Hong-Kong Protests

Gatekeeper said:

Yes, it's called tactical voting. BUT this is not the case here. It is blatantly organised "mock elections" with coercion from various blocks and cheating as well to create the desire outcome.

Because it is a ballot involving a number of parties.it is in fact an election. It is illegal to hold elections without the agreements of the government. Therefore the organisers have committed an illegal act.

Click to expand...

Yes, I did mention it is not a legitimate election. Without formal oversight, the precise things that KYLi mentioned are bound to happen (Fake voting information, multiple votes, etc.).

KYli said:

The question is how far is too far. Strategic voting, tactical voting, or whatever it is called is technically legal. At the same time, a few years ago the oppositions have complained about how pro-Beijing camp was able to coordinate and calling it as manipulation of election. The oppositions also filed complaints regarding this issue. After complaining for years by claiming this tactic is fraud, the oppositions have now decided to deploy a similar but much more extreme and sophisticated form of strategic voting. Again, how far is too far.

Click to expand...

Well, they are willing to spout off all kinds of nonsense, so you can't really stop it. I just point this out as a technicality.

I do agree that the fake election is too far and basically intimidating moderate candidates. Since you can't really audit the results, then there is no means to challenge the results. If a moderate loses and doesn't accept the result, then they look like they are "anti-democracy". Furthermore, the elections are basically rigged in favour of radical candidates since most people are not going to participate in fake elections (look at the turnout for their hyped up fake strike referendum).

It's really sad how the foreign policy of the US is destroying HK.

Preliminary results showed a group of young democrats, or “localists”, performed strongly in the elections that drew more than 600,000 votes, reflecting a potential change of guard to a more radical grouping likely to rile authorities in Beijing.

Click to expand...

When Donald Trump says "build the wall" and calls Latin Americans "rapists and murderers", he is considered a racist and a right-wing neo-nazi. On the other side, when the HK radicals call for border closure and call mainland shoppers "locusts", they are just democrats/localists.

I was telling my friend, "Hearing HK news from western sources is the worst. It's like a old white guy lecturing a black woman on discrimination"

KYli said:

Many voters didn't participate in primary especially elderly.

Click to expand...

It's a primary. It's normal for only a minority of voters to take part.

It is illegal due to the fact there are no such thing as primary in HK.

Click to expand...

That's not how the law works. Things are not illegal until made legal by the law. They are legal until banned. It is lawful for candidates to decide how to organise.

Many moderate oppositions were threatened by the hardliners on the internet

Click to expand...

Opposition politicians get threatened all the time - they were threatened by the CCP and HK authorities for participating in the primary.

and the media would have crucified them for not participating.

Click to expand...

All politicians get criticised in the media all the time. It's nothing new.

There are no benefits for moderates to participate since their voters don't tend to vote in primary.

Click to expand...

That's speculation. This is the first time a primary like this has been held in Hong Kong. Besides, if the moderates' priority is getting more pan-democratic/pro-change legislators elected then overall this is in their interests. It's not in their interests to be in permanent opposition and never have any chance of a majority in LegCo.

Many youngsters have committed voting fraud by voting multiple times as many journalists and individuals have successfully cast multiple votes by signing up with fake info.

Click to expand...

That's not evidence of what you claim. According to what you said, what has happened is that some people claimed they voted more than once by lying about their identity. That doesn't mean other people did. I'm also sceptical that this happened at all, as I've yet to see a pro-CCP HK newspaper like SCMP run with the story.

Also, ironically, it would give an excuse for candidates that lost out in the primary to run anyway. If they still don't then it goes to show that it was their own decision to not participate rather than because they were "forced" to.

For example, I joined TG and was assigned block A. At the election day, all block A voters would be told to vote for a particular candidate.

Click to expand...

But why would you vote for candidate X if you don't want to? Why would you vote for that candidate against your will just because they won the primary? You're implying you're a robot without an independent thought in your head.

This is a pure voting manipulation.

Click to expand...

It really isn't. It's a way of maximising the Opposition's chances of winning more seats by not splitting their votes across multiple candidates.

Yesterday, I was playing golf and my golfing partner (English) said this Hong Kong bill is going to hurt Hong Kong, but China deserve it. China is picking a fight with everyone from India, South China sea, Taiwan, Hong Kong, and the Huawei to coronavirus!

What! Since when did China started all these? I knew then that the MSM have worked their magic on him. It isn't worth trying to argue with them. Because they have a head start with all the western propaganda they have been fed (unknowingly) all their lives.

