![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
defrogThere is trouble in Hong Kong.
The problem goes something like this:
We do not have universal suffrage when it comes to choosing a Chief Executive (CE). We have been promised by Beijing that at some point we can have universal suffrage as soon as they think we’re ready to have it. That time is theoretically 2017 (around ten years after the last time Beijing said we could have it, then decided we weren’t “ready”).
The past year has seen a lot of debate over how to implement universal suffrage in 2017, with several proposals being kicked around. This week, Beijing’s National People’s Congress (NPC) effectively picked one for us: we all get to vote for the next CE, but we don’t get to actually nominate who gets to run for CE. That will be determined by a “nominating committee” of 1,200 people who will, theoretically, represent all groups in HK, but in practice will pretty much nominate only candidates that Beijing likes.
That way, no matter who loses, Beijing wins.
The pan-democratic parties (i.e. political parties that have been pushing hard for democracy) find this unacceptable, not least because one of the criteria for nomination is being a “patriotic” person who “loves Hong Kong”. Which is as ominous as it sounds when Beijing is the one deciding who is patriotic and who isn’t.
And so now the showdown is about to begin. Possibly.
Activist groups have organized on both sides of the debate. Occupy Central opposes the NPC-approved framework and plans to shut down the Central business district with massive sit-in protests until the HK Govt approves a framework allowing the people to nominate their own candidates. Anti-Occupy groups like Alliance for Peace and Democracy argue that if we don’t take this deal, we’re not going to make any progress on universal suffrage for at least another decade, if ever.
That’s certainly how the HK Govt has been framing it with a PSA that suggest if Occupy Central goes ahead, the deal is off and we get nothing (and you can blame them gawdamn Occupy protesters for that). The HK Govt has also said that the planned Occupy Central protest would be illegal anyway, and they’re not in the business of negotiating with lawbreakers. So there.
What happens from here is a big question mark, if only because Occupy Central leader Benny Chan has already admitted support for his group has dwindled following the NPC decision (although he’s since backtracked and said the people backing out due to “pragmatism” will be replaced by unpragmatic college students pissed off about the decision, so game on).
So if Occupy Central goes ahead, it’s either going to be a poor turnout, or a bigger and much angrier turnout.
In which case this probably isn’t going to end well.
The Occupy leaders are promising a peaceful protest, but as we all know, it only takes a handful of violent idiots to turn any peaceful protest into a riot. And the radical political factions here have more than a handful available, especially among the student groups who are still young enough to believe that you can justify almost any action if it’s for the “right” cause. Inside sources tell me that the radicals are not going to take no for an answer and they’re willing to be martyrs to make their point.
So violence seems likely, whether it’s started by the radicals or the police. We’ve been here before. And it wasn’t pretty.
Personally, I’m not really on the side of Occupy Central on this one. Sure, I’m a firm believer in democracy, although I would add that full-on democracy in itself is not a solution to any country’s problems. The US has been proving that for years.
And I fully understand why Occupy Central doesn’t want to leave nominations in the hands of a committee. The last election gave us two candidates who were both corrupt, mealy-mouthed “patriots”. If one-man-one-vote had been an option at the time, they’d have both lost. (Although, again, the US POTUS election has generally been a “lesser of two evils” game for a long time now.)
In any case, I understand the desire for universal suffrage. But I’m also a realist. Like it or not, Beijing holds the pink slip on HK, a point they’vemade clear more than once. And there’s no way they’re going to approve any democratic framework that might result in HK electing a radical anti-Beijing CE, if only because they don’t want us giving other cities in mainland China any bright ideas.
I understand why Occupy Central resents this. I also realize they’re betting the farm that Beijing won’t dare isolate itself on the international stage by clamping down on HK Tiananmen style.
However, I don't believe Occupy Central has as much control over its more radical elements as Benny Chan thinks it does. I think they’re going to take it too far and invite a crackdown to justify their cause – “Look at the violence inherent in the system! Help help I’m being repressed!” etc. They’d love nothing more than for Beijing to make an example of them.
The punch line is that whether they get their wish or not, it won’t matter. Occupy Central basically wants something it can’t have. Both Beijing and the HK Govt have already invoked the Basic Law (i.e. the mini-constitution signed off by Beijing and Britain) claiming it expressly rules out direct civic nomination. So the game has been rigged in Beijing’s favor from Day 1.
Occupy Central seems convinced it can win a rigged game, even if it means kicking over the game table. I think they’re wrong. No matter how far they push this, the result won’t be the full-on democracy they want. The NPC’s current offer is as it good as it gets, and it will not get that good again. Shutting down Central isn’t really going to change that. If it comes down to a face-off between Beijing vs Hong Kong, we will lose.
I could be wrong. I have a feeling we're going to find out.
Developing ....
