As far as I can see, HK government and its election of new leader is 100% correct according to HK laws & Joint Declaration between UK & PRC. If some students find the current election procedure is biased, they can find ways to improve or change it. Use violence & improper protests is not constructive and may break the laws. If they still don't like it, they can leave HK and find some other places to stay. But I doubt they can survive in other competitive places in the world.
It will be awfully sad watching democracy go extinct during this century.
I lived in HK during the negotiations in the 1980's for the hand over. The "One Country, Two Systems principle" that would continue HK's way of life for 50 years as provided for in The Joint Declaration between the U.K. and PRC and stipulated in the Hong Kong Basic Law was regarded by many at the time as a Thatcher sell out and a sham. That the agreement has lasted less than 20 years is an eloquent testimony to the duplicity of the PRC which could not afford to have a successful example of regional autonomy and personal freedoms so close and so visible.
1
Just so. Well said. I note that Lord Patten has, yet again, upbraided the UK government for letting down the people of Hong Kong then and doing so again now (this time by not living up to its obligations under the terms of the Joint Declaration which IS an international treaty which both China and Britain signed and registered at the United Nations).
Under the British colonial rules, no one complained or protested. Now with freedom in hand and prosperity in place, I am surprised that dissatisfaction rising. The only reason I can think of is the inequality. But it is not a local phenomenon. It is global.
We know the feeling, Hong Kong, we know.
After Brexit and Donald Trump, liberal media still pander the flawed mock democracy through the voting booth. That system has failed the American citizens badly with paralyzed partisan government. No wonder voter turnout continues to be dismal because many voters deem the vote useless. So the fringe elements stole the election. Neither Brexit nor Donald Trump are legitimate because they fail to gain overwhelming majority support.
Meanwhile in Hong Kong the naive young people supporting the Umbrella Movement are hopelessly brainwashed by the western propaganda machine. They grew up with no memory of the British colonial rule days. They are motivated by their own insecurity and anguish from a brutally competitive free-market, but they fail to see that their future is tied to the massive mother-ship to the north and not with a doomed independence movement.
As Mao once said, sailing in a huge ocean demands a steady steersman. The global political sea has never been more choppy after the 2016 referendums and elections. Beijing will no doubt crush any unsteady hand trying to grab the wheel. And they are right.
Meanwhile in Hong Kong the naive young people supporting the Umbrella Movement are hopelessly brainwashed by the western propaganda machine. They grew up with no memory of the British colonial rule days. They are motivated by their own insecurity and anguish from a brutally competitive free-market, but they fail to see that their future is tied to the massive mother-ship to the north and not with a doomed independence movement.
As Mao once said, sailing in a huge ocean demands a steady steersman. The global political sea has never been more choppy after the 2016 referendums and elections. Beijing will no doubt crush any unsteady hand trying to grab the wheel. And they are right.
3
The problem with this kind talk is that "a steady steersman" might or may have led their people to a wrong direction. The gread steersman- Mao, had driven China over the cliff under his leadership; the great leap movement killed 10+ million Chinese from starvation and his Culture revolution had set China back for a generation. Those do not learn from history doom to relive it.
1
What a load of tripe. Not once did you explain
A) Why "Beijing" (the Communist Party of China) would be "right" to "crush any unsteady hand trying to grab the wheel" in Hong Kong, or
B) How it is that the same Party is perceived by you to be "their future" when they never had a say in electing it and will never be given that say.
Odd that you, apparently a resident of Canada, should deny the people of Hong Kong the right that you enjoy (I imagine) in Canada. It is also odd that you selectively focus on recent electoral trends in the United States and the United Kingdom (both Mr. Trump's rise and the unfortunate outcome of the flawed plebiscite held in Britain last year). Why?
Let me hazard a guess... because what you say fits exactly the preferred talking points of a Communist Party leadership in China that fears the possibility of being challenged, of losing its self-declared and self-appointed status as China's only permitted political monopolist.
It makes you wonder... just whose interests are your comments meant to represent?
