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

[Brumby]

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.

I do not agree with the term unregulated universal suffrage because the issue is not with regulation but the tightness of it that makes the term a sham when discussing HK. The Basic Law is clear on the process to be followed on how the CE is to be selected and so we need to abide by the law and that means certain regulation needs to be followed. Why it is a sham and doesn't reflect the spirit of universal suffrage I have mentioned on it before and I would not labour on it anymore.

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.

The problem I have with your reasoning is that secession challenges has to come from the people and to be even remotely successful you need a vast majority of them to be on your side. The role of a CE (and universal suffrage) is really irrelevant in the equation unless you are talking about subversion but clearly Beijing has recourse in such a situation.

 

[Brumby]

This actually thoroughly kills the position for universal suffrage. Absolute power corrupts absolutely, hence absolute power should not be given to normal people.

Your reasoning is a bit strange when discussing universal suffrage in the selection of a CE in HK. There is a diversity of population having to choose a CE (with limit term) from competing candidates in a multi party system and yet your conclusion is that too much power rest in the people as opposed to competing power with the different checks and balances. I have to say I find it hard to comprehend your logic.

As the OC movement has so readily demonstrated, people who are not part of the existing power structure are not immune to corruption.

Please clarify what corruption are you referring to and why that statement has any relevance.

 

[MwRYum]

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.

That's exactly what I've been saying - their concept of "Hong Kong people" only limited to those who wore the Yellow Ribbon and held the Yellow Umbrella, anyone else is, according to their propaganda (which, thankfully for you guys but not for us, all in Chinese) merely "Die Untermenschen" so to speak, to be get rid of once "their generation took the rein of HK". That's why I'd tell to people like Doombreed that: while you lot could fool all those non-Chinese speaking foreigners of your "glorious peaceful non-violent democratic struggle", those like me have read your Mein Kampf and saw first-hand you lot goose-stepping all over the place, so we knows your true colours, and you can't pull the same trick to fool or silence us.

There's no evidence that Beijing outright deny HK its democracy - it's part of the Basic Law, sanctioned by the Central Government - and should they do, by now they got all the excuse to do so: just declare indefinite period of state of emergency in HK, enact martial law, roll in the PAP, with a week or two of violence all them Yellow Ribbon goons will be bag & tag to "black prisons" deep in the Mainland, where Gitmo would be Club Med by comparison.

Beijing could do that within a heartbeat, because the Joint Declaration never covered democracy, and "state of emergency" is an easy card...situation not bad enough to warrant such call? Trust me, it can be "engineered".

The key problem now therefore is the "revolutionaries" demands is, when finely read, is plain separatism. While they mostly avoided the known separatism advocates and agendas, you can still easily find those characters amidst the Yellow Ribbon goons, and now they all unmasked themselves and be heard.

BTW, if the Joint Declaration to be followed to the letter, CE would actually be appointed by the Mainland, that is, like UK sent in a Governor from Britain, appoint a "party man" to rule HK, and you can imagine what could follow. That's why there's election, alas a farce one to be honest.

 

[Blitzo]

I do not agree with the term unregulated universal suffrage because the issue is not with regulation but the tightness of it that makes the term a sham when discussing HK. The Basic Law is clear on the process to be followed on how the CE is to be selected and so we need to abide by the law and that means certain regulation needs to be followed. Why it is a sham and doesn't reflect the spirit of universal suffrage I have mentioned on it before and I would not labour on it anymore.

But unregulated is a completely valid term given that is what the movement seem to want.

And this is all before they've even given the proposed 2017 system a try.

The fact is, Beijing will want to have the final say on some red lines which potential CEs cannot touch -- at least for the forseeable future. I'm not sure what other word is suitable apart from "unregulated". I doubt they are seeking to micro manage and control CEs, but more interested in putting in barriers which CEs cannot cross.

The problem I have with your reasoning is that secession challenges has to come from the people and to be even remotely successful you need a vast majority of them to be on your side. The role of a CE (and universal suffrage) is really irrelevant in the equation unless you are talking about subversion but clearly Beijing has recourse in such a situation.

Legally, the CE may have no means to call for any kind of secession. But in media, in circulation, and socially, they can certainly discuss this with the populace and turn it from a topic that no one will dare touch, to something that people might start to talk about, to something people might start to move on.
Is this realistic? Honestly, I don't know. But Beijing is doing it right by playing it safe imo. Such a situation could be more definitely prevented if all candidates are vetted and understand the red lines.

As for subversion, again, giving the CE a voice that is unchecked and able to speak on particular issues such as CCP rule over china, is simply unacceptable to Beijing.


