Occupy Central 佔領中環

[raydpratt]

First, I will admit before I start that I could be wrong.

It is being argued that China's state control of capital has been more successful than capital's control of the state, as in America. I would point out that China's success has been a direct result of free capital investment by the west, and that the west's current problems can be traced to an undisciplined and ill-eduated hillbilly who was raised to the status of president by family cronies who illicitly denied 3,000 black people the right to vote in the state of Florida. In the end, we ended up with a president who was essentially appointed to the presidency, essentially crowned as a king, by his ideologue friends on the U.S. Supreme Court instead of being elected by the public. These ideologues decided that they were smarter than democracy.

Their champion, George W. Bush, Jr., was the successful owner of an American baseball team, where the business is always more successful when it waives flags, sells hot dogs, promotes Americana, and touts the health benefits of Mom's apple pie. However, prior to when Mr. Bush found his true calling, he had gone bankrupt while owning an oil well. Money was gushing out of the ground and he went bankrupt.

After he became our president, we went bankrupt. This is not a failure of freedom, and it is not a failure of capitalism. This is a failure of democracy where the best human being wins. Or, of course, China's success is solely the result of the Great Leap Forward.

[Guest realmayo]

Or, command-capitalist economies always do well to begin with (Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin).

Edit to clarify: .... so China's recent 20-year boom should not be all that surprising. But if it falters, the alternative HK model could start looking more attractive again.

[roddy]

I would really appreciate it if we stopped using American politics as an all-purpose point of analogy and comparison. Inevitably we end up discussing American politics, which is dull beyond the telling of it, and attracting disgruntled Americans to talk about how failed their state is. It would be better if we could discuss China and Hong Kong on their own terms, or start new topics elsewhere.

[skylee]

Thank you, roddy.

[roddy]

My pleasure, Skylee.

Having read this, I think I'm changing my view a little. I was dubious about the value of damaging business, but then again, there's strong alignment between business and Beijing. Both would like the people of Hong Kong to keep quiet and make money.

Still a very high chance of it back-firing. Anyone who decides Hong Kong is too inconvenient will be welcomed with open arms in Shanghai.

[gato]

I still thinking they should try to get as much of the public on their side as possible. Holding monthly marches involving hundreds of thousands of people would be much better than relying on a small vanguard group holding the economy hostage in order to get the right to vote.

If you want to hold the economy hostage, at least do it with a general workers' strike. Relying on a small vanguard to achieve democracy seems highly questionable.

[roddy]

Agreed. The trigger-and-win-a-by-election also looks dubious.

[raydpratt]

I agree that the poitical and legal experience of the United States should not be used as a model of good or bad for Hong Kong [admin snip]And there's no need for the rest of this post[/admin snip]

[skylee]

The discussion of the Occupy Central movement and direct election of the Hong Kong Chief Executive in 2017 has been going on. Recent development included that (i) seminars / meetings for the discussion of the issues being disrupted violently (every time!) by some pro-establishment organisations, and (ii) different pro-establishment parties declaring the movement (or the proposed final action of occupying Central) illegal*, and (iii) some Mainland official meeting the Legislative Council members and saying that there is nothing wrong with setting up some screening mechanisms before an election, etc.

*It is meant to break the law.

The latest news is that in a publication issued by the Hong Kong Diocese of the Catholic Church, called 公教報, there is an article citing the support of the Hong Kong Christian Council (a protestant organisation) for universal suffrage without pre-election screening. Here are the articles -

基督教協進會促落實普選 不應預先篩選特首候選人 (公教報)

香港基督教協進會就香港政制發展的聲明

Views?

PS - That Mainland official is called 張曉明. He is called 西環小明 in some local columns. And I think the nickname is kind of cute.

[skylee]

The Hong Kong Diocese has issued a formal statement ->

http://www.catholic.org.hk/v2/en/diocesan_eng_statement_240713.pdf (English)

http://www.catholic.org.hk/v2/b5/diocesan_chi_statement_240713.pdf (Chinese)

I think it is quite bold. Is it normal, for the church?

"Citizens have the right, and indeed at times the duty, to express their just criticisms and to make related recommendations in regard to what seems harmful to the dignity of persons and the good of the community. Such right and duty are part of our civic responsibility and are fully consistent with the respect that is due to civil authority, which exists to serve the common good."

