Hong-Kong Protests


Kaeshmiri

Junior Member
Registered Member
I don't think this a good reform to be honest. Not terribly democratic, though I hope it's only temporary with the aim of resolving main issues first (like inequality).
China tested the Western democratic model and all it resulted in was a legislature full of traitors who swore loyalty to the West and were actively aiding and abetting treason. Meanwhile not a single problem of HK was being solved because they were never interested do that in the first place. Do nothing and blame the Mainland this was their motto. The consequence? An entire generation of brainwashed HKers were born.

Certainly the democratic experiment failed in HK and now China is correcting its mistakes . The new set up will certainty produce socio-economic results (mainland is an example of it). HKrs will then realise that China was never the big bad state they were told all this while.
 

voyager1

Junior Member
Registered Member
China tested the Western democratic model and all it resulted in was a legislature full of traitors who swore loyalty to the West and were actively aiding and abetting treason. Meanwhile not a single problem of HK was being solved because they were never interested do that in the first place. Do nothing and blame the Mainland this was their motto. The consequence? An entire generation of brainwashed HKers were born.

Certainly the democratic experiment failed in HK and now China is correcting its mistakes . The new set up will certainty produce socio-economic results (mainland is an example of it). HKrs will then realise that China was never the big bad state they were told all this while.
Agreed.

However I will say that even if democracy failed as a western model, there are still some core strengths on this political system.

One major advantage would be the normalised transition of power. If you contrast this with the hundreds, and thousands year ago then on this point democracy is extremely beneficial. So when in the past after kings/Lords/emperors died then after that you had plenty of chaos and lack of governance. So I will say here that the modern Chinese system can learn a things from the democracies around the world.


The 2nd advantage and in my opinion the biggest democracy has, is the political transparency that it offers. Anyone will know where everybody stands on an ideological point of view, everyone can shape the outcome of a policy (theoritically), everybody knows how their politicians vote on laws etc. Even when bribed("Lobbying.."), people still know who is bribing them lol.

This is the biggest weakness of the Chinese political system(see their Parliament with 2000 - 0 votes...) and it is something that Xi is actively working to solve, however resistance is very high to these reforms.


So as you can see democracy is not a totally failed system. I think what the Central Gov wants to do in Hong Kong is to transform their Western model democracy to a "Democracy with Chinese characteristics" so that democracy can finally properly work and so that the Central Gov can adopt some of its advantages to the mainland system.
 

KYli

Captain
One major advantage would be the normalised transition of power. If you contrast this with the hundreds, and thousands year ago then on this point democracy is extremely beneficial. So when in the past after kings/Lords/emperors died then after that you had plenty of chaos and lack of governance. So I will say here that the modern Chinese system can learn a things from the democracies around the world.

The rise of Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini and to some extent the populist leaders such as Trump would contradict your point of advantage of the normalized transition of power from democratic government. Democracy failed to prevent these men from power grab and abuse of powers.
The 2nd advantage and in my opinion the biggest democracy has, is the political transparency that it offers. Anyone will know where everybody stands on an ideological point of view, everyone can shape the outcome of a policy (theoritically), everybody knows how their politicians vote on laws etc. Even when bribed("Lobbying.."), people still know who is bribing them lol.
I generally agree that the Chinese government requires more transparency. However, political transparency is meaningless when it didn't materialize into actions. When vested interests and powerful power brokers are calling the shots then political transparency is just window dressing.
 

voyager1

Junior Member
Registered Member
The rise of Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini and to some extent the populist leaders such as Trump would contradict your point of advantage of the normalized transition of power from democratic government. Democracy failed to prevent these men from power grab and abuse of powers.

I generally agree that the Chinese government requires more transparency. However, political transparency is meaningless when it didn't materialize into actions. When vested interests and powerful power brokers are calling the shots then political transparency is just window dressing.
Well no system is perfect, and in these cases(especially Germany's) democracy itself was not too much of the fault, as there were structural issues. And if you start compiling and them producing statistics on the transition of power I am 100% sure you will see that non-democracies have more chaos and bad governance when a transition of power happens, than democracies. This is extremely important which is why you see that the most properous countries now are democracies

Now Xi, from what I know, is working hard for the "law-based governance" but he faces massive internal resistance. Local governments dont care about the laws, the regulations are meant to be broken, they often turn blind eyes when a local company brakes laws etc. These are massive problems and which is why even though China due to its political system can pass laws and regulations easily, they face such a difficult task on enforcing them.

