Hong-Kong Protests

[Gatekeeper]

@Gatekeeper

Gate is open.

Thank you. My friend

 

[B.I.B.]

Well, having been away for such a long time. Unfairly in my view. (Best no to go on here, as it might upset people).

I was amazed how great a mental gymnasts our man from the A-team is. The lies and half truth is truly mind boggling! Every non-facts is moulded to to his view of the world.

Making use of his mind to come up with some sort of "promised universal suffrage" as per articke 45 takes the biscuit. And to top that, putting the blame on Lack of progress on article 23 squarely at anyone but "pro-democrarcy" camp adds icing on the cake.

I think thanks go to you @KYli to calling him out. And for @Bltizo for being do patient with him.

This kind of lies and half truth really doesn't add any value to discussions. Which showed by people putting him on the ignore list. In addition, the tactics deploy in his debating (the habits of ignoring/not addressing arguments that contradict his world views)
leads to frustration for third participating.

For example, I'm still awaiting his assertions of Chinese students lack critical thinking!

A very warm welcome back

 

[localizer]

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Idk why people would think of HKers as refugees.

People that got bombed by US are refugees.

Beijing said in response to the travel alert that “foreigners in China have absolutely nothing to worry about as long as they abide by the law.”

Idk why this is so hard to comprehend and accept for some people.

@Gatekeeper welcome back

 

[bomberman]

Hong Kong Basic Law VIOLATED

 

[bomberman]

Hong Kong National Security Law Analyzed

 

[Blitzo]

Well the pro-democracy parties for the most part have played a very straight bat in Hong Kong politics. In fact, that's why the localist parties came about, because younger HKers felt the pro-democracy parties (the traditional ones) were too passive.

If you want to talk about the localist parties then that's different. They've been more antagonistic for sure.



I simply don't see expressing personal opinions on China's future as being threats to national security. We'll have to agree to disagree on that.

The closest thing that came to setting out what a "high degree of autonomy" was is Article 45 of the Basic Law (which was co-agreed with the CCP and not imposed on it). That said that the ultimate aim was to have the Chief Executive elected via universal suffrage, with nomination by a broadly representative nominating committee. There were no caveats about the CCP needing to feel that all HK politicians were on side or not saying annoying things implying the CCP should allow more political freedoms on the mainland.

The previous reform package simply did not satisfy Article 45. A "broadly representative" nominating committee cannot be the one the CCP proposed where it would have automatically been dominated by its allies regardless of the fact they struggle to get a majority of the votes in the geographical constituencies for LegCo elections.

I have seen complaints from pro-CCP people that HK didn't pass the national security law, so that made it ok for the CCP to ignore Article 45. But don't forget, the pro-democratic camp in Hong Kong had no way to propose national security legislation to fulfill the requirements of the Basic Law. Not only have they never had enough of the functional constituency seats to have an overall majority in LegCo, but it's the HK government that only can present legislation. We've got to this scenario in part because the Chief Executives refused to present new national security legislation.



As I think I mentioned previously, the issue was the national security legislation pursued in 2003 that was vague much like the recent document and that prompted the Liberal Party to vote against it.

If the CCP had proposed real electoral reform along with tighter national security legislation, both could have been passed together. It's obviously too late for that now.



I think we'll just have to agree to disagree on the point. It's not like the CCP said "provided you don't do this one specific thing, you'll get direct Chief Exec elections without us pre-approving candidates".

The CCP can be notoriously vague at times. Like on Taiwan. As far as I'm aware, the CCP has not since 2008 published a comprehensive plan for what it wants or is prepared to allow for Taiwan's political future. There have been noises from Xi about Taiwan having "Hong Kong Plus", but that doesn't answer important questions like whether the CCP would insist on direct and overriding involvement in Taiwan's politics (e.g. pre-approval of candidates for the Presidency or whatever replaced it), whether Taiwan would be able to retain its military, involvement in the WTO, whether the PLA would have bases on the island, and so forth.

Some details would need to be settled during talks, but a lot of it should also by necessity be set out first so that Taiwan could gauge whether there was any realistic chance of reaching a settlement with the PRC. However, the CCP just remains quiet bar the odd official giving their "thoughts" in journals and magazines, which of course aren't binding in any way.

Turning back to Hong Kong, prior to 2012 Beijing was mostly quiet on what was going on in HK. When pressed about political reform the most common comment was "Hong Kong isn't ready". The most common interpretation of that was that the CCP wasn't ready for HK political reform and that the city had to wait until a change of leadership at the top after older members had retired. No one in the CCP said "we're thinking about it, but currently [insert people's names here] have been saying [stuff] and we're concerned that if we do allow political reform [these particular scenarios] might occur".

It's possible that some HK politicians could have addressed relations with the CCP differently, but the same could be said about the CCP. And when the CCP had not set out specific qualifying tests to bring in the political reform it had previously agreed to via the Basic Law, I really have to fault it most of all than another party.

