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

Bltizo said:

I've alredy answered the question? I have?

I mean, I don't even know what the question was, but um, okay, great.

Click to expand...

This was your answer:
I believe they're not open to compromise because the OC movement from the beginning has been making demands from the extreme end of the spectrum.
At this point, it has to be OC that puts themselves at the mercy of Beijing rather than vice versa, simply because Beijing has no incentive to compromise -- like I said a few posts back, they hold all the cards.

If OC began from the outset requesting less extreme, more detailed and nuanced requests, while rejecting all support from other countries like the US and UK, then they could have achieved something. But now we'll never know.

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...

You're still mixing up the words "democracy" and "election (with universal suffrage)". They may be connected, but they are certainly not equivalent.

As people have already been pointing out: given HK's widespread anti-CCP and anti-mainland sentiments, a more direct election at this stage carries a higher risk to create a leadership that's more oppositional to the central government. This could generate more conflict between HK and greater China, which will be bad for Beijing AND bad for HK. In fact, this will likely be a lot worse for HK than it could hurt Beijing. The flaw in your logic is that you assume HK is a self-sufficient society that will thrive on its own if left alone; furthermore you assume HK's current difficulties are only caused by incompetent leadership and that incompetent leadership will go away once universal suffrage is realized and influence from Beijing removed. Unfortunately none of these assumptions stand up well to the test of reality. What is the reality? Well, HK's past, current, and future development clearly relies on a close interaction with the mainland. HK's problem lies in its economic structure and one can't put all the blame on CCP's political influence. In addition, as shown by countless real-world examples, a more direct election does not guarantee a better leadership or a better democracy, especially when HK is being targeted by all the foreign interest groups due to its strategic value of being at the doorstep of China. Only the most naive would believe that HK could truly be "left alone" from outside influence, be it Beijing or otherwise. Is that paranoia? I guess if you don't get it, you don't get it.

Brumby said:

This was your answer:
I believe they're not open to compromise because the OC movement from the beginning has been making demands from the extreme end of the spectrum.
At this point, it has to be OC that puts themselves at the mercy of Beijing rather than vice versa, simply because Beijing has no incentive to compromise -- like I said a few posts back, they hold all the cards.

If OC began from the outset requesting less extreme, more detailed and nuanced requests, while rejecting all support from other countries like the US and UK, then they could have achieved something. But now we'll never know.

Click to expand...

Ah I understand now, I appreciate the clarification

deleted

Bltizo said:

China's other core interests in HK is also to make sure the tail doesn't wag the dog, and for HK to remain concertly part of China and to seek greater re integration if possible.

that means no secession, and that HK cannot challenge CCP authority on certain things. Unchecked universal suffrage may threaten those interests, and even the possibility of it is repulsive to the CCP.


In other words, CE candidates must respect those red lines, or the public must respect those red lines. Either way, the CE must not have the capacity to act in a way which threatens those particular interests.

Click to expand...

Any US governors who publicly calls for succession from the Union will be arrested by FBI and I think the same will happen to any CE who would do such a thing. But governors can run the state the way they see fit within confines of the Constitution regardless what they think of the President or which party they belong to. I think if universal suffrage goes ahead in HK, it will be no different. Instead of killing the whole thing because one thing might go wrong one day, it is much better to put in place regulation that prevent that one specific problem rather than killing the whole enterprise.

What happened over the last year has undoubtedly alienate a significant portion of the population. For those who fear foreign influence, we now have a disenfranchised, young, well educated population with good language skills, passports to travel freely to China and the West, blend in easily with the population, who now require a lot less convincing to join the other team. I would be very surprise if they don't drink to that in this year's MI5 Xmas party. Loyalty can't be bought or coerced, it comes only when you convince the other side you are on the same team. Because if you don't do it, UK and USA will be more than happy to.

superdog said:

You're still mixing up the words "democracy" and "election (with universal suffrage)". They may be connected, but they are certainly not equivalent.

