Blame @Bltizo for engaging with him. Before he got some oxygen by having a "conversation" with a mod, the verbal savaging he received here from the likes of @manqiangrexue and Yours Truly had shut Mr Troll up.
Hong-Kong Protests
- Thread starter Pika
- Start date
I do wonder at his choice of Avatar.
You may not be familiar with it, but it is a character called B.A Baracus from a 1980s TV Series called the A-Team.
Amongst other things, the character was known for wearing way too much gold and metal, and having attitude/anger/impulse control issues.
i have him in ignore list like 10 pages ago. His relentless mental gymnastic trying to blame China for everything and staunchly defending every thing about pro democratic HK parties is really mind numbing.
Unless you can produce some documents or statements suggesting that CCP was willing to grant HK the political autonomy that you describe even in circumstances where they threaten national security, then you are basically just arguing that some HK politicians and gorup's interpretation of the joint declaration and the Basic Law overrides the Chinese government's interpretation of the joint declaration and the Basic Law. In the same breath where pro dem groups argue for political autonomy written in the Basic Law they also simultaneously decry Article 23 in the same Basic Law.
If you want to talk about political double standards we can absolutely do that.
But what we are talking about instead is why China didn't see it fit to grant HK the political autonomy they so desired. You are laying the fault at the feet of the Chinese government. I am laying the blame at the feet of some HK politicians, groups and activists.
One side held the power to grant that political autonomy, while one side desired it.
I don't care about whose feelings were hurt -- there's been enough anger expressed by all sides that I'm not interested in that anymore. I'm just talking about the ways in which the HK politicians could have carried out their words and actions in alternate ways if they wanted to earn the trust of the CCP to grant them their own vision of political autonomy they desired.
Folks. Please layoff the personal attacks!
Mr T
Senior Member
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.
Article 45 said "The of the shall be selected by election or through consultations held locally and be appointed by the ."
The method for selecting the Chief Executive shall be specified in the light of the actual situation in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region and in accordance with the principle of gradual and orderly progress. The ultimate aim is the selection of the Chief Executive by universal suffrage upon nomination by a broadly representative in accordance with democratic procedures.
Mr. T again left out important details of Article 45. Firstly, Chief Executive needs to be appointed by the Central government so the Central government does have a say which candidate is acceptable by the Central government. Secondly, "In accordance with the principle of gradual and orderly progress.", that's is the central government position. The Central government doesn't rule out further relaxation of the nomination process but the progress should be gradual and orderly.
In the contrary, the oppositions don't even want a nominating committee which is a violation of the Article 45. Furthermore, if the oppositions accept the central government proposal, they do have a chance to fill a candidate as long as the candidate is a moderate member of their camp. The nominating committee isn't an impenetrable fortress that the oppositions couldn't break and gather enough votes to nominate a candidate.
As for the article 23, it is absurd to claim that the HK Chief Executive doesn't want to present the law again. Each time any mention of article 23, the oppositions would go nuclear and sabotage everything. Frankly, for anyone who refuse to acknowledge this simple fact and try to twist it, it simply is disgusting. The previous article 23 is so lenient that Martin Lee now begged the HK government to pass this law. So anyone tried to claim that previous article 23 is vague should try to argue with Martin Lee the father of HK democracy.
As for Taiwan, Taiwan simply refused to negotiate so how can China propose anything when both sides are not ready to talk yet.
The Central government has been very clear from the very beginning. Any reform needs to be gradual and orderly. It is the oppositons that refused to accept this simple fact and believe that the Central government needs to accept their terms and only their terms with no compromise. Frankly, the oppositions don't get the fact that everything in HK is granted by the central government not the other way around.
The method for selecting the Chief Executive shall be specified in the light of the actual situation in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region and in accordance with the principle of gradual and orderly progress. The ultimate aim is the selection of the Chief Executive by universal suffrage upon nomination by a broadly representative in accordance with democratic procedures.
Mr. T again left out important details of Article 45. Firstly, Chief Executive needs to be appointed by the Central government so the Central government does have a say which candidate is acceptable by the Central government. Secondly, "In accordance with the principle of gradual and orderly progress.", that's is the central government position. The Central government doesn't rule out further relaxation of the nomination process but the progress should be gradual and orderly.
In the contrary, the oppositions don't even want a nominating committee which is a violation of the Article 45. Furthermore, if the oppositions accept the central government proposal, they do have a chance to fill a candidate as long as the candidate is a moderate member of their camp. The nominating committee isn't an impenetrable fortress that the oppositions couldn't break and gather enough votes to nominate a candidate.
As for the article 23, it is absurd to claim that the HK Chief Executive doesn't want to present the law again. Each time any mention of article 23, the oppositions would go nuclear and sabotage everything. Frankly, for anyone who refuse to acknowledge this simple fact and try to twist it, it simply is disgusting. The previous article 23 is so lenient that Martin Lee now begged the HK government to pass this law. So anyone tried to claim that previous article 23 is vague should try to argue with Martin Lee the father of HK democracy.
As for Taiwan, Taiwan simply refused to negotiate so how can China propose anything when both sides are not ready to talk yet.
The Central government has been very clear from the very beginning. Any reform needs to be gradual and orderly. It is the oppositons that refused to accept this simple fact and believe that the Central government needs to accept their terms and only their terms with no compromise. Frankly, the oppositions don't get the fact that everything in HK is granted by the central government not the other way around.
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!
Some of us are old enough to have watched the A-Team the first time around. And I think the avatar is quite appropriate.
If you remember, the A-Team used to go round spraying thousands of bullets, lots and lots of explosions, car crashes, but yet no one ever gets killed! It's like we are living in a type of alternative universe. Do you get my drift?