Here's the headline from SCMP on police training with USA on hold as per the Hong Kong bill.

Big deal, ah. Just like the Canadians announcing stopping selling $20 millions worth of equipments. The devil is in the details.

It's all sound bites for home consumption for their own populace. But nothing of substance.

"Shrugging off end of US training programmes, Hong Kong police insiders say ‘any other country can serve the same purpose’
Even if the US’ Five Eyes partners follow suit, plenty of options for exchanges remain, say sources, who stress the trips are mostly for broadening horizons
‘None of these places train us to become police. It is a mutual knowledge exchange ... They learn from us, too’"

Rest of the article.

supersnoop said:

Yes, I did mention it is not a legitimate election. Without formal oversight, the precise things that KYLi mentioned are bound to happen (Fake voting information, multiple votes, etc.).



Well, they are willing to spout off all kinds of nonsense, so you can't really stop it. I just point this out as a technicality.

I do agree that the fake election is too far and basically intimidating moderate candidates. Since you can't really audit the results, then there is no means to challenge the results. If a moderate loses and doesn't accept the result, then they look like they are "anti-democracy". Furthermore, the elections are basically rigged in favour of radical candidates since most people are not going to participate in fake elections (look at the turnout for their hyped up fake strike referendum).

It's really sad how the foreign policy of the US is destroying HK.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

When Donald Trump says "build the wall" and calls Latin Americans "rapists and murderers", he is considered a racist and a right-wing neo-nazi. On the other side, when the HK radicals call for border closure and call mainland shoppers "locusts", they are just democrats/localists.

I was telling my friend, "Hearing HK news from western sources is the worst. It's like a old white guy lecturing a black woman on discrimination"

Click to expand...

I think they shouldn't even call it primaries. By calling it such add weights to their "legitimacy". This is important distinction as a poster here keeps harping on about this "primary" being legal and it's democracy at work.

As I said earlier, most people understanding of primaries comes from the USA when USA choose their candidate to run for their "party". Note singular. (Legal)

Whereas the recent event in Hong Kong is multi-party. The distinction is important, because choosing within a party is legitimate as per the USA example. Whereas choosing between muti-party is in fact, an election! And any election is illegal without prior consent from any government the world over. See my previous post from Hong Kong government statement.

It's a primary. It's normal for only a minority of voters to take part.
That's not how the law works. Things are not illegal until made legal by the law. They are legal until banned. It is lawful for candidates to decide how to organise.

Click to expand...

Let me say it again. There is no such thing as primary in HK. It is just an attempt by the oppositions to eliminate competition and manipulate the election results.

That's not how things work and how law applies. An illegal primary that sole purpose is to sabotage the LegCo is unlawful.

Opposition politicians get threatened all the time - they were threatened by the CCP and HK authorities for participating in the primary.
All politicians get criticised in the media all the time. It's nothing new.

Click to expand...

So you think it is ok. Maybe I should have reminded you that in this same thread you have decried how the oppositions got threatened. Or it is just waste of time since you are so good at double standard.

That's speculation. This is the first time a primary like this has been held in Hong Kong. Besides, if the moderates' priority is getting more pan-democratic/pro-change legislators elected then overall this is in their interests. It's not in their interests to be in permanent opposition and never have any chance of a majority in LegCo.

Click to expand...

Primary voters favor more ideologically extreme. It is just the case for places that have primary elections. Media reports seem to confirm that is the case for HK also.

That's not evidence of what you claim. According to what you said, what has happened is that some people claimed they voted more than once by lying about their identity. That doesn't mean other people did. I'm also sceptical that this happened at all, as I've yet to see a pro-CCP HK newspaper like SCMP run with the story.

Also, ironically, it would give an excuse for candidates that lost out in the primary to run anyway. If they still don't then it goes to show that it was their own decision to not participate rather than because they were "forced" to.

Click to expand...

DP has complained to the media and organizers for frauds and attempts to vote for multiple times. Or are you saying DP is lying. There were posts, pictures on FB, TG, and IS that radicals post for claiming that they have voted multiple times and there are instructions to help voters to vote multiple times. Or you just keep denying this simple fact.

You keep repeating that as if moderates have a choice. They don't even have a choice not to participate. Threats and intimidation are so much that the few spoke out have been silenced. Not that I pity them because these moderates are the ones that allow the radicals to thrive in the first place.