As people have already been pointing out: given HK's widespread anti-CCP and anti-mainland sentiments, a more direct election at this stage carries a higher risk to create a leadership that's more oppositional to the central government. This could generate more conflict between HK and greater China, which will be bad for Beijing AND bad for HK. In fact, this will likely be a lot worse for HK than it could hurt Beijing. The flaw in your logic is that you assume HK is a self-sufficient society that will thrive on its own if left alone; furthermore you assume HK's current difficulties are only caused by incompetent leadership and that incompetent leadership will go away once universal suffrage is realized and influence from Beijing removed. Unfortunately none of these assumptions stand up well to the test of reality. What is the reality? Well, HK's past, current, and future development clearly relies on a close interaction with the mainland. HK's problem lies in its economic structure and one can't put all the blame on CCP's political influence. In addition, as shown by countless real-world examples, a more direct election does not guarantee a better leadership or a better democracy, especially when HK is being targeted by all the foreign interest groups due to its strategic value of being at the doorstep of China. Only the most naive would believe that HK could truly be "left alone" from outside influence, be it Beijing or otherwise. Is that paranoia? I guess if you don't get it, you don't get it.

Click to expand...

The current system, with just the election system changed, still won't solve the issues of a dysfunctional government that we've today - by right, the CE and its cabinet and the LegCo should be tied, that is, politically. Yet, because the current law forbid CE to be a member of any party, so whoever become the CE - even with universal suffrage of any degree - would not be backed with any solid political party or coalition.

In other words, any CE would be lame duck from Day One anyway. When you look at all other countries, the head of government would have its party and/or working coalition behind him/her, if not early re-election will be called or triggered, and whatever contentious issue at that time would be dealt with via such a de facto referendum...poll result will speak the will of the voters, so to speak.

On another note, when LegCo members can still equally trigger an early re-election, what you see instead is that those pan-democrats, them self-proclaimed "for the people by the people", would went on days of bickering on how many, and who, to resign to trigger a small by-election!

And should you think political parties have nothing to do with this coloured revolution, think again - pan-democrat politicians let student leaders use LegCo facilities for command centre, lodging and bathing, so don't ever think the "generals" live in the trench with them grunts, instead of the harsh live of all participants they'd have you believe in their propaganda. That's of course just one of the many ties of these so-called "innocent students": it has been for a long time that the student unions provided the muscles and fresh blood to the "pan-democrats" and in return, training and funding and job opportunities (LegCo member's assistants).

unfair_reality said:

To say the OC movment is a forme fruste of a secessionist, independence movement is inaccurate. The OC movement never challenge Beijing's right to veto the candidate, simply wanting the right to stand for elections. Even if few pan-dem politicians mouth off against the CCP, this is not the main thrust of the movement. Most people in HK has never identified themselves as Chinese-Chinese to begin with, regardless whether they were born before or after 97. Despite that they have not agitate for succession or shown interest in changing Mainland China. Issues at hand are almost entirely local - jobs, housing, tourism.... I think the CCP is making the same mistake that USA made in SE Asia and Latin America during the Cold War, interpreting each local conflict as part of the East vs West Grand Narrative. The Domino effect never happen then and it won't happen now. HK has had freedom of speech and limited forms of democracy for almost twenty years now. Yet there is no spill over effect into mainland China and I doubt universal suffrage will be any different.

China's core interest in HK is to make sure HK is stable, prosperous and equitable. I don't see universal suffrage being a threat to that. At worst, it is a non-inferior option. If CCP genuinely wants to ensure loyalty of the population, it is now clear they can't achieve it through indifference, domination or bribery. Who is more likely to cooperate with foreign intelligence or agitate for succession - a disenfranchised population with deep distrust of their government, or a population with an avenue to express their discontent and means to change the status quo.

UK has the courage to put succession of half their country to a referendum and thus ended the Scottish independence movement. I think China can afford to let one of its more cosmopolitan city have a little Mayoral election.

Click to expand...

I'm from HK and I find your first paragraph untrue. While the idea of political secession (as in becoming an independent country) has never gained much traction, preferences for sociocultural and economic secession were real and alive, being promoted by groups of people who were also behind the OC movement. The pan-dem population was now split between people seeking (sociocultural and economic) secession and "screw you guys up north", or those still hoping to "democratize" China and end the single party system. You would be quite wrong if you think this only came from a few politicians. Many of the traditional pan-dem politicians were actually marginalized by the newer generation of more radical activists. It's true the real issues were "local", but people's interpretation about "what's the problem" has been highly political. If you actually looked at who said what, you'll see it's not the CCP that's politicizing social problems, but some of the people in HK who keeps attributing every problem to the "Grand Narrative" of democracy vs autocracy.

