Occupy Central 佔領中環

[skylee]

In January an associate law professor of HKU published an article about the idea of occupying Central to force the government to implement universal suffrage for the election of the Chief Executive of Hong Kong in 2017. The idea has generated plenty of discussion and gained support from the pro-democracy camp, and has sort of evolved into a campaign. And now an action plan has just been published.

Reading -

Occupy Central pioneer outlines its four-stage plan to achieve democracy

Conditions for election talks spelled out

讓愛與和平佔領中環－－戴耀廷宣讀運動信念書

戴耀廷 - 公民抗命的最大殺傷力武器

This thread is relevant - HK Political Reform

The movement calls for civil disobedience and action to block the central area in HK in July 2014.

]THE FOUR STEPS[/b]

July 2013: Oath-taking days - solemn ceremonies for participants to declare their commitment to the plan

Early 2014: A deliberation day - 10,000 participants divide into groups to discuss and vote on ideas for political reform

April/May 2014: Citizens' authorisation - A citywide civil referendum, or a by-election triggered by the resignation of a lawmaker

July 2014: Occupy Central - 10,000 participants block the roads in Central to pressure Beijing for democracy

Views?

[abcdefg]

...implement universal suffrage for the election of the Chief Executive of Hong Kong in 2017.

Has this been an issue or a problem? Does voting now exclude some elements of the population? First I've heard of it, though I admit to usually only skimming the headlines of such news items. Not something I care much about.

I vaguely remember news coverage of the "occupy xxx (city name)" movement in the US in the last couple years. Thankfully, it seems to have kind of died out. I never figured out what that was all about either except causing trouble and disrupting government operations, inconveniencing commuters and other ordinary citizens, causing more tax money to be spent on riot control police, sanitation workers to clean up the trash, and such. Of course the TV news channels loved it.

Cannot but hope Hong Kong does not emulate such American idiocy.

[skylee]

Re #2, I can understand that people outside HK have no idea of what is going on in HK. But it might not be appropriate to just label such actions as idiocy.

Months ago there were huge protests in HK against the introduction of national education in the school curriculum and at the end the government withdrew the plan. The HK govt is (or was) not the strongest government in the world so people's actions were sometimes effective (if there were enough people, that is).

[YuehanHao]

To take it a step further, I could even understand Americans not having any idea what is going on in the U.S. As for the thread topic, however, I am not sure what to hope for.

On one hand, my heart is completely with pro-democracy citizens organizing to emulate American idiocy. The writing is on the wall that this is the only way (e.g., recent news article: 乔晓阳称对抗中央的人不能任特首). Am I misreading, or can it get much more obvious than this?

On the other hand, I am not sure the party can allow this effort to succeed, particularly given the way it is planned out. I feel quite anxious as to the outcome ... (e.g., personal safety, backlash of political repression). Even if the effort "succeeds", will it only lead to a watered-down outcome, such as permission to directly elect from a slate of party-vetted candidates? Or am I defeatist?

(By the way, maybe this is unnecessary semantics, but is it wrong for me to think the issue is not the univerality of suffrage per se, but the complete lack of a direct popular vote for the executive? As a related question, is it correct what I seem to remember reading some time ago that direct vote is allowed for a minority of legislative seats, but that the party selects a majority?)

Not to overstate the similiarity, but the question of electoral rights has been in my mind lately following the state-government-sanctioned deposing of the locally elected representatives of Detroit, Michigan (though not to say all of these folks have necessarily proven great leaders), and their replacement with an appointed, so-called emergency financial manager. While I maybe don't know enough and probably shouldn't speculate regarding the thread topic, if the elected leaders of my municipality were deposed as in Detroit (and a number of other Michigan cities besides), I feel I would not at all be willing to continue on with equanimity.

[Kobo-Daishi]

What was it like before when Hong Kong was under the British?

Was the governor freely elected by the people?

Was Chris Patten voted into office? Or appoint by her maj, the queen?

I think one of the major complaints from Beijing was that Patten tried to pass through a bunch of stuff when the British had agreed to keep it the same for 50 years. Rights that weren't enjoyed by the people under even British colonial rule.

Do they still have little old men living out of wire chicken coops? That's a huge embarrassment that the "face" conscious Chinese administration should do away with.

Kobo.

[gato]

I don't think what the British did is any more relevant to the question of voting rights in HK than it is to voting rights in Singapore or Austrlia.

