Dispatches from the State Ministry of Truth

[Jacob]

Yeah, waiting makes sense. That's what they should have done to begin with, it seems. From what I've read (and posted), if they'd just let the student protest do its thing and peter out on its own this thing would've been over already with no world attention.

[Monoriu]

Yeah, waiting makes sense. That's what they should have done to begin with, it seems. From what I've read (and posted), if they'd just let the student protest do its thing and peter out on its own this thing would've been over already with no world attention.

Nah, they have been planning this Occupy Central thing for over a year now.  The student protest just advanced the date by a few days.  Many people in HK are very angry over a huge range of issues.  Their hope for the past few decades is that they can elect a government they want in 2017.  Beijing's announcement that they will vet the candidates is the last straw because it destroys the last hope that many people have.  Police tactics may not be perfect, but have nothing to do with these deep problems. 

[Jacob]

Yeah, waiting makes sense. That's what they should have done to begin with, it seems. From what I've read (and posted), if they'd just let the student protest do its thing and peter out on its own this thing would've been over already with no world attention.

Nah, they have been planning this Occupy Central thing for over a year now.  The student protest just advanced the date by a few days.  Many people in HK are very angry over a huge range of issues.  Their hope for the past few decades is that they can elect a government they want in 2017.  Beijing's announcement that they will vet the candidates is the last straw because it destroys the last hope that many people have.  Police tactics may not be perfect, but have nothing to do with these deep problems.

I've been getting the impression that the Occupy people only joined the students after the police started looking more repressive than normal?

[Monoriu]

Yeah, waiting makes sense. That's what they should have done to begin with, it seems. From what I've read (and posted), if they'd just let the student protest do its thing and peter out on its own this thing would've been over already with no world attention.

Nah, they have been planning this Occupy Central thing for over a year now.  The student protest just advanced the date by a few days.  Many people in HK are very angry over a huge range of issues.  Their hope for the past few decades is that they can elect a government they want in 2017.  Beijing's announcement that they will vet the candidates is the last straw because it destroys the last hope that many people have.  Police tactics may not be perfect, but have nothing to do with these deep problems.

I've been getting the impression that the Occupy people only joined the students after the police started looking more repressive than normal?

The Occupy people's plan is to launch on 1 Oct.  They were forced to advance the date when the students started attacking the government building.  It is going to happen sooner or later, just a question of when and where.  It is too simplistic to blame police tactics for the occupy movement. 

The HK people are pissed off.  Our inequality has exceeded Mexico if measured by the gini coefficient.  The toublle is the government is seen as uncaring because it is, well, too rich.  There are recent years when government is only spending one dollar for every two dollars it gets in revenue.  It can continue to run for years without borrowing even if it gets zero taxes. 

[jimmy olsen]

For me, democracy is a means toward an end.  Democracy is a good way to ensure good governance, freedom, rule of law, etc.  But HK is a special case because we already have all those things without democracy.  So I don't really see the point of insisting on 100% democratic elections (we already have some).  People need to face reality that HK is part of China and they won't let us have the elections.  You go too far and Beijing will just come and take everything we cherish away.  It is just a simple matter of declaring a state of emergency and ordering the PLA troops already here to take over.

It should be obvious that without democracy those things exist at the sufferance of the authorities at can be revoked at any time.

[Monoriu]

For me, democracy is a means toward an end.  Democracy is a good way to ensure good governance, freedom, rule of law, etc.  But HK is a special case because we already have all those things without democracy.  So I don't really see the point of insisting on 100% democratic elections (we already have some).  People need to face reality that HK is part of China and they won't let us have the elections.  You go too far and Beijing will just come and take everything we cherish away.  It is just a simple matter of declaring a state of emergency and ordering the PLA troops already here to take over.

It should be obvious that without democracy those things exist at the sufferance of the authorities at can be revoked at any time.

Even if there is democracy in HK, those things still exist at the sufferance of Beijing. 

[Monoriu]

There is already a "suggestion" in an article published in an official newspaper in China that, if necessary, "armed police" from China are ready and willing to "assist" in HK.  The "armed police" was set up in China when they reduced the size of the PLA and the unemployed soldiers needed somewhere to go.  It is frequently used in security in China and is expected to help the regular army in armed conflicts. 

[Monoriu]

More background information for those who don't know.

The election rules are set out in HK's Basic Law, our mini-constitution.  To change the rules, several parties need to say yes, including HK's Chief Executive, Beijing's National Congress, and HK's legislative council (LegCo).  Basic Law explicitly says that LegCo must approve by 2/3 super majority, and this is the most tricky part. 

