened by criminal record? Honestly, there's no chance to cover this up in your CV, and plenty of professions still require a clean slate for eligibility (like, civil servants). The society will get back at them more than 10-folds for ruining the livelihood of 7 million, just like those who took part in the '67 riot have to suffer to this day and beyond. They treat our warnings as merely old-man tales, but being 36 years old this year, I'll live long enough to hear the "oh I so regret" confessions…

95% of them lot won't live their lives as career politicians, and it'll be them who feel the full consequences of their deeds today.
 

xiabonan

Junior Member
The problem is when you want to isolate the discussions into a narrow band i.e. economics as a primary measure. I am not saying it is not an important measure. Having watched many Chinese dramas on different dynasties, the favourite hand me down wisdom from one Emperor to the heir is to make sure the people are well fed so that there will be no rebellion. Unfortunately power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Typically each dynasty has an average lifespan of about 200 to 300 years - indicative how slow the decay sets in. Where I am going with this - checks and balances are important and having choices is an important piece of that equation. China and HK (as part of it) will have to do the necessary balancing act.

That time will come when Chinese politics become more mature and choices become more important to people.

Right now China simply couldn't afford to waste precious energy and time on domestic political stalemate, where albeit all powers and interests were taken into account, little progress is being made, or progress not being made at the fastest possible pace.

The Chinese people are not so afraid of not having a say in how the government is run. We never had that choice so it's not an integral part of our culture, unlike perhaps in the West where democratic ideals can be dated back to the ancient Greeks. However most Chinese are well-aware of how hunger, poverty, instability, political movements, foreign invasion and a civil war can be so devastating. Many of today's Chinese lived through tough times themselves, and would never ever want to live through it again. For those who did not experience it first-hand, they are likely informed about it by their own parents or grandparents. Personally, I've heard about how my grandparents starved during famine and even ate grass or dirt to survive. Or my grandfather being put in jail for no reason whatsoever during the cultural revolution. I've heard about how my dad went through the Tiananmen incident. I've learned from history lessons how people suffered during the century long foreign invasion and civil wars. These are events that shape Chinese people's priorities. These are what the Chinese people are most afraid of.

For Britons and Americans, hunger, poverty, political instability, or a civil war, are memories of the distant past that it almost seemed alien to many, I believe. Hence you have different priorities from us, and that I can fully understand.

Meanwhile, I hope people can put yourselves in our shoes and understand that we have different priorities as well.
 

xiabonan

Junior Member
Mere decades ago the Chinese people were some of the most ideological people on earth, fed by constant Communist propaganda and believed firmly in the ideology. Then Deng came to power and he totally reversed that. His reforms not only kick started China's economic boom, they also made the Chinese people some of the most pragmatic, or one could perhaps say, the most materialistic/capitalistic people one earth.

Traditional value systems and morals were pretty much destroyed during the Cultural Revolution, and Communist ideologies bursted as well. Today there's one benchmark and pretty much one benchmark only, to judge someone's success or failure. And that is how much money one makes. There's a popular saying in China, that people "do not mock/laugh at the prostitutes but rather the poor". Everyone is racing to make more money, buy a larger apartment/house, a newer/bigger car, or the latest iPhones.

More importantly, people believed and it is indeed true that it's possible to do so. One can become rich so quickly that everyone wants to be the next billionaire. Look at Ma Yun, self-made top rich guy who was no more than a school teacher. In fact, the former top rich was Wang Jianlin, who was merely a retired soldier, before he started his own business.

My own cousin, who was a high-school dropout, and was barely making ends meet a few years ago, is now driving a Mercedes Benz as he started his own construction company.

Under such an atmosphere, many couldn't care less if they can vote, or what is democracy. It is true many rich people and middle class alike are already demanding more, such a fairer environment, cleaner air and water, more cultural and spiritual pursuits, etc. But these are far from the majority. China still has half her population living in villages and counties as farmers, and even more who only recently moved into mega factories in cities. China still has one of the largest population under poverty line. These people, too, want to become rich and live a comfortable life like many of their peers.

To me, until most Chinese enjoy a relatively high level of material standard of living, and until most Chinese were better educated with at least a college degree, economic pursuits will continue to be the primary objective in their lives, not political ones.
 

solarz

Brigadier
I really don't see the purpose of constantly rehashing this debate. People like Doombreed believe that Democracy is an end in itself, instead of a means of ensuring a better government. Prosperous nations with some form of elections are held up to be shining examples of the virtues of Democracy, where other nations that also have elections, but are poor and corrupt, are dismissed as not being "real" examples of Democracy.

They cherry-pick their facts, and when presented with contrary evidence, fall back to rhetoric about how great Freedom is. When asked to supply a definition of Freedom, they pull out the definition of Democracy.
 

Doombreed

Junior Member
Again, let me say this one more time with feelings, no one here is saying give democracy to Mainland China. People are asking for democracy for Hong Kong.

This need to be a stick for the thread. Let's just take a minute and takes this in...

Hong Kong wants democracy.

Hong Kong was denied democracy by Beijing.

These are what we're debating. Hong Kong. Specifically.

Why keep dragging China into this?
 

Blitzo

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
This need to be a stick for the thread. Let's just take a minute and takes this in...

Hong Kong wants democracy.

Hong Kong was denied democracy by Beijing.

These are what we're debating. Hong Kong. Specifically.

Why keep dragging China into this?

Because Hong Kong is an SAR of China. In other words, the final decision is China's. You just acknowledged it yourself.

If you are saying china has nothing to do with it, then are you saying Hong Kong already has independence then? :p


Clearly you think their demand is a reasonable one which has no repurcussions for anyone anywhere outside of HK and that conceding to the ridiculous demands of the protesters wouldn't have harmed China's interests at all.
Things do not operate within a vacuum.

Saying "we are debating Hong Kong" is a vague statement without meaning, and I would be interested in what you mean by it.

Posters before were discussing China as a tangent off the original topic, I'm not sure why it bothers you.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top