But why would you vote for candidate X if you don't want to? Why would you vote for that candidate against your will just because they won the primary? You're implying you're a robot without an independent thought in your head.

It really isn't. It's a way of maximising the Opposition's chances of winning more seats by not splitting their votes across multiple candidates.

Click to expand...

If these people have a brain then they wouldn't have supported the oppositions in the first place. These are the people who got brainwashed to believe that they are hero and savior of HK. And they would do whatever were told by the media and the instigators. Therefore, no matter how undemocratic things are, they would blindly follow like a robot without independent thought.

KYli said:

Let me say it again. There is no such thing as primary in HK. It is just an attempt by the oppositions to eliminate competition and manipulate the election results.

That's not how things work and how law applies. An illegal primary that sole purpose is to sabotage the LegCo is unlawful.






So you think it is ok. Maybe I should have reminded you that in this same thread you have decried how the oppositions got threatened. Or it is just waste of time since you are so good at double standard.




Primary voters favor more ideologically extreme. It is just the case for places that have primary elections. Media reports seem to confirm that is the case for HK also.



DP has complained to the media and organizers for frauds and attempts to vote for multiple times. Or are you saying DP is lying. There were posts, pictures on FB, TG, and IS that radicals post for claiming that they have voted multiple times and there are instructions to help voters to vote multiple times. Or you just keep denying this simple fact.

You keep repeating that as if moderates have a choice. They don't even have a choice not to participate. Threats and intimidation are so much that the few spoke out have been silenced. Not that I pity them because these moderates are the ones that allow the radicals to thrive in the first place.





If these people have a brain then they wouldn't have supported the oppositions in the first place. These are the people who got brainwashed to believe that they are hero and savior of HK. And they would do whatever were told by the media and the instigators. Therefore, no matter how undemocratic things are, they would blindly follow like a robot without independent thought.

Click to expand...

Kyli,

It's a waste of time and air to debate with him. Because he only sees this:



He also sees this, but are in denial, and refuse to believe it's true:



So it is pointless to debate with a closed mind

Gatekeeper said:

Kyli,

It's a waste of time and air to debate with him. Because he only sees this:

View attachment 61846

He also sees this, but are in denial, and refuse to believe it's true:

View attachment 61847

So it is pointless to debate with a closed mind

View attachment 61848

Click to expand...

add this line too .
“Never argue with an idiot. They will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.”

― Mark Twain

Gatekeeper said:

Whereas the recent event in Hong Kong is multi-party. The distinction is important, because choosing within a party is legitimate as per the USA example. Whereas choosing between muti-party is in fact, an election! And any election is illegal without prior consent from any government the world over. See my previous post from Hong Kong government statement.

Click to expand...

You hit the nail on the head with this point.
This is the biggest issue legally speaking. If you allow a multi-party open election it is no longer a "Primary". Furthermore, you open the door for government opposition to declare the HKSAR Electoral Affairs Commission illegitimate, which in turn would completely undermine 1C2S (which the opposition claims to want to preserve).

It reminds me of a constitutional issue that came up in Ontario. The SPCA was granted powers 100 years ago to enforce animal cruelty laws. However, a recent Supreme Court ruling actually found this to be illegal since the SPCA is a private organization which cannot have law enforcement powers without government oversight (otherwise you are creating a private police force). Even though their powers are so limited, it cannot be allowed. The same logic can be applied to these elections.

Actually, now that I think about it, it really does play into the idea of external interference. The branding of them being "primaries" does make them seem more legitimate. Furthermore, the level of sophistication and coordination both in tactics and execution does speak to a well-planned "attack" on the existing institutions. The consistent messaging is a telltale sign of foreign intelligence service operations.

Full scale civic education should be implemeted in Hong Kong schools, at all levels, right now.

This is great. One of the gang of three. Law is now hiding in the UK. I think he got a scholarship at Yale (questionable) during all the trouble last year. Now with the national security law, he escaped to the UK and is granted leave to stay. On what ground is not entirely clear. The UK government has a lot to answer for.

Because. He was born in shenzhen, China in 1993, didn't arrived in Hong Kong till 1999. So unable to qualifier for BNO status. He is therefore a bona fide Chinese citizen! As such how can the UK Government grant him right to stay?


British government made it clear on eligibility of BNO's


As a leading member of the gang of three.


His mother is not happy that he left without leaving a bean. Lol. allegedly.



Photo op with his mentor the Bath borough constituent reject, Chris Patten, that was forced upon Hong Kong (so much for democracy).