Brumby
Major
This development is interesting but I did not pick up the news from any of the news outlet. Do you have a link that reported on this?
Occupy Central...News, Photos & Videos ONLY!!
- Thread starter bd popeye
- Start date
- Status
This development is interesting but I did not pick up the news from any of the news outlet. Do you have a link that reported on this?
Brumby
Major
That contrast is between day and night. The former is embodied in the Joint British Sino declaration and confirmed in the Basic Law. The latter is a poke at history that at best is counter factual reasoning.
Last edited:
superdog
Junior Member
What are you talking about? The Sino-British Joint Declaration did not mention universal suffrage at all, and the Basic Law did not support or confirm any of the specific demands made by the OC crowd. Did the media tell you otherwise?
Brumby
Major
Please refer to my post #422 referring specifically to the subject of universal suffrage. You are attempting to change the discussion to something else. I have no intention to engage in the frivolous distraction that you are attempting to make. I have been through this once before and it is a complete waste of time.
superdog
Junior Member
The problem you have repeatedly shown, which was also prevalent in many "dumbed-down" or biased media reports, was that people take for granted the OC crowd's demands were the one and only valid definition of "democracy" and "universal suffrage". This assumption was often done without any thoughtful investigation and justification, and was immediately followed with the criticism that China is breaking its promises by turning down the demands . Again, no investigation and justification regarding what exactly were the demands and what were being promised, just unwarranted assumptions being presented as a fact which the OC crowd would like everyone to believe without thinking twice.
superdog
Junior Member
I am replying to your post #422 and I have fully read the post you were commenting on as well. I believe you were referring to universal suffrage (defined by the core demands of the OC crowd, the key issue that's being discussed in the post you quoted) being "embodied in the Joint British Sino declaration and confirmed in the Basic Law", and I'm pointing out the problem in this exact statement. So no, I'm not "attempting to change the discussion to something else". If you think there were some misinterpretation on my part, then you're more than welcome to correct me by telling everyone where I was wrong or what you actually meant. Instead, you choose to accuse me of malicious intentions out-of-the-blue and did not provide any information to help others further understand your point. Of course it become a waste of time if posts were made this way.
Brumby
Major
There is a world of a difference. I am simply stating that universal suffrage is embodied within The Basic Law. You are attempting to link it to the OC demands. The problem is that there are a whole bunch of different folks out there collectively and conveniently labelled under the "OC" banner. I have no intention to defend some of the stuff that is going on out there. Primarily my point is there is a basis for the push towards universal suffrage and that is embodied within the Basic Law. You are saying that there is a problem with my statement. So what is it? Don't side track it to a spectrum of activities with the "OC" movement. That is simply obfuscation - not a rebuttal.
China has been democratizing and continues to democratize Hong Kong since it regained sovereignty over the city. Hong Kong citizens already have universal suffrage in electing LegCo representatives and Hong Kong citizens will have universal suffrage in electing their Chief Executive in 2017. There is neither a specific timeline nor a particular application of universal suffrage in Hong Kong required of China in any agreement anywhere with anyone. China has chosen to continually increase the level of democracy in Hong Kong at a workable pace and in a workable manner which the vast majority of people in Hong Kong are fine with. The "Occupy Central"/"umbrella"/"pro-democracy" protesters are minority extremists who have proven themselves unable to be pro anything other than being destructive towards others and hateful towards China under the pretense of demanding their own definitions (plural because they can't even agree on this among themselves) of universal suffrage. Just the opportunity for China-haters to parrot the protesters' taglines for some China-bashing while ignoring the facts.
superdog
Junior Member
Nope, you didn't just say it was in the Basic Law, you said it was "embodied in the Joint British Sino declaration and confirmed in the Basic Law". That's why I was first telling you, it wasn't embodied in the Sino-British Joint Declaration at all. Don't believe me? You can go check the document yourself. Furthermore, your post was clearly made as a rebuttal to what AssassinsMace said, in which he was arguing with another member about the denial of universal suffrage and the breaching of Sino-British agreements. We all know (well, I hope you know, after so many pages of discussion) the only thing being denied were the specific demands made by the OC camp, mainly the demand to change nomination requirements for 2017 CE election. Nobody denied the idea of universal suffrage as defined in the Basic Law, nobody threatens to change or ignore the law and stop pursuing reforms to achieve more universal suffrage down the road. The general idea of universal suffrage was never the focus of debate or the cause of conflict in HK, unless one only read the headlines and dumbed-down descriptions from some of the English media, then it might look like it was. That's why I have been saying it loud and clear again and again, it was the specific demands made by the OC crowd that were being denied and debated.
This is the context of the whole conflict, if you want to seriously discuss it then you need to take the context into account. Of course you can simply say that regardless of the OC movement, universal suffrage is the right idea and they need to pursue it in accordance to the Basic Law, I would totally agree with you on that statement alone. But lets be honest, anyone can see you're not just simply saying that. You're discussing things under a thread called Occupy Central, in which you tried to make a rebuttal to other people's argument related to Occupy Central, more specifically, about the alleged denial of universal suffrage and breach of Sino-British agreements (by not caving to the demands from OC), claims created and publicized by the OC camp to gain support. Then when I pointed out a factual error in your statement, as well as the difference between what was embodied in the Basic Law and what was demanded (and denied), your response was to accuse me of "engage in the frivolous distraction" because I was "attempting to link it to the OC demands", as if suddenly your rebuttal had nothing to do with OC? Please.
Last edited:
Mr T
Senior Member
You're forgetting that (half?) the legislators are still appointed via the functional constituencies, which is most certainly not universal suffrage. As for the Chief Executive, it's not really universal suffrage if the nomination process is so controlled that the voters get to choose between a pro-Beijing suit, a pro-Beijing suit, or a pro-Beijing suit. Look at Leung. There seemed to be some pleasure at him being picked after the allegations made against Tang. But now Leung has low approval ratings. Why? Because he's a suit looking out for the interests of rich HongKongese and interest groups, rather than ordinary people.
In September, the SCMP a poll that said:
Some 48 per cent of Hongkongers say lawmakers should veto the reform proposal on the 2017 chief executive election if it follows the restrictive conditions laid down by Beijing, a poll commissioned by the South China Morning Post found.
This compared with 39 per cent who said the legislature should approve the reform plan, and 13 per cent who said they did not know or found it "hard to tell".
That would suggest the opposite, that only a minority are in favour of Beijing's plan. Not least because it's not clear Beijing will ever relax the nomination process to make it properly inclusive.
- Status