However, the new initiatives on transparent governance, transparent court cases, and the new corporate credit system (expanding to gov officials) will start bearing fruits in the coming years. Xi should keep up fighting the entrenched interests, reforming the government, and start seriously expanding the power of the regulator agencies (no more 10k fines and all this bs)
 
Last edited:

KYli

Captain
Well no system is perfect, and in these cases(especially Germany's) democracy itself was not too much of the fault, as there were structural issues. And if you start compiling and them producing statistics on the transition of power I am 100% sure you will see that non-democracies have more chaos and bad governance when a transition of power happens, than democracies. This is extremely important which is why you see that the most properous countries now are democracies

Now Xi, from what I know, is working hard for the "law-based governance" but he faces massive internal resistance. Local governments dont care about the laws, the regulations are meant to be broken, they often turn blind eyes when a local company brakes laws etc. These are massive problems and which is why even though China due to its political system can pass laws and regulations easily, they face such a difficult task on enforcing them.

However, the new initiatives on transparent governance, transparent court cases, and the new corporate credit system (expanding to gov officials) will start bearing fruits in the coming years. Xi should keep up fighting the entrenched interests, reforming the government, and start seriously expanding the power of the regulator agencies (no more 10k fines and all this bs)
It isn't the failure of democracy that worried me. It is the ability of the democratic government to deflect blame that worried me. The rise of fascism in the democratic society in the past is similar to the rise of the right wing populism today. Blaming China and Asians for their plight is the easy part. But the failure to resolve their structural issues is the ultimate reason why populists have become mainstream.

I think both urbanization and modernization would alleviate the corruption in China. And China would truly become a law-base governance society when the country is much more developed. Xi is putting the system in place but it would take decades to bear fruits. More wealthy and educated society tends to care more about fairness and injustice and would invest more time and energy to seek more transparency and accountability from the government.
 

voyager1

Junior Member
Registered Member
It isn't the failure of democracy that worried me. It is the ability of the democratic government to deflect blame that worried me. The rise of fascism in the democratic society in the past is similar to the rise of the right wing populism today. Blaming China and Asians for their plight is the easy part. But the failure to resolve their structural issues is the ultimate reason why populists have become mainstream.

I think both urbanization and modernization would alleviate the corruption in China. And China would truly become a law-base governance society when the country is much more developed. Xi is putting the system in place but it would take decades to bear fruits. More wealthy and educated society tends to care more about fairness and injustice and would invest more time and energy to seek more transparency and accountability from the government.
Yeah thats true. Its the greatest strength of democracies but also its greatest weakness.

When you can deflect blame to other parties then democracy as a system is an extremely stable system because you can deflect blame for a long time (unless people get tired and then fascist gets elected...).
I am sure that Xi sometimes is deeply envious that in other countriesthe gov can deflect.blame away from their failings

However because they can deflect blame, they can never truly recognise the root cause.of the problem and to then proceed to reform. Which is why when structural issues start appearing in democracies they are almost impossible to be solved.
On the hand, because in China the gov cant deflect blame (one party state), Xi is always under extreme pressure to deliver to his people because his political counterparts inside the CPC are always out for blood and are looking for signs of weakness on their leader. And thats because if the leader keeps failing and the gov cant deflect blame then the whole stability of the country will be in danger if the people start an uprising, so Xi must be work extremely work to always cover his back.

You saw a brief example of that when Xi on the start of the pabdemic, some local politicians started critising him and at one point he even "disappeared" for some time, some respected western analysts theorised that the upper party elechon forced him to undergo a "self-critism" study. I would say, that was the most vulnerable moment in Xi's political career.

But now in the present as we all know Xi passed his baptism of fire and has now gotten widespread political support to accelerate his reforms and internal policies.

I believe that in the next 10 years China will probably pass more reforms and policies than the previous 2-3 decades due to how strong Xi has gotten and due to the US rivalry
 

tch1972

New Member
The new measure is really nothing new. In Singapore all presidential candidates also had to go through a special committee to vet the credentials and characters of before being issued a certificate to qualify for election.

Personally i am against such a system but i acknowledge there is a need for it in the case of HK.
 

SpicySichuan

Senior Member
Registered Member
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Hong Kong Court Convicts Democracy Leaders Over Protest March​

The defendants, including the media tycoon Jimmy Lai and the barristers Martin Lee and Margaret Ng, are some of the city’s most prominent activists.