All of these posts you've responded with, just beats around the bush as to my point that I've been trying to drive home for the last couple of pages which is that the HK politicians believed that they were entitled to their own vision of political autonomy and that Beijing didn't have a say in interpreting the Basic Law and their vision of HK's political autonomy in their own way.
Of course this ignores the fact that it was Beijing who held the power to grant them their political autonomy in the way they so desired.

Those politicians and activists chose their road years ago, many ways years before the handover, and continued to believe in their sense of entitlement without sufficiently considering Beijing's concerns, despite the ball being in their court this whole time to prove to Beijing that they worth that level of trust and autonomy.

I don't have anything else to add beyond that.

 

[muddie]

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Idk why people would think of HKers as refugees.

People that got bombed by US are refugees.



Idk why this is so hard to comprehend and accept for some people.

@Gatekeeper welcome back

The only people that categorize HKers as "refugees" are members of the current U.S. / U.K. governments who are trying to score political points against China, not to mention China haters who ignore the facts. They use the term "refugees" so that it sounds like China is prosecuting poor protesters whereas in reality those who deserve to be punished are / should be punished.

Trump Administration's original plan last year was to get China to use force in HK to suppress the riots so they could convince European countries to sanction China. That didn't work and now they are desperately trying to win some PR before this HK saga dies down.

People forget that during the Chechnya Wars Russia fought, the U.S. at the time said Chechen militants were "freedom fighters" and said Russia was creating a "refugee crisis". These were freedom fighters bombing Russian schools and killing children / civilians as a means of attacking the Russian government. These freedom fighters later became a faction of ME militants that fought the U.S. in Afghanistan/Iraq.

 

[vincent]

All of these posts you've responded with, just beats around the bush as to my point that I've been trying to drive home for the last couple of pages which is that the HK politicians believed that they were entitled to their own vision of political autonomy and that Beijing didn't have a say in interpreting the Basic Law and their vision of HK's political autonomy in their own way.
Of course this ignores the fact that it was Beijing who held the power to grant them their political autonomy in the way they so desired.

Those politicians and activists chose their road years ago, many ways years before the handover, and continued to believe in their sense of entitlement without sufficiently considering Beijing's concerns, despite the ball being in their court this whole time to prove to Beijing that they worth that level of trust and autonomy.

I don't have anything else to add beyond that.

Madrid took away Catalan’s autonomy and jailed the separatist leaders (handed back by Belgium no less), and no one said a thing. Where were the human rights fighters then? Don’t Catalan’s people have the right to govern themselves? Where were the outrage? The five eyes are the history’s biggest hypocrites.

Whoever think they can win autonomy by rioting while avoiding dying are retards. HK politicians are bunch of chicken shits who prefer to let others do the dying while they enjoy their air conditioned offices. If they truly believe in their causes, the riot leaders should continue to resist and martyr themselves

 

[Mr T]

Madrid took away Catalan’s autonomy and jailed the separatist leaders (handed back by Belgium no less), and no one said a thing.

First, Catalonia held an unconstitutional referendum on independence and defied a court order that banned the referendum. The regional government then made a unilateral declaration of independence. In those circumstances it's not surprising that Catalonian autonomy was in part suspended.

Second, Catalonia's autonomy was not revoked. Part of it was suspended. Elections were held again, and there are ongoing negotiations to resolve the situation.

Third, and here's the real kicker, pro-independence parties are still legal in Spain. In fact, they hold a majority in the Catalonian parliament.

You cannot compare that to the events in Hong Kong. There was no declaration of independence by the HK government that necessitated a response from Beijing. Also, the CCP has been banning not just pro-independence parties but also made it illegal for ordinary citizens to even show support for the concept themselves. The national security law in HK is so wide that it could be used to suppress any criticism of the CCP or HK administration. Spain has been far calmer in comparison.

 

[Mr T]

All of these posts you've responded with, just beats around the bush as to my point that I've been trying to drive home for the last couple of pages which is that the HK politicians believed that they were entitled to their own vision of political autonomy and that Beijing didn't have a say in interpreting the Basic Law and their vision of HK's political autonomy in their own way.

I understood what you were saying but I just don't agree with your view on the significance. Some politicians like Long-hair perhaps acted as they were "entitled", but they were radicals. As I said some time ago, in a democratic system you have to put up with some people acting in a way you don't like if it's lawful.

Of course this ignores the fact that it was Beijing who held the power to grant them their political autonomy in the way they so desired.

Sure, but Beijing had already committed to granting it. As I said, the Basic Law was clear on the matter.

Perhaps the CCP thought that by 2012 its allies would have secured a majority of votes in the directly elected geographical constituencies and in doing so reassured it that there would be no problems with opening up the Chief Executive elections. I can see how the CCP would get worried that it would never be able to win an election unless it kept control of the process. However, I just don't believe there were good reasons to try to fix the deck in its favour permanently.

I don't have anything else to add beyond that.

Fair enough. I've enjoyed discussing the matter with you, and it's always good to have a different perspective. Thanks for taking the time to chat.