"Nevertheless, if persistent calls to correct serious injustice have not been given any positive response, or legal recourse is unavailable, or if non-democratic political structures do not allow any effective access to the normal means of redress or reform, exceptional situations can arise, in which 'civil disobedience', within certain limits, is justified."

I like this statement.

[roddy]

Thanks for keeping us up to date, Skylee. Are they still planning to occupy anything?

Edit - missed your second post.

Churches can be quite bold. I also like that statement.

[roddy]

This is apparently still bubbling along, with a recent test run. Any comment from our special correspondent in Hong Kong?

[crazy-meiguoren]

I'm not the special HK correspondent, but would like to add my own opinion on this topic.

 

I am always in favor of universal suffrage.  (Just to make it clear, my own country didn't always have it. End of parallel statement.  )

 

Suppose HK gets its right to vote.  That can still be manipulated by restricting who gets to run for office.  The government can still get its desired candidate by running their favored person against a lesser attractive candidate.  A country with a one-party political system will still get its way in any election.

 

Free elections work best when the voters can freely run for office, and the voters can choose their party as well as their candidate.

 

Just sayin'.

[Nathan Mao]

In my opinion, Rule of Law is more important than Voting.

Problem is, China doesn't have either one.  Not sure, but I'm thinking they've undermined both in Hong Kong.

[crazy-meiguoren]

 

In my opinion, Rule of Law is more important than Voting.

 

In my opinion, voting flourishes best under rule of law, especially when the law is respected.  It also helps when a country has well-established democratic institutions.  China, sad to say, doesn't have them.  It won't get them without a struggle and, once gained, will be tumultuous during the adjustment period.  Nearly all nations that make the change pay their dues that way.

 

Many movements throughout history that advanced peoples' civil rights were forced by the people to some degree.  The rulemakers aren't going to give up the status quo.  What I like about the Occupy Central movement is that there are specific people making specific pledges to meet a specific goal.  The Occupy Such-and-such movements of late didn't have that clear of an objective, creating the disorganized mess we remember all too well.

 

My one caution: beware of officials who may give an appearance of opening up dialogue but having no intentions of following through.  They may be letting 100 flowers bloom, figuratively speaking.

[roddy]

Skylee, did you vote?

[skylee]

I did not. But I encouraged others to. Many of my friends did.

I won't be joining the gathering / procession tomorrow either. But I encourage others to.

[Lu]

If I may ask: if you encouraged others to vote, it seems like you think voting is a good idea. If so, why didn't you vote yourself?

[skylee]

A. Because I was lazy.

B. I did not think it was a good idea to register my ID number in that voting system. I have used my ID/passport numbers on lesser things, like booking hotels and plane tickets. But this voting was not one of those lesser things. I think it is better to remain neutral on paper (whatever that means) because of my job.

PS - Prof Chen as mentioned in the article at #56 works with the "Chinese" University of Hong Kong.

PPS - Actually, his name is Chan Kin-man. So BBC has got both his name and his university wrong.

[skylee]

This BBC article on the white paper on Hong Kong recently released by the central government is relevant to the high turnout of the unofficial referendum -> http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-27790302

English version of the white paper - The Practice of the "One Country, Two Systems" Policy in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region

Chinese version of the white paper - 《“一國兩制”在香港特別行政區的實踐》白皮書

The extremely poor timing of releasing the white paper led people to think that it was released intentionally to intimidate HK people. And the natural response here is 官逼民反.

When I heard about the white paper on the radio, the first thought that came to my mind was that "one-country, two systems" was dead. Essentially the white paper says that we are allowed to live because the central government allows us to live, we can breathe because the central government lets us breathe. It was natural that people would react to the white paper, though probably not in the way that the central government had wanted.

And the stress on "patriotism to the country" is a joke. The sad thing is that the central government takes it very seriously. It reminds me of this article -> 給孩子的信 － 愛世界愛和平然後愛國

This article is good -> 練乙錚: 法官．愛國．變味．自殘

PS - The article is on blogspot, which is not accessible in Mainland China. I have turned it into the attached pdf file.

練乙錚 - 法官．愛國．變味．自殘.pdf