CNN: Beijing Rules Out HK Elections
Dionaea muscipula
committee has ruled out direct elections on Hong Kong chief executive
in 2007.
Democracy activists in Hong Kong sought a direct election of the
territory's chief executive in 2007 and also the lawmakers in 2008.
Under the ruling, Hong Kong will be allowed to make changes gradually
to its electoral methods.
Read more in
http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/asiapcf/04/26/hongkong.law/index.html
According to a columnist's article on China Times, "The Sadness of
Hong Kong Residents", which can be read in
http://news.chinatimes.com/Chinatimes/newslist/newslist-content/0,3546,110514+112004042700224,00.html
The resolution was passed by NPC with 156 votes "yea" and 1 vote
abstaining with no votes "nay".
charles liu
> On April 26, 2004, CNN reported that China's most powerful legislative
> committee has ruled out direct elections on Hong Kong chief executive
> in 2007.
>
> Democracy activists in Hong Kong sought a direct election of the
> territory's chief executive in 2007 and also the lawmakers in 2008.
>
> Under the ruling, Hong Kong will be allowed to make changes gradually
> to its electoral methods.
People's Congress' right to *interpret HK basic law* is legal within
the framework of 1C2S negotiated during the British reversion. If HK
wants to complain, they've had 100 years to seek independence from
Britian. Hey, Enlightened Britians had more heart than China to set HK
free, but did they? Now all of sudden they're complaining? UK had 100
years to give HK more freedom, but did they?
IMO the worst 1C2S is still good for China and HK, even the worst 1C1S
is good for China and HK - provided it's stable.
Anything is better than the chaos of letting another country bomb the
shiz out of you, leave your country incapaciated under statelessness,
society and culture in ruins; then watch them make a even bigger
effing mess out of your country in the name of false WMD accusation,
"regime change", (and my favorit) "Freedom/Liberty". Oh, then watch
them say "Opps, we didn't plan for nation building. Oh well, too bad
for you."
Look what's happening to Iraq. As it turned out US troops never had
control of Iraqi cities, and now they have to beseige them and
"retake" them again. Iraq is a frigging mess right now. Is this what
freedom loving people who charish liberty so much want for China (or
for themselves?)
Look what's happening in Afganistan. As it turned out US puppet Afgan
"president" Hamid Karzai is nothing but "mayor of Kabul" with no
control over the rest of the country. Now that Afganistan is back to
the stateless chaos it had been for 20 years - after Ronald Reagan
pumped weapon and Mujahadim jihadis in to kill the Russians - opium
production eliminated by the Taliban is back, warlordism and civil war
is back. In case you haven't been following Afganistan, some warlord
from north is marching towards Kabul to get rid of Karzai right now.
You think US have troops to spare, you think?
Is this what you people want for China???
Bill Moore
news:<bf5b18b4.04042...@posting.google.com>...
> On April 26, 2004, CNN reported that China's most powerful legislative
> committee has ruled out direct elections on Hong Kong chief executive
> in 2007.
>
> Democracy activists in Hong Kong sought a direct election of the
> territory's chief executive in 2007 and also the lawmakers in 2008.
>
> Under the ruling, Hong Kong will be allowed to make changes gradually
> to its electoral methods.
Gradually, meaning little change for 40 years or so, and then Basic Law
expires. It's frightening to think of what the CCP will do then if they
are still in power and still ruling repressively.
John
40 years is a very, very long time. Off the end of the spectrum in
terms of politics. Basically, the PRC has said it does not give a damn
what HongKong wants in terms of democracy and has abandoned the idea
of 1C2S for both HK and Taiwan. It wants to rule the way it wants and
has no concern for others whatsoever.
Bill Moore
Yes, that's the point. "Gradual" change really means no change that the
PRC doesn't approve.
charles liu
I can say this with great certainty that you have not been to China.
Man, take trip and open your eyes.
"Gradual" means what John said - 40 years is a very, very long time -
so what's the hurry? China's political reform have come a long way,
even in the last 20, 10, 5 years. And PRC's only been around for 50
some years. Let me remind you when USA was 50 years young, she was
enslaving Africans and genocidally eliminating the Native Americans.
China's schedule is up up for negotiation between 1.2 billion Chinese
(including HKer). It's not up to you, and certainly not up to some
ex-colonial aggressor who'd done sh*t about HK's political freedom in
100 years of billigierent occupation.
Heck, UK didn't even see fit to give these poor bastards who were born
under UK rule passports. They are not proper UK subjects - just bunch
of effing ch*nks.
charles liu
Who doesn't do that? Ah Bian gives a damn about societal harmony when
he started his "Taiwan(BSR) First" propaganda to incite ethnic
differences?
US doesn't rule the way it wants whenever it sends carrier fleets to
"exert American sovereignty through out the world" (quote from lauch
ceremony of SS Ronald Reagan, the latest nuclear carrier)?
Think GW Bush gave a damn about the poor Iraqis when making up false
WMD accusation so he can avenge for his father?
Think Dick Cheny gave a damn about China's sovereign rights to
regulate China's own bandwidth when he forced China to make
concessions, so Intel can import out-dated swiss-cheese wifi to China;
and fractured celleular mfgs can invade China with all kinds of
different "standards" (I wonder what would Intel say if China adopted
208.11g - Intel doesn't even support current generation of IEEE.)
What's next, Dick Cheney going to Japan and force Japanese to drop
their mad cow testing standard, so US mad cow beef can be imported?
He's one powerful MoFu, remember he's the one fabricated the yellow
cake uranium sale to Iraq?
Guru Google
John steered the thread to taiwan newsgroups and now I steer them back
to china newsgroups.
Tell this to HK residents. They don't care what USA think, what UK
think. They want their own life and elect their own chief executive
and legislators.
I can say this with great certainty that you have not been to HK. Man,
Guru Google
> > > expires. It's frightening to think of what the CCP will do then if they
> > > are still in power and still ruling repressively.