My position has always been that universal sufferage could be tolerated if there were certain red lines that HK would respect.
It doesn't matter if these are issues that can be legally approached or not once a CE is in power -- what Beijing wants is assurance that anyone who starts to drift will be yanked back in line.


To use an analogy, what you're suggesting is that throwing seeds on a field won't grow into weeds because the soil is barren with poor nutrients and rarely gets rain. I suspect what Beijing wants is to prevent the seeds from getting within a ten kilometer radius of the field in the first place.
They're being thorough, and minimizing anything that could threaten their interests to chance.

 

[unfair_reality]

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.

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.

 

[Blitzo]

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. Issues at hand are almost entirely local - jobs, housing, tourism.... Even if few pan-dem politicians mouth off against the CCP, this is not the main thrust of the movement. Many, if not majority of people in HK has stop identifying themselves as Chinese-Chinese, they have no interest in Mainland China. 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.

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. It may be superior but I think at its worst it's non-inferior. UK has the courage to put succession of half their country to a referendum, I think China can let one of its city have a little Mayoral election.

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.

The UK and China are obviously in vastly different situations, with different histories, geostrategic positions, economic development, etc.
I think China can give HK unregulated universal sufferage once the strategic, political and economic situation permits. Hell, I think China should become democratic once the situation permits. But that is many years away.

If you seriously believe that having a CE in HK which does not have red lines has the capacity to be detrimental to China's interests then I suppose I can't really convince you otherwise. We either have differing opinions as to what China's interests are, or the degree to which China should seek to maintain those interests.


-----

Also, HK has had more freedoms than mainland China for many years, and that has been relatively acceptable because they never really had the potential to influence the political movement of HKSAR, because the CE knew where the red lines were -- that way they personally wouldn't encourage movements that were detrimental to China's interests, and also would be able to resist the public if popular sentiment ever erupted. Universal suffrage without someone beholden to China's core interests may cave to public pressure, or at worst, they may actively encourage the public to movements which are detrimental to those core interests.


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.

 

[Brumby]

But unregulated is a completely valid term given that is what the movement seem to want.

I do not believe this statement is an accurate representation of the OC movement. I am happy to leave it as is because the core issue in our conversation doesn't rest on it.

The fact is, Beijing will want to have the final say on some red lines which potential CEs cannot touch -- at least for the forseeable future. I'm not sure what other word is suitable apart from "unregulated". I doubt they are seeking to micro manage and control CEs, but more interested in putting in barriers which CEs cannot cross.

What you have outlined is a reasonable position because it addresses Beijing's concern and provide a degree of assurance on the scope of the CE's conduct. This is a good compromise but I don't think Beijing is even prepared to take these measured steps.

Legally, the CE may have no means to call for any kind of secession. But in media, in circulation, and socially, they can certainly discuss this with the populace and turn it from a topic that no one will dare touch, to something that people might start to talk about, to something people might start to move on.
Is this realistic? Honestly, I don't know. But Beijing is doing it right by playing it safe imo. Such a situation could be more definitely prevented if all candidates are vetted and understand the red lines.

As for subversion, again, giving the CE a voice that is unchecked and able to speak on particular issues such as CCP rule over china, is simply unacceptable to Beijing.

My position has always been that universal sufferage could be tolerated if there were certain red lines that HK would respect.
It doesn't matter if these are issues that can be legally approached or not once a CE is in power -- what Beijing wants is assurance that anyone who starts to drift will be yanked back in line.

I don't think the parties are even remotely close to what you have outlined. What is stopping this from happening?

 

[Blitzo]

I do not believe this statement is an accurate representation of the OC movement. I am happy to leave it as is because the core issue in our conversation doesn't rest on it.

Very well, although I'd be open to an alternative term that you believe is accurate. Because it is going to be continuously referred to. Mwyrum calls it a "blank cheque" instead, which is another word for the same thing.

What you have outlined is a reasonable position because it addresses Beijing's concern and provide a degree of assurance on the scope of the CE's conduct. This is a good compromise but I don't think Beijing is even prepared to take these measured steps.

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.

I don't think the parties are even remotely close to what you have outlined. What is stopping this from happening?

I'm sorry, which parties are you talking about, and what do you mean by "stopping this from happening"? i describe quite a few semi independent scenarios.

 

[Brumby]

I'm sorry, which parties are you talking about, and what do you mean by "stopping this from happening"?

The parties in my mind mean Beijing and OC movement. You have already answered the question.

 

[Blitzo]

The parties in my mind mean Beijing and OC movement. You have already answered the question.

I've alredy answered the question? I have?

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