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

Bltizo said:

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

Click to expand...

What I'm getting at is that listing all the things why democracy wouldn't work in mainland China, or how the CCP autocracy benefits China, or why mainland Chinese don't want democracy has no relavence in this thread.

My view is that because of Hong Kong's social development, her history and her unique set of circumstances, Hong Kong is ready for democracy. Further, universal sufferage in Hong Kong is good for the economy, good for the poor Hong Kongers, good for the CCP from a PR point of view and have no real threat to the CCP rule on the mainland. Denying universal sufferage in Hong Kong is purely because of CCP's paranoia and incompetence.

*Drops the mic*

Doombreed said:

What I'm getting at is that listing all the things why democracy wouldn't work in mainland China, or how the CCP autocracy benefits China, or why mainland Chinese don't want democracy has no relavence in this thread.

My view is that because of Hong Kong's social development, her history and her unique set of circumstances, Hong Kong is ready for democracy. Further, universal sufferage in Hong Kong is good for the economy, good for the poor Hong Kongers, good for the CCP from a PR point of view and have no real threat to the CCP rule on the mainland. Denying universal sufferage in Hong Kong is purely because of CCP's paranoia and incompetence.

*Drops the mic*

Click to expand...

*picks up the mic, raises eyebrows*

I agree that the state of China and democracy is another topic, but like I said in my last post that was a completely different tangent to the thread topic and HK so I'm not sure why you care.

Regarding your second paragraph: you think giving HK complete and unregulated universal sufferage would also not harm China's core interests? You don't think unchecked democracy on HK will lead to more formal ways to subvert CCP rule on the mainland, you don't think it matters that China no longer has political jurisdiction over Hong Kong, you don't think that loosening control is the opposite of what Beijing wants (which is to consolidate rule over all territories)?

I think you are being a little naive or deliberately misrepresenting what Beijing considers it's core interests.

If we took the open statements by many individuals and leaders within the movement at their word, then they literally shut down your position because many of them have stated intentions and ambitions to bring down the CCP as well.
Now, obviously they are deluded, but intention matters and it would be a poor doctrine to rely on the incompetence of a foe and hope they don't succeed. Better to actively work against them and give them few options to exercise their intention instead.
I.e.: you have a very low standard for what a "real threat" is, and that is what your entire argument is based on. Fact is, Beijing clearly sees things differently. So your argument should rather revolve around what you consider to be a threats to Beijing's interests. Of course that is a discussion no one can win because none of us can speak on behalf of Beijing, however I suspect a few of us are closer to reality than others.

No one denied democracy for HK.

The CCP is the one who introduced democratic reforms for HK and her people, not the British.

Now the framework has been set, passed legal procedures through the National People's Congress, and is in accordance with the spirit of the Basic Law, I don't see what's the problem?

Do these minors even represent the whole of HK?

Why should the law, and the decision made by the highest legislature of the country change just because some minors who aren't even representative of the majority of HKers disagree?

Furthermore, there are likely foreign interests involved?

Moreover, this reform is only the first step. No one said there can't be more direct forms of elections in the future.

Does the grand jury change their minds simply because there are people rioting and disagree with the court's decision? Then why on earth should the NPC's decision, which is perfectly in accordance with the Joint Declaration as well as the Basic Law, change because some minority groups protest?

Where's the logic in this? Doomsbreed?

xiabonan said:

No one denied democracy for HK.

The CCP is the one who introduced democratic reforms for HK and her people, not the British.

Now the framework has been set, passed legal procedures through the National People's Congress, and is in accordance with the spirit of the Basic Law, I don't see what's the problem?

Do these minors even represent the whole of HK?

Why should the law, and the decision made by the highest legislature of the country change just because some minors who aren't even representative of the majority of HKers disagree?

Furthermore, there are likely foreign interests involved?

Moreover, this reform is only the first step. No one said there can't be more direct forms of elections in the future.

Does the grand jury change their minds simply because there are people rioting and disagree with the court's decision? Then why on earth should the NPC's decision, which is perfectly in accordance with the Joint Declaration as well as the Basic Law, change because some minority groups protest?

Where's the logic in this? Doomsbreed?

Click to expand...

I think in his mind, the initial 200,000 (before dropping to a few thousand at best) represent the whole of Hong Kong.

Also, anything apart from completely unregulated democracy is not true democracy at all -- because it isn't "what the people want".

That's what it seems to come down to.

Doombreed said:

Further, universal sufferage in Hong Kong is good for the economy, good for the poor Hong Kongers, good for the CCP from a PR point of view and have no real threat to the CCP rule on the mainland. Denying universal sufferage in Hong Kong is purely because of CCP's paranoia and incompetence.

Click to expand...

Citation needed.

I would say not only is there no evidence supporting your assertions, reality is proving the opposite. Hong Kong grew the most before introduction of democracy, and is now imploding as a result of endless bickering from democray.

shen said:

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?

Click to expand...

I guess to each his own. Szeto Wah didn't have the kind of integrity I would admire. He bunched up with groups like the Falun gong just as eagerly as those puppet activists, which tells me at least in the later stages of his political career he's more about anti-CCP than pro-democracy (in its original sense). It's true he did enjoy a level of prestige among pan-democrats that none of today's pan-D "leaders" could reach, because he contributed a lot in building the political foundations for pan-D. But unless we have another 1989, the golden age of pan-D in HK will be difficult to repeat.