Seven of Hong Kong’s leading veteran pro-democracy advocates were found guilty on Thursday of unauthorized assembly, as Beijing’s campaign to quash the city’s opposition ensnared some of its most senior and well-recognized figures.

Martin Lee, an 82-year-old barrister known as the “father of democracy” in Hong Kong, Jimmy Lai, 73, a media tycoon and founder of the staunchly pro-democracy Apple Daily newspaper, and Margaret Ng, 73, a respected barrister and columnist, along with four others, were convicted of participating and organizing an unauthorized march in 2019.

The prosecution of veteran pro-democracy figures in Hong Kong has been held up by their supporters as a severe assault on the freedom of speech and other civil liberties that once were core to the city’s identity. Hong Kong’s authorities have overseen an expansive crackdown on the pro-democracy movement since the city was engulfed by antigovernment protests in 2019. More than 2,400 people have been charged as the authorities sought to quash the movement that had posed the greatest challenge to Beijing’s rule in decades.

Beijing has sought to depict several of the opposition figures as subversive elements working with hostile foreign forces to undermine Chinese sovereignty. Critics of this view say the ruling Communist Party is only deflecting the true democratic aspirations of the Hong Kong people.

Mr. Lee, Mr. Lai and Albert Ho have been
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
as being part of a “Gang of Four” who stirred unrest in 2019, an accusation at odds with the largely leaderless movement in the streets.

The case centered on
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
when hundreds of thousands of people gathered in an antigovernment protest.
That gathering had received police approval. But what followed did not. The defendants were accused of leading protesters out of Victoria Park on Hong Kong Island, beginning a march that led toward the core business district. While there was no violence and minimal disorder, prosecutors argued that the march violated Hong Kong’s public order ordinance.
Their lawyers argued that leading protesters out of the park, which had filled with many more people than it could handle, was necessary for public safety. They also said that imprisoning them over a peaceful march was a heavy-handed application of the law.

The protests that summer were focused at first on a proposal to allow extraditions to mainland China but expanded to include demands for direct elections and an investigation into the use of force by police.

The prosecution of the city’s pro-democracy leaders over a peaceful protest has drawn an international outcry. David Perry, a prominent British barrister who was hired to lead the prosecution,
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
after coming under sharp criticism at home. Dominic Raab, the British foreign secretary,
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
Mr. Perry was “pretty mercenary” and was giving the Chinese government a public relations win.

The State Department, in
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
, said that the Hong Kong government “did not respect” the right to free assembly provided under local law, and that by imposing a national security law last year, China had “dramatically undermined rights and freedoms in Hong Kong.”

The trial took 20 days, twice as long as had been scheduled.

The defendants, who also include the labor organizer Lee Cheuk-yan and the former lawmakers Cyd Ho and Leung Kwok-hung, face up to five years in prison. Sentences will be handed down at a later date.

Another former lawmaker, Au Nok-hin, 33, had previously pleaded guilty to both charges, while Leung Yiu-chung, 67, had pleaded guilty to a single charge of participating in the protest.

The verdict could set expectations for several trials on similar charges of illegal protests set to take place this year.

In addition, 47 pro-democracy politicians and activists have been charged with subversion under the new security law for participating in an election primary that prosecutors say was part of plan to subvert the government.

Mr. Lai, the media tycoon, has been charged in a separate national security case for allegedly lobbying for American sanctions against Hong Kong and Chinese officials.
 

crash8pilot

Junior Member
Registered Member
The new measure is really nothing new. In Singapore all presidential candidates also had to go through a special committee to vet the credentials and characters of before being issued a certificate to qualify for election.

Personally i am against such a system but i acknowledge there is a need for it in the case of HK.
Well I mean even the US, the supposed beacon of democracy and leader of the free world, has party primaries/caucuses which decide the candidates Americans get to elect for the legislative and executive branch... and even then the executive elections runs on the Electoral College whereby one person ≠ one vote. If we truly had open elections where one person = one vote, Kanye West or the Kardashains will be running the White House.

Truth be told outside of a handful of seasoned LegCo members, most people running for government (even those that are pro-Beijing or pro-establishment) don't have the credentials or experience and have no business running for office... and those who do are too afraid or can't be asked to get into the mess of Hong Kong Politics. These reforms therefore encourage and empower technocrats of Hong Kong to run for office, govern, and actually make a difference.
 

Top