[Kobo-Daishi]

Gato wrote:

I don't think what the British did is any more relevant to the question of voting rights in HK than it is to voting rights in Singapore or Austrlia.

You mean the UK gave Singapore and Australia back to China with the stipulation that things would remain the same for 50 years as well?

The Chief Executive of Hong Kong is the equivalent to the Governor of Hong Kong under British rule and they said nothing would be changed for 50 years.

Kobo-Daishi, PLLA.

[fanglu]

Kobo-Daishi, am I understanding your argument as being that even if Beijing wanted popular election of the chief executive, they couldn't because their agreement with the British stipulates they can not change the political system in Hong Kong for 50 years, and popular election would be a change?

If so, firstly, I doubt that the UK would have a problem with an elected chief executive.

Secondly, the wording of the joint declaration is not as strict as you make out. It says:

"The chief executive will be appointed by the Central People's Government on the basis of the results of elections or consultations to be held locally."

This would allow almost anything, from consultations with the local CCP branch, followed by appointment of whoever Beijing wanted, through to direct, popular election, followed by Beijing appointing whoever was elected.

[gato]

But what is the reasoning here? That all British policies should be kept the same?

There is the Basic Law, which is basically the constitution of HK. The crux of issue is what are "democratic procedures."

http://www.basiclaw.gov.hk/pda/en/basiclawtext/chapter_4.html

Article 45

The Chief Executive of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region shall be selected by election or through consultations held locally and be appointed by the Central People's Government.

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 nominating committee in accordance with democratic procedures.

[gato]

I think he's got a beef with the UK and wants to take it out on HK.

My point is that this has to be looked at on its own merits. What the British did is not relevant. The directly relevant document is the Basic Law. But this is more a political question than a legal one.

[Kobo-Daishi]

Hey, I hadn't read the Basic Law before or anything.

I just voiced an opinion.

I had thought it was 50 years set in stone and that they would be appointed by the Chinese government.

Fanglu wrote:

Secondly, the wording of the joint declaration is not as strict as you make out. It says:

From the joint declaration:

"The chief executive will be appointed by the Central People's Government on the basis of the results of elections or consultations to be held locally."

This would allow almost anything, from consultations with the local CCP branch, followed by appointment of whoever Beijing wanted, through to direct, popular election, followed by Beijing appointing whoever was elected.

It seems that the Chinese government still has leeway to interpret it anyway they want.

It doesn't bind them to hold elections and after holding consultations with locals they might just not accept what the locals want.

From Basic Law:

Article 45

The Chief Executive of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region shall be selected by election or through consultations held locally and be appointed by the Central People's Government.

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 nominating committee in accordance with democratic procedures.

Same as above. Not bound.

And who makes up the "broadly representative nominating committee in accordance with democratic procedures"?

I know practically nothing about Hong Kong, so, don't know who these are.

How are they selected?

I just heard that a lot of them are rich tycoons who make a lot of money from China and don't really upset the apple cart with Beijing.

And I have no beef with the UK. I watch all the British shows (Upstairs, Downstairs, I Claudius, To The Manor Born, Monty Python, Elementary, etc.) and listen to all their rock and roll stars (The Beatles, The Stones, The Who, Zep, Oasis, Bowie, etc.).

Kobo.

[fanglu]

It seems that the Chinese government still has leeway to interpret it anyway they want.

It doesn't bind them to hold elections and after holding consultations with locals they might just not accept what the locals want.

Absolutely. That's why this movement is being started - to force the Chinese government to do something they currently don't have to do legally.

[roddy]

Some thoughts...

First off, and most crucially, Kobo, nobody knows what PLLA stands for, and I think it might be appreciated if you did a bit of background reading before posting.

Continuing...

The people of Hong Kong have, by any moral measure, the right to self-determination. They are affluent, educated, and politically-savvy. If they don't have the 素质 to vote, nobody does, including me. If they want to vote for Chief Executives, let 'em. If they want to enclose the entire territory in a glass air-conditioned dome, let 'em. Frankly, they've earned the right to make their own minds up. Anyone who stands in their way is in the wrong.

The 1997 settlement treated Hong Kong shoddily, but that's irrelevant now. Laws shmaws, change 'em.