> >
> > 40 years is a very, very long time. Off the end of the spectrum in
> > terms of politics. Basically, the PRC has said it does not give a damn
> > what HongKong wants in terms of democracy and has abandoned the idea
> > of 1C2S for both HK and Taiwan. It wants to rule the way it wants and
> > has no concern for others whatsoever.
>
> Who doesn't do that? Ah Bian gives a damn about societal harmony when
> he started his "Taiwan(BSR) First" propaganda to incite ethnic
> differences?
Regardless of ethnic differences, Taiwanese don't accept 1C2S for
sure. That's what your CCP leaders can never see and never willing to
accept in their self denials.
(Criticism on US snipped cuz they are irelevant here).
Bill Moore
And say what you will about the British, but they cared
about freedom for the people of Hong King a whole lot more
than the CCP does.
Chris Blunt
wrote:
Just as China doesn't see fit to give passports to those born under
Chinese rule, but who are not ethnically Chinese.
Sorry, but can you explain how any of this justifies not allowing Hong
Kong people to choose their leader?
Bill Moore
charles liu
Just as I suspected - you've never been to China have you? Take my
advise and go visit China, it'll be a real eye opener for ya.
LT Lee
The current decision does not entail the finality envisioned by the
western media. Hong Kongers want direct election. China says it has
risk and needs to go slow. In realtiy, high ranking Hong Kong official
also said that Hong Kong currently does not have the cultural
infrastructure to make direct election meaningful.
1C2S does not mean 2C2S under which each can do whatever it wants.
Rather, it means both sides need to bargain and will continue to
bargain over many issues. The important thing to remeber is that long
term relation between China and Hong Kong is win-win.
Bill Moore
I see you're taking a page from the CCP handbook. Just keep
repeating something and it becomes true.
>Take my
>advise and go visit China, it'll be a real eye opener for ya.
The fundamental problem is that Hong Kong has been a free society
for quite a while now and the CCP doesn't have much experience with
that. They may not really understand how much they're upsetting the
people of Hong Kong. Or how much they're impacting the opinions of
Taiwan, another free society (much freer than China but not as free as
Hong Kong) regarding 1C2S.
Guru Google
> In article <1a73ee29.04042...@posting.google.com>,
> charles liu <charl...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> >> And say what you will about the British, but they cared
> >> about freedom for the people of Hong King a whole lot more
> >> than the CCP does.
> >
> >Just as I suspected - you've never been to China have you?
>
> I see you're taking a page from the CCP handbook. Just keep
> repeating something and it becomes true.
Another way to put it is, if Charles Liu insist you gonna to China or
HK to have comments on HK elections, from now on Charles Liu would
stop saying anything about Iraq and Afghanistan in this newsgroup
unless he go to Iraq and Afghanistan.
> >Take my
> >advise and go visit China, it'll be a real eye opener for ya.
>
> The fundamental problem is that Hong Kong has been a free society
> for quite a while now and the CCP doesn't have much experience with
> that. They may not really understand how much they're upsetting the
> people of Hong Kong. Or how much they're impacting the opinions of
> Taiwan, another free society (much freer than China but not as free as
> Hong Kong) regarding 1C2S.
Before this move already few Taiwanese buy the 1C2S story, no matter
if they are for status quo or independence. After this move even fewer
are considering that -- but this is only the difference between 10ppm
and 6ppm. Hehe.
Bill Moore
Guru Google <goor...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>bmo...@blackhole.nyx.net (Bill Moore) wrote in message
>news:<10833415...@irys.nyx.net>...
>> In article <1a73ee29.04042...@posting.google.com>,
>> charles liu <charl...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>> >> And say what you will about the British, but they cared
>> >> about freedom for the people of Hong King a whole lot more
>> >> than the CCP does.
>> >
>> >Just as I suspected - you've never been to China have you?
>>
>> I see you're taking a page from the CCP handbook. Just keep
>> repeating something and it becomes true.
>
>Another way to put it is, if Charles Liu insist you gonna to China or
>HK to have comments on HK elections, from now on Charles Liu would
>stop saying anything about Iraq and Afghanistan in this newsgroup
>unless he go to Iraq and Afghanistan.
I've been to China and Hong Kong and lived in Taiwan for a while.
>
>> >Take my
>> >advise and go visit China, it'll be a real eye opener for ya.
>>
>> The fundamental problem is that Hong Kong has been a free society
>> for quite a while now and the CCP doesn't have much experience with
>> that. They may not really understand how much they're upsetting the
>> people of Hong Kong. Or how much they're impacting the opinions of
>> Taiwan, another free society (much freer than China but not as free as
>> Hong Kong) regarding 1C2S.
>
>Before this move already few Taiwanese buy the 1C2S story, no matter
>if they are for status quo or independence. After this move even fewer
>are considering that -- but this is only the difference between 10ppm
>and 6ppm. Hehe.
So basically, the few Taiwanese who had considered the possibility of
1C2S are joining the huge majority who refuse to accept CCP rule.
Guru Google
> In article <d4ba29e9.04043...@posting.google.com>,
> Guru Google <goor...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> I see you're taking a page from the CCP handbook. Just keep
> >> repeating something and it becomes true.
> >
> >Another way to put it is, if Charles Liu insist you gonna to China or
> >HK to have comments on HK elections, from now on Charles Liu would
> >stop saying anything about Iraq and Afghanistan in this newsgroup
> >unless he go to Iraq and Afghanistan.
>
> I've been to China and Hong Kong and lived in Taiwan for a while.
I don't think this matter but some people insist this. Anyway, let's
see whether next time Charles Liu is gonna say something about US in
Iraq before he went to Iraq. If he did, then his argument on others'
been to China before commenting China falls.
> >> The fundamental problem is that Hong Kong has been a free society
> >> for quite a while now and the CCP doesn't have much experience with
> >> that. They may not really understand how much they're upsetting the
> >> people of Hong Kong. Or how much they're impacting the opinions of
> >> Taiwan, another free society (much freer than China but not as free as
> >> Hong Kong) regarding 1C2S.