A) Why "Beijing" (the Communist Party of China) would be "right" to "crush any unsteady hand trying to grab the wheel" in Hong Kong, or
B) How it is that the same Party is perceived by you to be "their future" when they never had a say in electing it and will never be given that say.
Odd that you, apparently a resident of Canada, should deny the people of Hong Kong the right that you enjoy (I imagine) in Canada. It is also odd that you selectively focus on recent electoral trends in the United States and the United Kingdom (both Mr. Trump's rise and the unfortunate outcome of the flawed plebiscite held in Britain last year). Why?
Let me hazard a guess... because what you say fits exactly the preferred talking points of a Communist Party leadership in China that fears the possibility of being challenged, of losing its self-declared and self-appointed status as China's only permitted political monopolist.
It makes you wonder... just whose interests are your comments meant to represent?
1
The Civic Party is small and irrelevant, even by HK standards. That the Times chooses to highlight such a fringe opinion smacks of ulterior motives.
Perhaps international forces would do well in giving platforms to small, extremist parties in the US?
"...and one day they can ban anyone who calls for universal suffrage and democracy."
That would be nice, Mr. Wong.
Perhaps international forces would do well in giving platforms to small, extremist parties in the US?
"...and one day they can ban anyone who calls for universal suffrage and democracy."
That would be nice, Mr. Wong.
3
"That would be nice, Mr. Wong."
It would also be nice, Mr Wei, if China polluted herself and her 1.6 billion citizens to death, so that they'd stop being a bloody nuisance to the rest of the world. Pity that's not on the cards yet, but hope springs eternal.
It would also be nice, Mr Wei, if China polluted herself and her 1.6 billion citizens to death, so that they'd stop being a bloody nuisance to the rest of the world. Pity that's not on the cards yet, but hope springs eternal.
1
Civic Party is not small. It' has over 500 members, 5 legislators within 30 pro-democratic seats in the Legco; 11 district councillors.
Take your insinuation and typical 1984speak somewhere, Mister.
Take your insinuation and typical 1984speak somewhere, Mister.
1
Soon the Chinese Communist Party will be banning the NYT from Hong Kong, too, and in a very real sense banning you from this forum. At that time your western bashing comments, which you have every right to, will need to be redirected to, what the CCP would consider a more appropriate venue, the China People's Daily.
Happy New Year!
Happy New Year!
1
The choices from a list of approved candidates has to rankle the Bernie Sanders fans reading this. The party owned the media so the inconvenient man had no chance.
The corrupted old media as appears here on a daily basis seems to hunger for the chance to be the Approver of Correct Candidates for all parties.
The corrupted old media as appears here on a daily basis seems to hunger for the chance to be the Approver of Correct Candidates for all parties.
1
The fundamental reason for the failure of "democratic parties" is their bent towards "separation" and "independence" which borders with treason and carries unbearable risks to the business and society as a whole. The more and longer they maintain such the clearer it shows that the Government and the CPC are real guardians for the rights of the citizens, which ironically is the opposite of what they try to demonstrate.
3
The fundamental reason for the failure of "democratic parties" is because they are actively being sabotaged at every step of the way. HK is not like the rest of the PRC, though the PRC is doing all it can to (forcibly) assimilate HK into the PRC and make it another bland, soulless megacity. If your elections are nothing more than bad theatre, your rulers up north are vicious autocrats still adhering to 19th century dogma as a guiding principle for nations, and your native language and heritage are being eroded by cultural subterfuge, independence seems an enticing option.
11
Why is it "treason" to want independence from a country which is governed by a political party that is so clearly callous in its disregard for the legitimately expressed aspirations of hundreds of thousands in Hong Kong, which directs those who kidnap Hong Kong citizens with impunity (thus violating the Communist Party's previously accepted commitment to maintain Hong Kong's way of life "unchanged' for 50 years, beginning in 1997, and that is widely understood to be using every trick in its well-worn book of political subterfuge to undermine and pervert the political process in Hong Kong.
If people in Washington State had to deal with a government like that in, say, Washington DC, I daresay they would be advocating separation, as well.
If people in Washington State had to deal with a government like that in, say, Washington DC, I daresay they would be advocating separation, as well.