LegCo consists of a ton of different parties.  Without boring you with their names and affiliations, let's just say that there are 2 main camps - pro-establishment and pro-democracy.  The split is 43/27.  Do the math, and you'll see that the government needs around 4 democrat lawmakers to vote yes to change the rules. 

The existing rule is that a 1,200 member committee elect the Chief Executive.  Let's just say that Beijing controls this committee, for simplicity's sake.  Beijing now says that by 2017, everybody in HK can vote in the election, but only candidates approved by this 1,200 committee may appear on the ballots. 

The democrats basically say, no, we won't agree.  We'd rather vote it down than have a fake election.  Beijing basically says, if you want to vote it down, vote it down.  It is either our plan, or the existing rules.  Take your pick.  The democrats say screw this, we'll occupy central until a more palatable plan comes up.  As long as Beijing doesn't put up an alternative plan, the democrats' demands cannot be met. 

[derspiess]

China needs a reformer like Assad.

[jimmy olsen]

China needs a reformer like Assad.

The Syrian Civil War has killed at least 1% of the population. That would be equivalent to 13 million in China.

[The Minsky Moment]

For me, democracy is a means toward an end.  Democracy is a good way to ensure good governance, freedom, rule of law, etc.  But HK is a special case because we already have all those things without democracy. 

You had them but the white paper represents an attack on those things.  In this respect, both the protestors (who are focusing on the high profile issue of chief executive elections) and their opponents are missing the point.   The White Paper is fundamentally inconsistent with the notion of a neutral and independent judiciary; it categorizes judges or judicial officers as "administrators" akin to members of executive council and states that "patriotism" is the "basic political requirement" for such officers.  The White Paper also trumpets Beijing's power to interpret the Basic Law without mentioning the HK judiciary's concurrent powers in that regard.   There are two possibilities here: either Beijing is deliberately setting out to undermine the principles of rule of law in the territory, or the PRC functionaries that drafted the paper simply don't understand at the most fundamental level what the rule of law is and this don't see the problem.  I suspect the latter which in some ways is more disturbing.

The latent flaw in One Country, Two Systems was always that one of those Systems has both de jure and de facto supremacy.  So the viability of System 2 is not only based on sufferance and restraint from System 1,  but also the capacity of System 1 to understand what is actually entailed in System 2.

The anti-protestor line that the protests are misguided and counter-productive may have merit, but if not that, then what should the response be?  Because as I see it, doing nothing is not an option if HK wants to keep its political acquis

[derspiess]

China needs a reformer like Assad.

The Syrian Civil War has killed at least 1% of the population. That would be equivalent to 13 million in China.

And that's almost as egregious as Brady's QB Rating last night.

[CountDeMoney]

Uggspwn

[Sheilbh]

You had them but the white paper represents an attack on those things.  In this respect, both the protestors (who are focusing on the high profile issue of chief executive elections) and their opponents are missing the point.   The White Paper is fundamentally inconsistent with the notion of a neutral and independent judiciary; it categorizes judges or judicial officers as "administrators" akin to members of executive council and states that "patriotism" is the "basic political requirement" for such officers.  The White Paper also trumpets Beijing's power to interpret the Basic Law without mentioning the HK judiciary's concurrent powers in that regard.   There are two possibilities here: either Beijing is deliberately setting out to undermine the principles of rule of law in the territory, or the PRC functionaries that drafted the paper simply don't understand at the most fundamental level what the rule of law is and this don't see the problem.  I suspect the latter which in some ways is more disturbing.

Given that Hong Kong's, as Mono says, mainly a financial centre it'd be interesting to see how long that could last if there doubts emerged about the rule of law, especially noone needs to be there to access China anymore.

The latent flaw in One Country, Two Systems was always that one of those Systems has both de jure and de facto supremacy.  So the viability of System 2 is not only based on sufferance and restraint from System 1,  but also the capacity of System 1 to understand what is actually entailed in System 2.

The anti-protestor line that the protests are misguided and counter-productive may have merit, but if not that, then what should the response be?  Because as I see it, doing nothing is not an option if HK wants to keep its political acquis

Isn't it meant to expire 2047 anyway?

[Tonitrus]

Isn't it meant to expire 2047 anyway?

I was thinking that too.  The illusion of rights and freedom was bound to end anyway, but perhaps by 2047 , China will have progressed.  Or occupy all of East Asia spreading the glories of communism to the deprived people's of Japan and the Russian far east.