> >
> >Before this move already few Taiwanese buy the 1C2S story, no matter
> >if they are for status quo or independence. After this move even fewer
> >are considering that -- but this is only the difference between 10ppm
> >and 6ppm. Hehe.
>
> So basically, the few Taiwanese who had considered the possibility of
> 1C2S are joining the huge majority who refuse to accept CCP rule.
HK is before their eyes -- what happens to HK now is what happens to
Taiwan if Taiwan accepts 1C2S. Hehe, now HK still want to continue the
show to Taiwan audience and they got the result of 1C and farther and
farther from 2S. The show for Taiwan don't need to show anyone else
and the situation can only be worse.
john
"Guru Google" <goor...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:d4ba29e9.0404...@posting.google.com...
So what is the result of 1C2S in Hongkong ? In term of political change
did Hongkong people have a say in who is going to be their governor
general when HongKong was a british colony, most of hongkong people
still enjoy the same level of freedom as they had before 1997. To average
Hong Kong people their life did not change much after 1997.
Guru Google
> > Taiwan if Taiwan accepts 1C2S. Hehe, now HK still want to continue the
> > show to Taiwan audience and they got the result of 1C and farther and
> > farther from 2S. The show for Taiwan don't need to show anyone else
> > and the situation can only be worse.
>
> So what is the result of 1C2S in Hongkong ? In term of political change
> did Hongkong people have a say in who is going to be their governor
> general when HongKong was a british colony, most of hongkong people
> still enjoy the same level of freedom as they had before 1997. To average
> Hong Kong people their life did not change much after 1997.
You're definitely right.
But I would guess before 1997 on media you can read things blaming KMT
in Taiwan, cursing CCP in mainland China, and tabloids exposing
scandals of the british royal family.
After 1997 it seems all different voices melt into one voice. Maybe
that's the diff?
Guru Google
> > >under UK rule passports. They are not proper UK subjects - just bunch
> > >of effing ch*nks.
> >
> > Just as China doesn't see fit to give passports to those born under
> > Chinese rule, but who are not ethnically Chinese.
> >
> > Sorry, but can you explain how any of this justifies not allowing Hong
> > Kong people to choose their leader?
>
> The current decision does not entail the finality envisioned by the
> western media. Hong Kongers want direct election. China says it has
> risk and needs to go slow. In realtiy, high ranking Hong Kong official
> also said that Hong Kong currently does not have the cultural
> infrastructure to make direct election meaningful.
And these "high ranking Hong Kong official" are exactly the batch of
officials HK people's direct election wanna get rid of.....
> 1C2S does not mean 2C2S under which each can do whatever it wants.
> Rather, it means both sides need to bargain and will continue to
> bargain over many issues. The important thing to remeber is that long
> term relation between China and Hong Kong is win-win.
There's no need to bargain. Beijing's words count, and tell us what
was HK people bargaining for and they get it.
LT Lee
> ltl...@hotmail.com (LT Lee) wrote in message news:<5eb15984.04043...@posting.google.com>...
> > Chris Blunt <chris...@despammed.com> wrote in message news:<u6k390p30fl0gkjv1...@4ax.com>...
> > > >Heck, UK didn't even see fit to give these poor bastards who were born
> > > >under UK rule passports. They are not proper UK subjects - just bunch
> > > >of effing ch*nks.
> > >
> > > Just as China doesn't see fit to give passports to those born under
> > > Chinese rule, but who are not ethnically Chinese.
> > >
> > > Sorry, but can you explain how any of this justifies not allowing Hong
> > > Kong people to choose their leader?
> >
> > The current decision does not entail the finality envisioned by the
> > western media. Hong Kongers want direct election. China says it has
> > risk and needs to go slow. In realtiy, high ranking Hong Kong official
> > also said that Hong Kong currently does not have the cultural
> > infrastructure to make direct election meaningful.
>
> And these "high ranking Hong Kong official" are exactly the batch of
> officials HK people's direct election wanna get rid of.....
May be. But it is for the Hong Kong people to decide. Haven't heard
anything about getting rid of him. BTW, do you know who this high
ranking Hong Kong official I am talking about?
> > 1C2S does not mean 2C2S under which each can do whatever it wants.
> > Rather, it means both sides need to bargain and will continue to
> > bargain over many issues. The important thing to remeber is that long
> > term relation between China and Hong Kong is win-win.
>
> There's no need to bargain. Beijing's words count, and tell us what
> was HK people bargaining for and they get it.
They can wish for anything. They may or may not get what they want. It
is a matter of whether such wish will bring win-win between Hong Kong
and China. The same apply to Taiwan. Some Taiwanese want Taiwan
independence, but Taniwan can never achieve independence unless it can
work out a win-win solution with China.
Guru Google
> > > western media. Hong Kongers want direct election. China says it has
> > > risk and needs to go slow. In realtiy, high ranking Hong Kong official
> > > also said that Hong Kong currently does not have the cultural
> > > infrastructure to make direct election meaningful.
> >
> > And these "high ranking Hong Kong official" are exactly the batch of
> > officials HK people's direct election wanna get rid of.....
>
> May be. But it is for the Hong Kong people to decide.
Never know LT Lee supports HK people to vote their chief executive.
> Haven't heard
> anything about getting rid of him.
Check Tung's supporting rate.
> BTW, do you know who this high
> ranking Hong Kong official I am talking about?
Who cares. Whoever he is, my comments apply.
> > > 1C2S does not mean 2C2S under which each can do whatever it wants.
> > > Rather, it means both sides need to bargain and will continue to
> > > bargain over many issues. The important thing to remeber is that long
> > > term relation between China and Hong Kong is win-win.
> >
> > There's no need to bargain. Beijing's words count, and tell us what
> > was HK people bargaining for and they get it.