The revolution starts soon,
This is dF
The problem goes something like this:
We do not have universal suffrage when it comes to choosing a Chief Executive (CE). We have been promised by Beijing that at some point we can have universal suffrage as soon as they think we’re ready to have it. That time is theoretically 2017 (around ten years after the last time Beijing said we could have it, then decided we weren’t “ready”).
The past year has seen a lot of debate over how to implement universal suffrage in 2017, with several proposals being kicked around. This week, Beijing’s National People’s Congress (NPC) effectively picked one for us: we all get to vote for the next CE, but we don’t get to actually nominate who gets to run for CE. That will be determined by a “nominating committee” of 1,200 people who will, theoretically, represent all groups in HK, but in practice will pretty much nominate only candidates that Beijing likes.
That way, no matter who loses, Beijing wins.
The pan-democratic parties (i.e. political parties that have been pushing hard for democracy) find this unacceptable, not least because one of the criteria for nomination is being a “patriotic” person who “loves Hong Kong”. Which is as ominous as it sounds when Beijing is the one deciding who is patriotic and who isn’t.
And so now the showdown is about to begin. Possibly.
Activist groups have organized on both sides of the debate. Occupy Central opposes the NPC-approved framework and plans to shut down the Central business district with massive sit-in protests until the HK Govt approves a framework allowing the people to nominate their own candidates. Anti-Occupy groups like Alliance for Peace and Democracy argue that if we don’t take this deal, we’re not going to make any progress on universal suffrage for at least another decade, if ever.
That’s certainly how the HK Govt has been framing it with a PSA that suggest if Occupy Central goes ahead, the deal is off and we get nothing (and you can blame them gawdamn Occupy protesters for that). The HK Govt has also said that the planned Occupy Central protest would be illegal anyway, and they’re not in the business of negotiating with lawbreakers. So there.
What happens from here is a big question mark, if only because Occupy Central leader Benny Chan has already admitted support for his group has dwindled following the NPC decision (although he’s since backtracked and said the people backing out due to “pragmatism” will be replaced by unpragmatic college students pissed off about the decision, so game on).
So if Occupy Central goes ahead, it’s either going to be a poor turnout, or a bigger and much angrier turnout.
In which case this probably isn’t going to end well.
The Occupy leaders are promising a peaceful protest, but as we all know, it only takes a handful of violent idiots to turn any peaceful protest into a riot. And the radical political factions here have more than a handful available, especially among the student groups who are still young enough to believe that you can justify almost any action if it’s for the “right” cause. Inside sources tell me that the radicals are not going to take no for an answer and they’re willing to be martyrs to make their point.
So violence seems likely, whether it’s started by the radicals or the police. We’ve been here before. And it wasn’t pretty.
Personally, I’m not really on the side of Occupy Central on this one. Sure, I’m a firm believer in democracy, although I would add that full-on democracy in itself is not a solution to any country’s problems. The US has been proving that for years.
And I fully understand why Occupy Central doesn’t want to leave nominations in the hands of a committee. The last election gave us two candidates who were both corrupt, mealy-mouthed “patriots”. If one-man-one-vote had been an option at the time, they’d have both lost. (Although, again, the US POTUS election has generally been a “lesser of two evils” game for a long time now.)
In any case, I understand the desire for universal suffrage. But I’m also a realist. Like it or not, Beijing holds the pink slip on HK, a point they’vemade clear more than once. And there’s no way they’re going to approve any democratic framework that might result in HK electing a radical anti-Beijing CE, if only because they don’t want us giving other cities in mainland China any bright ideas.
I understand why Occupy Central resents this. I also realize they’re betting the farm that Beijing won’t dare isolate itself on the international stage by clamping down on HK Tiananmen style.
However, I don't believe Occupy Central has as much control over its more radical elements as Benny Chan thinks it does. I think they’re going to take it too far and invite a crackdown to justify their cause – “Look at the violence inherent in the system! Help help I’m being repressed!” etc. They’d love nothing more than for Beijing to make an example of them.
The punch line is that whether they get their wish or not, it won’t matter. Occupy Central basically wants something it can’t have. Both Beijing and the HK Govt have already invoked the Basic Law (i.e. the mini-constitution signed off by Beijing and Britain) claiming it expressly rules out direct civic nomination. So the game has been rigged in Beijing’s favor from Day 1.
Occupy Central seems convinced it can win a rigged game, even if it means kicking over the game table. I think they’re wrong. No matter how far they push this, the result won’t be the full-on democracy they want. The NPC’s current offer is as it good as it gets, and it will not get that good again. Shutting down Central isn’t really going to change that. If it comes down to a face-off between Beijing vs Hong Kong, we will lose.
I could be wrong. I have a feeling we're going to find out.
Developing ....
The revolution starts soon,
This is dF
