Like Tree154Likes

Articles on Occupy Central

Closed Thread
Page 19 of 19 FirstFirst ... 11 16 17 18 19
  1. #181
    David Smith
    Quote Originally Posted by threesummers:
    It is a good article, but too pessimistic I think. The democrats did not approve the 2005 reform package and got a better one in 2010. The 2010 reform package was only approved after major government/BJ concessions. So the past pattern is not all negative.

    In any case there are reasons to think this time things are different. Firstly, the democratic party were punished at the polls in 2012 for having approved the 2010 package (which did involve compromises from the democratic side. Secondly, the majority of the pan-dem support base voted in the July PopVote and said Legco should veto any proposal that did not live up to international standards. Thirdly, the 8/31 decision has united the democrats in a way they have not been for years. Thus, I think it unlikely that the reform package will be approved. At least not without a major concession.

    The other thing which has changed is a huge political awakening. Quite how that pans out...for better or worse....remains to be seen. In the best case previously apolitical people will come together and get involved to present a united front. There are already signs of that happening on a quiet, but massive level. In the worst case, more 'radical' groups will form further political parties that compete against the Democratic and Civic parties to split the democratic vote.

  2. #182
    David Smith
    Fact check: Was Hong Kong ever promised democracy? - Fact Check - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

    Professor Steven Phillips from Towson University in Maryland said that the problem with the current debate is that activists assumed the Joint Declaration and the Basic Law intended the term "universal suffrage" to mean the freedom to nominate a wide variety of local leaders to run for election for the Chief Executive post.

    "Lee's claim that he is not asking for anything new is correct. I think Lee and those who share his views have long assumed that Articles 26 and 45 mean that nominations for the chief executive post in the 2017 election would be open to a wide variety of figures, and that the bar for running for this office would be low.

    "However, I also don't think Beijing ever explicitly stated that it accepted the idea of a nomination process that would let many candidates compete."
    Good article on whether or not China broke a promise on giving democracy to HK. It concludes no promises were broken, which I think is true from a strictly legal perspective. In my opinion extremely liberal interpretations of the Basic Law support civic nomination and extremely conservative interpretations are consistent with the NPC 31 August Decision.

    What the article does show is that the British and HK negotiators and democrats all thought something more genuine was being offered. One might suspect that the Chinese government either had different ideas at the time (when they were in a much weaker position), or were happy to let them think that. Two often heard quotes which the article misses:-

    "How Hong Kong develops democracy in the future is a matter entirely within the sphere of Hong Kong's autonomy, and the central government cannot intervene."— Lu Ping, quoted in the People's Daily, 1993

    The Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs "[the democratic election of all Legislative Council members by universal suffrage]...a question to be decided by the Hong Kong SAR itself and it needs no guarantee by the Chinese Government". 1994

    The lesson I think is that democrats should be realistic as to what can be achieved, but must be even more wary of vague promises about future reform.
    Last edited by David Smith; 17-12-2014 at 07:45 PM.

  3. #183
    David Smith
    Will pan-democrats keep the flame burning?
    Already, there is speculation as to which lawmakers are likely to support the Beijing proposal. Civic Party’s Ronny Tong figures high on the list, given his efforts to narrow the gap between the pan-democrats and Beijing earlier this year for a more democratic proposal. He didn’t succeed in his mission, as Beijing maintained its tough base line on the election process, but still he is seen as someone who is chummy with Beijing authorities.

    Two other votes could be from members of the functional constituency seats. Information technology sector representative Charles Mok and accounting sector representative Kenneth Leung are among those that could approve the electoral reforms bill. The two lawmakers would represent their industry interests, rather than act on their own. The government may offer carrots to the sectors to make Mok and Leung support Beijing’s proposal.

    As for the remaining one vote, it could come from either a member of the Democratic Party, or Frederick Fung of Hong Kong Association for Democracy and People’s Livelihood.