>
> They can wish for anything. They may or may not get what they want. It
> is a matter of whether such wish will bring win-win between Hong Kong
> and China. The same apply to Taiwan. Some Taiwanese want Taiwan
> independence, but Taniwan can never achieve independence unless it can
> work out a win-win solution with China.
Anything with China has to be a win for China, or she cries. She don't
care whether others win or lose. Sounds like a toddler, doesn't it?
LT Lee
> ltl...@hotmail.com (LT Lee) wrote in message news:<5eb15984.04050...@posting.google.com>...
> > goor...@yahoo.com (Guru Google) wrote in message news:<d4ba29e9.0405...@posting.google.com>...
> > > > The current decision does not entail the finality envisioned by the
> > > > western media. Hong Kongers want direct election. China says it has
> > > > risk and needs to go slow. In realtiy, high ranking Hong Kong official
> > > > also said that Hong Kong currently does not have the cultural
> > > > infrastructure to make direct election meaningful.
> > >
> > > And these "high ranking Hong Kong official" are exactly the batch of
> > > officials HK people's direct election wanna get rid of.....
> >
> > May be. But it is for the Hong Kong people to decide.
>
> Never know LT Lee supports HK people to vote their chief executive.
Not surprised. You don't me.
> > Haven't heard
> > anything about getting rid of him.
>
> Check Tung's supporting rate.
First of all, I am not talking about Tung. Secondly, if you know Hong
Kong, you know that Tung was the least liked among Hong Kong
officials.
> > BTW, do you know who this high
> > ranking Hong Kong official I am talking about?
>
> Who cares. Whoever he is, my comments apply.
Sure. It is certainly your right to comment from a position of
ignorance.
Guru Google
> > > May be. But it is for the Hong Kong people to decide.
> >
> > Never know LT Lee supports HK people to vote their chief executive.
>
> Not surprised. You don't me.
I don't wanna do you. :P
> > > Haven't heard
> > > anything about getting rid of him.
> >
> > Check Tung's supporting rate.
>
> First of all, I am not talking about Tung.
Then you can specify who you're talking about (and he/she gotta has a
higher supporting rate than Tung).
> Secondly, if you know Hong
> Kong, you know that Tung was the least liked among Hong Kong
> officials.
And he was the one supported the most by Beijing.
> > > BTW, do you know who this high
> > > ranking Hong Kong official I am talking about?
> >
> > Who cares. Whoever he is, my comments apply.
>
> Sure. It is certainly your right to comment from a position of
> ignorance.
And it is certainly your right to call anyone else different from you
ignorance. :-)
charles liu
Thank you, it's so obvious UK is bitter because it had to relinquish
colonial spoil. They should take care of their own shit like Northern
Ireland. As I recall Northern Irish assembly is shutdown - if HK Legco
is shutdown?
As to how this affects Taiwan - it shouldn't. ROC has its own
unification policy based on principles of parity, equity, preservation
of values. When PRC can meet these prerequsits, it's time to talk.
Until then, 中華民國萬歲!
Guru Google
> "john" <jli...@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message news:<krPkc.345$Iq5....@nnrp1.ozemail.com.au>...
> > "Guru Google" <goor...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > > Taiwan if Taiwan accepts 1C2S. Hehe, now HK still want to continue the
> > > show to Taiwan audience and they got the result of 1C and farther and
> > > farther from 2S. The show for Taiwan don't need to show anyone else
> > > and the situation can only be worse.
> >
> > So what is the result of 1C2S in Hongkong ? In term of political change
> > did Hongkong people have a say in who is going to be their governor
> > general when HongKong was a british colony, most of hongkong people
> > still enjoy the same level of freedom as they had before 1997. To average
> > Hong Kong people their life did not change much after 1997.
>
> Thank you, it's so obvious UK is bitter because it had to relinquish
> colonial spoil. They should take care of their own shit like Northern
> Ireland.
Afte LT Lee, now Charles Liu believe HK should vote their own legco.
Amazing.
> As I recall Northern Irish assembly is shutdown - if HK Legco
> is shutdown?
>
> As to how this affects Taiwan - it shouldn't. ROC has its own
> unification policy based on principles of parity, equity, preservation
> of values. When PRC can meet these prerequsits, it's time to talk.
> Until then, 中華民國萬歲!
No need to until then. Now 1C2S don't sell in Taiwan after ROC people
witness what happen to 1C2S in HK.
Mak Lo
Well that's really your own speculation.
I live in HK. People who actually live here permanently don't fear
the Chinese Central Government as you do. It's a gradual process, but
Hong Kong citizens are accepting the fact that they are Chinese as
well.
Ben
teach democracy or implement democracy for those long period of time in the
city of Hongkong. Moreover, Hongkong people don't know that there is no
democracy in city of London. The Governor of city of London isn't from
election.
There is perfect democracy for city of London in England when it is the same
for the city of Hongkong in China.
"Mak Lo" <makl...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:d0c31672.04051...@posting.google.com...
Guru Google
> Hongkong people were under English rule for such a long time. They didn't
> teach democracy or implement democracy for those long period of time in the
> city of Hongkong. Moreover, Hongkong people don't know that there is no
> democracy in city of London. The Governor of city of London isn't from
> election.
Why should they care what happens to London? Hongkong residents want
to be able to pick their own chief executive and their legislators.
> There is perfect democracy for city of London in England when it is the same
> for the city of Hongkong in China.
Tell that to Hongkong citizens.
>
>
> "Mak Lo" <makl...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:d0c31672.04051...@posting.google.com...
> > bmo...@blackhole.nyx.net (Bill Moore) wrote in message
> news:<10830909...@irys.nyx.net>...
> > > Gradually, meaning little change for 40 years or so, and then Basic Law
> > > expires. It's frightening to think of what the CCP will do then if they
> > > are still in power and still ruling repressively.
> >
> > Well that's really your own speculation.
Didn't you speculate too?