Brumby said:

Unfortunately power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Click to expand...

This actually thoroughly kills the position for universal suffrage. Absolute power corrupts absolutely, hence absolute power should not be given to normal people. As the OC movement has so readily demonstrated, people who are not part of the existing power structure are not immune to corruption.

Bltizo said:

Regarding your second paragraph: you think giving HK complete and unregulated universal sufferage would also not harm China's core interests? You don't think unchecked democracy on HK will lead to more formal ways to subvert CCP rule on the mainland, you don't think it matters that China no longer has political jurisdiction over Hong Kong, you don't think that loosening control is the opposite of what Beijing wants (which is to consolidate rule over all territories)?

I think you are being a little naive or deliberately misrepresenting what Beijing considers it's core interests.

If we took the open statements by many individuals and leaders within the movement at their word, then they literally shut down your position because many of them have stated intentions and ambitions to bring down the CCP as well.
Now, obviously they are deluded, but intention matters and it would be a poor doctrine to rely on the incompetence of a foe and hope they don't succeed. Better to actively work against them and give them few options to exercise their intention instead.

Click to expand...

There are 2 distinct tracks I see developing off your reasoning with one being a default off your main theme. If I understand you correctly, the concern in Beijing is that any non acceptable political developments in HK has (i) a negative flow on effect on the Mainland and; (ii) there are belligerents in HK who both have the intention and the capacity to undermine Beijing's sovereignty on HK if left unchecked. In other words there is a divergence of interest between HK and Beijing and they are principally political. The divergence may not be mutually exclusive but clearly there is currently a conflict of interest. This track in my view is self preservation as a primary consideration and HK's interest is really secondary. Please feel free to correct me if my understanding is wrong.

The default track is that HK's political issue is simply about freedom of choices to choose a Chief Executive to managed their local affairs. The sovereignty issue was settled long ago with the Joint Declaration and embodied in the Basic Law as reflected in the fact that Beijing has total jurisdiction over foreign affairs and security. Whoever sits as Chief Executive does not change that fact or has the capacity to do so. I would like to see an argument made about undermining when foreign affairs and security is not in the Chief Executive's portfolio.

Brumby said:

There are 2 distinct tracks I see developing off your reasoning with one being a default off your main theme. If I understand you correctly, the concern in Beijing is that any non acceptable political developments in HK has (i) a negative flow on effect on the Mainland and; (ii) there are belligerents in HK who both have the intention and the capacity to undermine Beijing's sovereignty on HK if left unchecked. In other words there is a divergence of interest between HK and Beijing and they are principally political. The divergence may not be mutually exclusive but clearly there is currently a conflict of interest. This track in my view is self preservation as a primary consideration and HK's interest is really secondary. Please feel free to correct me if my understanding is wrong.

Click to expand...

From my stance, yes your statement is fairly accurate.
I will also say all this is with the caveat that giving completely unregulated universal sufferage at this point in time may present those problems.

The larger issue that is relevant is that giving HK greater autonomy as a principle is not in China's interest.

The default track is that HK's political issue is simply about freedom of choices to choose a Chief Executive to managed their local affairs. The sovereignty issue was settled long ago with the Joint Declaration and embodied in the Basic Law as reflected in the fact that Beijing has total jurisdiction over foreign affairs and security. Whoever sits as Chief Executive does not change that fact or has the capacity to do so. I would like to see an argument made about undermining when foreign affairs and security is not in the Chief Executive's portfolio.

Click to expand...

The problem is that we don't know how things might spiral out of control once unregulated universal sufferage is implemented. Oh sure, Beijing could absolutely intervene if things reach a critical mass -- but it's better for them to simply prevent such a situation from arising in the first place.

Now this would be an entirely different story if the protesters had made it clear that they had no intention to even think about secession or challenging Beijing's rule on the mainland (i.e.: if they showed their demands would not oppose Beijing's core interests), while also stoutly refusing foreign (US, UK specifically) help and funding and rejecting foreign support so as to convince Beijing that they were not influenced by other countries -- but obviously the protesters and the movement overall has acted against these listed points for potential reconciliation.

These pro-democracy advocates ain't saints. All that matters is these activists are calling for democracy for only themselves. They wonder why Mainland Chinese civilians aren't sympathetic? It's because from the beginning this was all about separating themselves from Chinese in general and in a very racist way. If they don't believe in democracy for all, then they don't believe in democracy. The reason why they want full democracy for themselves is because they want to eventually vote for independence. This all started soon after Scotland went to vote for independence. In the US a state cannot vote for independence from the US. Congress has the final say. Meaning no state can ever democratically vote for independence. Guess which way they'll support... If they want independence from China, then they should leave Chinese territory. Look at how they brag with the propaganda that the Chinese rich would rather live in the West than China. Well then open your doors to all these Hong Kong activists. Leave!

The fact is if all of China were to turn democratic, these Hong Kong activists would still be causing trouble because again it has always been about separating from being identified as Chinese. That has nothing to do with democracy. Like the people that criticize China for whatever... they don't really care about China. They're just looking at every excuse to give themselves a reason to hate. Like they really look out for the best interests of the Chinese? It's really parallel with men who abuse their wives and girlfriends. They tell them their abuse is all about love. They wouldn't go through to the point of abuse if they didn't care. That's the kind Stockholm Syndrome brainwashing they're attempting. It's your fault if they abuse you because all they want to do is love you and you won't let them.