I'm dubious about the Occupy model. Nobody wants to live in a camp for very long, and you end up with the people with nowhere else to go. And you don't win support by stopping people getting to work - particularly in Hong Kong, where people really really really want to get to work. You get portrayed as a troublesome inconvenience. I'd prefer to see a Hong Kong Spring - how many people could you get marching from Victoria Park to Central on a Sunday? No small number, I suspect.

Hong Kong's an excellent demonstration of how democracy isn't just about the vote, it's about the institutions. You might not be able to choose who your Chief Exec is, but with the rule of law, a free press, an independent judiciary, the right to association and so on and so forth, you can get quite a bit done. But as I say, if they want to have the vote as well, let 'em

Topic reminded me of this, which I meant to post about at the time - discussion between five people involved in the handover. I remember it being very interesting. Not sure if it's only available in the UK.

Skylee, i'm sure I'm not alone in wanting to know what your views are. Would you occupy Central?

[skylee]

Thanks for the discussion so far.

I imagine that I would not join the movement, not because I don't support those people or their cause, but because I hate discomfort, as much as I hate to work. And I dislike the heat in July. Which also shows you that people who join protests /demonstrations in the summer months in HK are serious about what they do.

[roddy]

They should occupy a beach. I might fly to Hong Kong if they do.

[li3wei1]

It looks like they are not following the Occupy model in other countries. Those depended on more or less spontaneous, anonymous movements, coordinated flash-mob style. This is a long, slow, deliberative process, that begins by taking an oath. I.e. the authorities will know well in advance exactly who is planning to do what, where and when.

I assume there's a reason for that, and what I'm guessing is that they want to force the authorities to make a decision early on, are they going to start rounding people up for 'conspiracy to block traffic' or whatever, and look like Beijing, or are they going to let this go ahead, and a) suffer the economic consequences of a blockade and b) let the media broadcast images of this demo all over the mainland?

Judging from the education demo that Skylee referred to, and some other demos I've read about, they could mobilise enough people to occupy Central this weekend, if they wanted to. Instead, they're doing it in a slow, deliberative, transparent way. Very unlike what I've seen of the US and UK Occupy movements (which are deliberative and transparent, up to a point, but can move quickly and generally hide the identities of individuals).

[roddy]

When referring to the occupy model, I was thinking mainly of the occupation of an important bit of real estate bit. To be honest, I don't think any of your scenarios are likely - i can't see mass arrests without things having dragged on for quite some time, I think any economic impact will be minimal (have you been to Central? Even the noodle shops have their own helipads and MTR entrances), and any coverage reaching the mainland will be about 'a small number of troublemakers and those they have misled.' I could well be wrong, and we may never get to find out.

I'd like to see them go the FLG route and hand out democratic tracts to mainland tourists though.

[roddy]

Kobo, please don't post multiple off-topic posts. We're discussing Hong Kong, today, not the US, whenever. We don't need the analogies, we're smart enough to understand without them. One post at a time, coherent and concise, thank you.

[Kobo-Daishi]

Roddy wrote:

I'd like to see them go the FLG route and hand out democratic tracts to mainland tourists though.

Mainland tourists wouldn't care since most of the problems Hong Kongers have seem to be with them. Too many of them visiting, driving up property values, birth tourism, uncouth behavior, buying up baby formula, etc.

Kobo.

li3wei1 wrote:

It looks like they are not following the Occupy model in other countries. Those depended on more or less spontaneous, anonymous movements, coordinated flash-mob style. This is a long, slow, deliberative process, that begins by taking an oath. I.e. the authorities will know well in advance exactly who is planning to do what, where and when.

Agreed. They seem more like the immigration reform protest marches we had back in 2006 in the US. Planned well ahead of time. Seven years later the current Obama administration will implement them.

Though the planned HK rally will occupy Central to block roads.

Kobo.

[li3wei1]

I think any economic impact will be minimal (have you been to Central? Even the noodle shops have their own helipads and MTR entrances)

I'm not so sure about this. I used to do environmental campaigning in HK, and apparently long before I was there, the taxi drivers took umbrage to some proposed change, and did some sort of strike that snarled up the roads. The fear of something like that happening again lived on in the civil service, effectively preventing any measures that would effect the earnings of taxi drivers or minibus drivers. With enough people, you could stop not just the roads, but the ferry piers and MTR entrances. You could also stop, or significantly slow down, trams and trains going through Central, which would affect the whole line.