> > I live in HK. People who actually live here permanently don't fear
> > the Chinese Central Government as you do. It's a gradual process, but
> > Hong Kong citizens are accepting the fact that they are Chinese as
> > well.
Hong Kong citizens accept the fact that they are Chinese -- TRUE.
They are satisified with this Chinese party to rule them -- FALSE.
Mak Lo
> >40 years is a very, very long time. Off the end of the spectrum in
> >terms of politics. Basically, the PRC has said it does not give a damn
> >what HongKong wants in terms of democracy and has abandoned the idea
> >of 1C2S for both HK and Taiwan. It wants to rule the way it wants and
> >has no concern for others whatsoever.
>
> Yes, that's the point. "Gradual" change really means no change that the
> PRC doesn't approve.
Please let me step in here and clarify that according to the original
handover terms between the U.K. and China, what was agreed was the
maintenance of the "status quo". China never promised to give Hong
Kong a full democracy. They did, however, allow Hong Kongers to push
for a gradual path towards democracy.
China is NOT afraid of democracy. However, the issues surrounding
political change in HK/China are far more complicated and really
require serious time thought. You cannot think of Hong Kong in an
isolated context and demand certain things without considering the
fact that it is also an integrated (more and more by the day) part of
China. And eventually will be a fully integrated part of China.
Mak Lo
> In article <d4ba29e9.04042...@posting.google.com>,
> Guru Google <goor...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >charl...@my-deja.com (charles liu) wrote in message
> >news:<1a73ee29.04042...@posting.google.com>...
> >> "Gradual" means what John said - 40 years is a very, very long time -
> >> so what's the hurry? China's political reform have come a long way,
> >> even in the last 20, 10, 5 years. And PRC's only been around for 50
> >> some years. Let me remind you when USA was 50 years young, she was
> >> enslaving Africans and genocidally eliminating the Native Americans.
> >>
> >> China's schedule is up up for negotiation between 1.2 billion Chinese
> >> (including HKer). It's not up to you, and certainly not up to some
> >> ex-colonial aggressor who'd done sh*t about HK's political freedom in
> >> 100 years of billigierent occupation.
> >>
> >> Heck, UK didn't even see fit to give these poor bastards who were born
> >> under UK rule passports. They are not proper UK subjects - just bunch
> >> of effing ch*nks.
> >
> >Tell this to HK residents. They don't care what USA think, what UK
> >think. They want their own life and elect their own chief executive
> >and legislators.
>
> And say what you will about the British, but they cared
> about freedom for the people of Hong King a whole lot more
> than the CCP does.
Why? Because the British are good and Chinese evil? I don't buy it.
I've lived and worked in HK for three years now and I can say with a
high degree of confidence that HKers, even those pushing for
democratic reform, would rather be ruled by Chinese than British.
Guru Google
> bmo...@blackhole.nyx.net (Bill Moore) wrote in message news:<10831659...@irys.nyx.net>...
>
> > >40 years is a very, very long time. Off the end of the spectrum in
> > >terms of politics. Basically, the PRC has said it does not give a damn
> > >what HongKong wants in terms of democracy and has abandoned the idea
> > >of 1C2S for both HK and Taiwan. It wants to rule the way it wants and
> > >has no concern for others whatsoever.
> >
> > Yes, that's the point. "Gradual" change really means no change that the
> > PRC doesn't approve.
>
> Please let me step in here and clarify that according to the original
> handover terms between the U.K. and China, what was agreed was the
> maintenance of the "status quo". China never promised to give Hong
> Kong a full democracy. They did, however, allow Hong Kongers to push
> for a gradual path towards democracy.
CCP has no problem to allow Hong Kongers to push on a stone wall.
> China is NOT afraid of democracy. However, the issues surrounding
> political change in HK/China are far more complicated and really
> require serious time thought. You cannot think of Hong Kong in an
> isolated context and demand certain things without considering the
> fact that it is also an integrated (more and more by the day) part of
> China. And eventually will be a fully integrated part of China.
So just throw away "2 system" and kick in "1 China". why keep the phrase now?
Guru Google
> > >think. They want their own life and elect their own chief executive
> > >and legislators.
> >
> > And say what you will about the British, but they cared
> > about freedom for the people of Hong King a whole lot more
> > than the CCP does.
>
> Why? Because the British are good and Chinese evil? I don't buy it.
Do you equate CCP with Chinese? In the above only CCP is usedbut not Chinese.
> I've lived and worked in HK for three years now and I can say with a
> high degree of confidence that HKers, even those pushing for
> democratic reform, would rather be ruled by Chinese than British.
But they prefered to be ruled by the Chinese they pick rather than CCP.
Mak Lo
> > Please let me step in here and clarify that according to the original
> > handover terms between the U.K. and China, what was agreed was the
> > maintenance of the "status quo". China never promised to give Hong
> > Kong a full democracy. They did, however, allow Hong Kongers to push
> > for a gradual path towards democracy.
>
> CCP has no problem to allow Hong Kongers to push on a stone wall.
HKers can elect a larger percentage of Legco than they could ever
under British colonial rule. The prime minister of the UK picked Hong
Kong's governor.
Let me reiterate. China *never* promised democracy to Hong Kong as
part of the handover agreement.
> > China is NOT afraid of democracy. However, the issues surrounding
> > political change in HK/China are far more complicated and really
> > require serious time thought. You cannot think of Hong Kong in an
> > isolated context and demand certain things without considering the
> > fact that it is also an integrated (more and more by the day) part of
> > China. And eventually will be a fully integrated part of China.
>
> So just throw away "2 system" and kick in "1 China". why keep the phrase now?
Because they are two vastly different systems. This is fairly
obvious.
Mak Lo
> > bmo...@blackhole.nyx.net (Bill Moore) wrote in message news:<10832858...@irys.nyx.net>...
> > > And say what you will about the British, but they cared
> > > about freedom for the people of Hong King a whole lot more
> > > than the CCP does.
> >
> > Why? Because the British are good and Chinese evil? I don't buy it.