Some might think Beijing is afraid to grant universal suffrage because they worry it may "spill over" to the mainland. Given how people from the mainland viewed HK's situation and their increasing recognition of the "Chinese model", I don't think this would be a major concern for Beijing, and I see you made a similar judgment. The difference is that you don't see why getting less restrictive election sooner could be a problem for HK's stability and prosperity, but I do. I don't want to repeat all the things I just said in my previous post, but let me add that when a society is torn, an election could make the gap wider. I could totally understand why Beijing wants to have more control on candidate selection for a little longer. Remember nobody is talking about taking away the election, it is about how to avoid having candidates that polarize social conflict even more, or candidates that endorse foreign interest.

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...

If and when the quality of a movement, and even the fate of the movement itself, hinges on the state of affair of a single man, you should be very worried. And in the case of Szeto Wah, his passing means the pan-democrat camp no longer has anyone who cut the mustard as "proper gentleman" like him.

Regina Ip is, other than the botched Article 23 fiasco, doesn't have any black spot (or to be more accurate, the anti-government faction have yet dug up any dirt on her) that'd mark her as incompetent.

unfair_reality said:

Any US governors who publicly calls for succession from the Union will be arrested by FBI and I think the same will happen to any CE who would do such a thing. But governors can run the state the way they see fit within confines of the Constitution regardless what they think of the President or which party they belong to. I think if universal suffrage goes ahead in HK, it will be no different. Instead of killing the whole thing because one thing might go wrong one day, it is much better to put in place regulation that prevent that one specific problem rather than killing the whole enterprise.

Click to expand...

People are not stupid, a CE who's pro-secession and have average intelligence will not suddenly call for succession when there's no chance of making it. Yet this CE and his team will have many legal ways to alienate HK from the rest of China, and in the process they will have to get closer with foreign countries (in the form of businesses, policies, and other resources) because HK is not a self-sustained economy. Some may say, so what, Beijing could always veto so he can't become CE in the first place, right? But a hung election in itself is already a political crisis and there's no reason to let it happen. Besides, a polarizing candidate don't have to actually win the election to gain political capital, he would have already benefited from exploiting antagonism. HK's political situation is not comparable to any states in the US, nor should a US state suddenly become the golden standard of governing.

By the way, who's "killing the whole enterprise"? Have you read what was proposed by Beijing?

unfair_reality said:

What happened over the last year has undoubtedly alienate a significant portion of the population. For those who fear foreign influence, we now have a disenfranchised, young, well educated population with good language skills, passports to travel freely to China and the West, blend in easily with the population, who now require a lot less convincing to join the other team. I would be very surprise if they don't drink to that in this year's MI5 Xmas party. Loyalty can't be bought or coerced, it comes only when you convince the other side you are on the same team. Because if you don't do it, UK and USA will be more than happy to.

Click to expand...

The fact is foreign influence has always been there, a lot of it was through the media, and then some through political sponsorships. That is to be expected, and not the same as having a CE siding with foreign countries. As long as social problems exist, you can't make everyone happy, not even in supposedly "democratic" countries like the US. Another fact is that, these people you're talking about have already alienated themselves from the majority of their fellow HK citizens, so they want to go join the MI5 and influence people in mainland China? I guess I should feel sorry for the MI5.

superdog said:

People are not stupid, a CE who's pro-secession and have average intelligence will not suddenly call for succession when there's no chance of making it. Yet this CE and his team will have many completely legal ways to alienate HK from the rest of China, and in the process they will have to get closer to foreign countries (in the form of businesses, policies, and other resources) because HK is not a self-sustained economy. You may think, so what, Beijing could always veto so he can't become CE in the first place, right? But a hung election in itself is already a political crisis and there's no reason to let it happen. Besides, a polarizing candidate don't have to actually win the election to gain political capital, he would have already benefited from exploiting antagonism.


The fact is foreign influence has always been there, a lot of it was through the media, and then some through political sponsorships. That is to be expected, and not the same as having a CE siding with foreign countries. As long as social problems exist, you can't make everyone happy, not even in supposedly "democratic" countries like the US. Another fact is that, these people you're talking about have already alienated themselves from the majority of their fellow HK citizens, so they want to go join the MI5 and influence people in mainland China? I guess I should feel sorry for the MI5.

Click to expand...

Right now, there are plenty of politicians make "China-bashing "their agenda, while those "Cold Warriors" maintained a predominant anti-CPC tone, the newer, more radical breed, go all the way racist. And the media isn't helping, stoke the flame with earnest.

Under such circumstances, you only need to imagine secessionist agenda would be exploited with fever pitch to woo votes, and even if Beijing not worried, nationalism sentiment from other parts of China will demand Beijing to respond, HARD...you won't even need to guess what response that's going to bring.