>
> Do you equate CCP with Chinese? In the above only CCP is usedbut not Chinese.
I shall rephrase. China and its central governments incentives are
much more in line with Hong Kong than the UK and its parliament.
> > I've lived and worked in HK for three years now and I can say with a
> > high degree of confidence that HKers, even those pushing for
> > democratic reform, would rather be ruled by Chinese than British.
>
> But they prefered to be ruled by the Chinese they pick rather than CCP.
Maybe. But that has nothing to do with this thread.
Guru Google
> goor...@yahoo.com (Guru Google) wrote in message news:<d4ba29e9.04051...@posting.google.com>...
> > makl...@yahoo.com (Mak Lo) wrote in message news:<d0c31672.04051...@posting.google.com>...
>
> > > Please let me step in here and clarify that according to the original
> > > handover terms between the U.K. and China, what was agreed was the
> > > maintenance of the "status quo". China never promised to give Hong
> > > Kong a full democracy. They did, however, allow Hong Kongers to push
> > > for a gradual path towards democracy.
> >
> > CCP has no problem to allow Hong Kongers to push on a stone wall.
>
> HKers can elect a larger percentage of Legco than they could ever
> under British colonial rule. The prime minister of the UK picked Hong
> Kong's governor.
HKers don't care what compared with British rule. They know what they
want NOW.
> Let me reiterate. China *never* promised democracy to Hong Kong as
> part of the handover agreement.
Let me reiterate. CCP promised nothing to Chinese people either and
yet some Chinese people want more democracy and some Chinese people
wanna reform.
What you have promised people is not equal to what people want.
> > > China is NOT afraid of democracy. However, the issues surrounding
> > > political change in HK/China are far more complicated and really
> > > require serious time thought. You cannot think of Hong Kong in an
> > > isolated context and demand certain things without considering the
> > > fact that it is also an integrated (more and more by the day) part of
> > > China. And eventually will be a fully integrated part of China.
> >
> > So just throw away "2 system" and kick in "1 China". why keep the phrase now?
>
> Because they are two vastly different systems. This is fairly
> obvious.
So vastly different that one system can decide how the chief executive
is generated for the other system?
Guru Google
> >
> > Do you equate CCP with Chinese? In the above only CCP is usedbut not Chinese.
>
> I shall rephrase. China and its central governments incentives are
> much more in line with Hong Kong than the UK and its parliament.
Hong Kong people don't care what happened in 1996 nor 1897. They live
in 2004 now.
> > > I've lived and worked in HK for three years now and I can say with a
> > > high degree of confidence that HKers, even those pushing for
> > > democratic reform, would rather be ruled by Chinese than British.
> >
> > But they prefered to be ruled by the Chinese they pick rather than CCP.
>
> Maybe. But that has nothing to do with this thread.
Yes. Your argument centered around the one that Hong Kong residents
got a better deal from Chinese than from British. Maybe, maybe not.
But they wanna something CCP don't wanna give them. The hidden
assumption in your argument is "CCP = Chinese" and "Chinese = CCP".
Hong Kong people can vote in a chief executive and legislators, and
all of them are Chinese. These Chinese can give them something better
than the British gave them, and these Chinese don't have to be CCP nor
follow CCP order.
Mak Lo
> > I shall rephrase. China and its central governments incentives are
> > much more in line with Hong Kong than the UK and its parliament.
>
> Hong Kong people don't care what happened in 1996 nor 1897. They live
> in 2004 now.
The post I responded to was: "And say what you will about the British,
but they cared about freedom for the people of Hong King a whole lot
more than the CCP does." My responses have been very relevant.
Before you go into your knee-jerk reactions and post things out of
context, you should actually read these posts more carefully.
> > > > I've lived and worked in HK for three years now and I can say with a
> > > > high degree of confidence that HKers, even those pushing for
> > > > democratic reform, would rather be ruled by Chinese than British.
> > >
> > > But they prefered to be ruled by the Chinese they pick rather than CCP.
> >
> > Maybe. But that has nothing to do with this thread.
>
> Yes. Your argument centered around the one that Hong Kong residents
> got a better deal from Chinese than from British. Maybe, maybe not.
> But they wanna something CCP don't wanna give them. The hidden
> assumption in your argument is "CCP = Chinese" and "Chinese = CCP".
>
> Hong Kong people can vote in a chief executive and legislators, and
> all of them are Chinese. These Chinese can give them something better
> than the British gave them, and these Chinese don't have to be CCP nor
> follow CCP order.
You're reading a little too much into my thread and drawing incorrect
inferences based on (presumably) your own preconceived assumptions.
It is fairly obvious that the CCP is a government party while Chinese
is a term describing ethnicity - as it is fairly obvious you are
trying to draw me into arguing for a position I pretty clear did not
take. Sorry I'm not going to bite.
Mak Lo
> makl...@yahoo.com (Mak Lo) wrote in message news:<d0c31672.0405...@posting.google.com>...
> > HKers can elect a larger percentage of Legco than they could ever
> > under British colonial rule. The prime minister of the UK picked Hong
> > Kong's governor.
>
> HKers don't care what compared with British rule. They know what they want
> NOW.
Firstly, what gives you the right to state what HKers care and don't
care about?
Secondly, People want a lot of things. I want a 70-foot yacht and
HK$50,000/year berth in Aberdeen. The point is, you can't have
everything. And if you can't have everything, then you gotta
prioritize. My view -- and this is based on living and working in
Hong Kong and China for the past three years -- is that there are a
lot more important issues to HK people then the ability to go to the
polls every four years and elect the governor-general. Issues like:
1) shit, i can't afford my mortgage which is higher than the value of
my property
2) damnit, civil service wages haven't risen in like six years
3) fuck, all those low-wage mainland chinese mofos are stealing our
jobs and depressing wages
I have nothing against the idea of elections -- but I do have a
general understanding of why the Chinese central government has not
allowed it as yet. And honestly, I don't think that HKers really care
that much.
> > Let me reiterate. China *never* promised democracy to Hong Kong as
> > part of the handover agreement.
>
> Let me reiterate. CCP promised nothing to Chinese people either and
> yet some Chinese people want more democracy and some Chinese people
> wanna reform.
>
> What you have promised people is not equal to what people want.
That's nice. But there's a whole contingent of people who are
accusing China of going against its promises to Hong Kong when in
fact, it has NOT.
> > > So just throw away "2 system" and kick in "1 China". why keep the phrase now?
> >
> > Because they are two vastly different systems. This is fairly
> > obvious.
>
> So vastly different that one system can decide how the chief executive
> is generated for the other system?
This shows just how little you understand what "one country, two
systems" means. If you ever took the opportunity to step foot in Hong
Kong and then took a bus over to Shenzhen and then took a car into a
small city outside the SEZ, you would know how vastly different the
systems are.
You seem to have an idea of what "1c2s" *should* mean in, and --
correct me if I'm wrong -- but it's basically about one thing and that
one thing is how you elect your leader. Now I don't profess to be an
expert on this subject, but what I've gleaned from own study of the
issue essentially boils down to a few key principles:
1) Hong Kong is a part of China - the "1 country" part, simple enough
2) Hong Kong is vastly different from the rest of China and will be
allowed to remain different, except that China is allowed to provide
for the military and some other services that national governments
usually provide.
And the most important implication about point #2 is that the way of
life in HK will not be substantially changed for a substantial amount
of time (presumably, and this is my own view, until the rest of China
"catches up" or at least gets much closer i.e. the 50 years, and this
was based on Deng Xiaopeng's estimate I believe). That means that
from a practical daily life perspective, your taxes are not going to
suddenly go up, no one is going to suddenly take your flat away, you
won't suddenly lose your job, there won't be an influx of mainland
chinese immigrants overwhelming the city, etc. etc. etc.
But if you want to think the main driver behind 1C2S is electing your
governor, well all I can say is that each person is entitled to their
own views and interpretations ...
Guru Google
> goor...@yahoo.com (Guru Google) wrote in message news:<d4ba29e9.04052...@posting.google.com>...
> > makl...@yahoo.com (Mak Lo) wrote in message news:<d0c31672.0405...@posting.google.com>...
>
> > > HKers can elect a larger percentage of Legco than they could ever
> > > under British colonial rule. The prime minister of the UK picked Hong
> > > Kong's governor.
> >
> > HKers don't care what compared with British rule. They know what they want
> > NOW.
>
> Firstly, what gives you the right to state what HKers care and don't
> care about?
The person who gives you the right to say "HKers can elect ..." gives
me the right to state what HKers care and don't care about. :P
> Secondly, People want a lot of things. I want a 70-foot yacht and
> HK$50,000/year berth in Aberdeen. The point is, you can't have
> everything. And if you can't have everything, then you gotta
> prioritize. My view -- and this is based on living and working in
> Hong Kong and China for the past three years -- is that there are a
> lot more important issues to HK people then the ability to go to the
> polls every four years and elect the governor-general. Issues like:
>
> 1) shit, i can't afford my mortgage which is higher than the value of
> my property
> 2) damnit, civil service wages haven't risen in like six years
> 3) fuck, all those low-wage mainland chinese mofos are stealing our
> jobs and depressing wages
>
> I have nothing against the idea of elections -- but I do have a
> general understanding of why the Chinese central government has not
> allowed it as yet. And honestly, I don't think that HKers really care
> that much.
Thanks for telling what you want and what you don't want. But how
about the HKers who demonstrated to show what they want?
> > > Let me reiterate. China *never* promised democracy to Hong Kong as
> > > part of the handover agreement.
> >
> > Let me reiterate. CCP promised nothing to Chinese people either and
> > yet some Chinese people want more democracy and some Chinese people
> > wanna reform.
> >
> > What you have promised people is not equal to what people want.
>
> That's nice. But there's a whole contingent of people who are
> accusing China of going against its promises to Hong Kong when in
> fact, it has NOT.
So what? What do you wanna tell the HKers who walked to streets and
wanna elect their own chief executive and legislators?
> > > Because they are two vastly different systems. This is fairly
> > > obvious.
> >
> > So vastly different that one system can decide how the chief executive
> > is generated for the other system?
>
> This shows just how little you understand what "one country, two
> systems" means. If you ever took the opportunity to step foot in Hong
> Kong and then took a bus over to Shenzhen and then took a car into a
> small city outside the SEZ, you would know how vastly different the
> systems are.
Sounds like you have a Ph. D thesis on "one country two systems"
is.... Haha.
> You seem to have an idea of what "1c2s" *should* mean in, and --
> correct me if I'm wrong -- but it's basically about one thing and that
> one thing is how you elect your leader. Now I don't profess to be an
> expert on this subject, but what I've gleaned from own study of the
> issue essentially boils down to a few key principles:
>
> 1) Hong Kong is a part of China - the "1 country" part, simple enough
> 2) Hong Kong is vastly different from the rest of China and will be
> allowed to remain different, except that China is allowed to provide
> for the military and some other services that national governments
> usually provide.
>
> And the most important implication about point #2 is that the way of
> life in HK will not be substantially changed for a substantial amount
> of time (presumably, and this is my own view, until the rest of China
> "catches up" or at least gets much closer i.e. the 50 years, and this
> was based on Deng Xiaopeng's estimate I believe). That means that
> from a practical daily life perspective, your taxes are not going to
> suddenly go up, no one is going to suddenly take your flat away, you
> won't suddenly lose your job, there won't be an influx of mainland
> chinese immigrants overwhelming the city, etc. etc. etc.
Sure, sure, sure. Anyway, now some HKers wanna elect their chief
executive and legislators. What do you have to tell them?
> But if you want to think the main driver behind 1C2S is electing your
> governor, well all I can say is that each person is entitled to their
> own views and interpretations ...
And these HKers, I forgot how many hundred thousands of them, are
entitled to their opinions too.
Guru Google
> goor...@yahoo.com (Guru Google) wrote in message news:<d4ba29e9.04052...@posting.google.com>...
>
> > > I shall rephrase. China and its central governments incentives are
> > > much more in line with Hong Kong than the UK and its parliament.
> >
> > Hong Kong people don't care what happened in 1996 nor 1897. They live
> > in 2004 now.
>
> The post I responded to was: "And say what you will about the British,
> but they cared about freedom for the people of Hong King a whole lot
> more than the CCP does." My responses have been very relevant.
Offering incentives on financial sectors is irrlevant on "care about
freedom".
> Before you go into your knee-jerk reactions and post things out of
> context, you should actually read these posts more carefully.
Before you jump in and post your jerk-finger reactions, you should
start reading the thread from Post 1.
> > > Maybe. But that has nothing to do with this thread.
> >
> > Yes. Your argument centered around the one that Hong Kong residents
> > got a better deal from Chinese than from British. Maybe, maybe not.
> > But they wanna something CCP don't wanna give them. The hidden
> > assumption in your argument is "CCP = Chinese" and "Chinese = CCP".
> >
> > Hong Kong people can vote in a chief executive and legislators, and
> > all of them are Chinese. These Chinese can give them something better
> > than the British gave them, and these Chinese don't have to be CCP nor
> > follow CCP order.
>
> You're reading a little too much into my thread and drawing incorrect
> inferences based on (presumably) your own preconceived assumptions.
> It is fairly obvious that the CCP is a government party while Chinese
> is a term describing ethnicity - as it is fairly obvious you are
> trying to draw me into arguing for a position I pretty clear did not
> take. Sorry I'm not going to bite.
CCP is not A government party. CCP is THE government party for Chinese
according to its def.
Whether you bite or not, nobody cares. :^)
Bill Moore
Mak Lo <makl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>goor...@yahoo.com (Guru Google) wrote in message
>news:<d4ba29e9.04052...@posting.google.com>...
>
>> > I shall rephrase. China and its central governments incentives are
>> > much more in line with Hong Kong than the UK and its parliament.
>>
>> Hong Kong people don't care what happened in 1996 nor 1897. They live
>> in 2004 now.
>
>The post I responded to was: "And say what you will about the British,
>but they cared about freedom for the people of Hong King a whole lot
>more than the CCP does." My responses have been very relevant.
I appreciate your thoughtful responses. It is refreshing.
I will concede that I may have been abrupt in my comments
regarding the CCP's handling of Hong Kong. I will admit
that I am mistrustful of their motives. And not having been
to Hong Kong since the 1997 handover, I recognize that you
may have insights that I do not, since as I recall you said
you have been living/working there and in China recently.
That said, my sense is that the CCP, if they could, would like
Hong Kong to be ruled as the rest of China is ruled, i.e. an
economic powerhouse but subject to the rules that most of China
is subject to. I fear that the nods toward democracy are merely
a gesture to the Basic Law they agreed to with the British and
not a sincere effort to let Hong Kong be Hong Kong. I suspect
that if they could, the CCP would enforce their rules about religious
groups having to be state-approved, for example. It seems like this
is already happening in subtle ways with regard to groups like Falun
Gong, for example.
My comments about the British caring more about freedom for Hong
Kong than the CCP does are rooted in the fact that Hong Kong under
the British, while not democratic, enjoyed the same sort of freedom
that people in Great Britain do. I fear that the CCP, if they could,
would like to infringe upon these freedoms that the people of Hong
Kong have become accustomed to. This fear is partially fueled by stories
of radio talk show hosts being threatened etc. I just have trouble
trusting the CCP's motives regarding Hong Kong.
What direction, in your opinion, is the CCP trying to take Hong Kong?
Thanks again for your commentary.
Mak Lo
Same to you Bill.
I think the current government in Beijing is quite pragmatic overall.
I think they can see quite clearly that Hong Kong is the paradigm to
strive towards, and not the other way around. As the first generation
of Chinese leaders to spend the majority of their lives in a period of
reform, they have witnessed the incredible change that capitalism
unleashed over the country.
At the same time and despite all that has been accomplished up to this
point, they are still realistic. They know that China is still
largely a developing country with a slew of issues to tackle. They've
set a goal of 2050 to be a middle-developed country, probably
something along the lines of where South Korea is today. And while
those goals may seem modest, for a country of country's size, it's a
heavy proposition.
The economic integration of Hong Kong into China has been well
underway since the early 1980s. Hong Kong is still China's window
into global capital markets (China will be the largest issuer of
primary equity this year, largely on the HK Stock Exchange) and this
role will likely grow even with the gradual liberalisation of the
Shanghai as a financial hub.
Politically, change will be slower. I believe that the central
government will gradually allow political reform, though perhaps at a
slower pace than some people want. I do think that the Chinese are
largely satisfied with the government as long as it delivers economic
growth -- for now. At some point of wealth, I expect more demand for
the oft-talked about "freedoms".
In this backdrop, the way of life in Hong Kong should continue to be
quite stable and perhaps even more prosperous as the erstwhile global
window into what is soon to be the second-largest economy in the
world. Politically, I think democratic elections will eventually
arrive (if I had to guess, I would say 6 to 10 years).
In that time span ironically, I expect the "2S" part of 1C to
gradually grow closer. I expect Shenzhen and the rest of Guangdong
province to gradually look more and more like Hong Kong. Soon you
will drive from Hong Kong to Shenzhen and think you were doing the
analog of a New York to Philadelphia drive.
Eventually, Hong Kong and China will be one country, one system and
there will be no distinction of HK as a special administrative region.
Unless there is a catastrophic event that reverses the economic
momentum of China, I don't think this can be avoided. The question
will be what kind of system they have in place. I can't make any
predictions on its exact structure but I think I can confidently
predict that the overall quality of life improve.