Chinese and China – Experts in Moving the Goal Posts

Here’s an article in today’s Bloomberg News:

China Rejects Open Nomination for Election of Hong Kong Leader

The Hong Kong public can’t nominate candidates for the next chief executive election under the city’s de facto constitution, China’s top official in the former British colony said, rejecting a lawmaker’s proposal.

The city’s Basic Law states that candidates for the chief executive position have to be nominated by a “broadly representative” committee, Zhang Xiaoming, director of China’s Liaison Office in Hong Kong, said in an open letter to Alan Leong, the head of the Civic Party.

 

Flags of China & Hong Kong

A Chinese national flag, left, and a Hong Kong SAR flag fly outside the Legislative Council Complex in Hong Kong. Photographer: Jerome Favre/Bloomberg

Zhang’s comments are the clearest China has made in rejecting demands from Hong Kong opposition lawmakers to allow for democracy in line with international standards in 2017, when it has pledged to allow election of the city’s leader. Chief Executive Leung Chun-ying, who was picked by a committee of billionaires, professionals and lawmakers, is facing rising calls to start consultation on arranging the vote.

“The proper way forward is to follow the Basic Law and the National People’s Congress Standing Committee’s procedures, rather than straying from the law and going the wrong way,” Zhang said in the statement published on the office’s website, as he rejected Leong’s invitation to discuss the proposal at a seminar.

Leung said in an interview in June he wants to deliver on the electoral reforms, though increased democracy may lead to China’s refusal to appoint a leader elected by the city’s people. Allowing for a full exercise in democracy in Hong Kong will also contrast with the political system in China, which has been ruled by the Communist Party since 1949.

Pro-democracy groups in Hong Kong have suggested options including opening the nomination to candidates who receive support from at least 2 percent of registered voters.

China’s “One Country, Two Systems” policy granted Hong Kong its own legal system under the Basic Law for 50 years from 1997. The city allows residents civil liberties including a free press and freedom of assembly not permitted in the mainland.

Basically what China’s said was “Anything that is not stated in the Basic Law is not allowed” – Hang on a minute, Basic Law is a constitution for Hong Kong but it was NOT drafted by the people of Hong Kong and we as Hong Kongers have NO right to interpret or amend it but China has. Mind you, Chinese are the experts in moving the goal posts, so no matter what you do or say, they’ll find a way to “win the argument”.

Now, the Basic Law didn’t say anything about people of Hong Kong are allowed to breath, eat, drink, etc. We’re all breaching the law! Hurrah!

What a whole load of rubbish. By the time they’ve completed their colonisation scheme (with substantial amount of new immigrants in HK who are all CCP members/brainwashed to trust nobody but the party), of course China will have no problem about “giving” Hong Kong democracy and universal suffrage, they’ve got a lot of Chinese voting the way China wants it!

Democracy is never given, it’s something that people fight for.

BTW, if one day, Article 23 is passed, this blog will be gone and so would I…

Over and out!

Democracy in Hong Kong? Leungs Pratically Says “NEVER!”

People want democracy in Hong Kong? Simple answer is: as long as China continues to have sovereignty over Hong Kong, that’s impossible.

During an interview with Bloomberg, CY Leung basically admitted that China controls the way what “democratic election” is about:

Increased democracy in Hong Kong may lead to China’s refusal to appoint a leader elected by the city’s people

One Country Two System? A complete utter LIE from day one!

Put it quite simply: how could a communist dictatorship govern a city-state that’s semi-democratic (part of the legislature is elected by the people) and practices capitalism? Hong Kong courts practice Common Law, and all are innocent until proven guilty, and China is completely the opposite (guilty until proven innocent); education system: completely different; lifestyle: completely different; culture: share some similarities but not quite; etc.

Why did the Brits agreed to hand Hong Kong over to China is still a mystery. China never owned Hong Kong to start with! It was the Qing (translation from Chinese: Great Qing Country) who owned Hong Kong (HK Island and Kowloon Peninsular), which was ceded to England perceptually. The New Territories were leased to the Brits for 99 years (I hate keep repeating myself, but once again 99 years in Chinese language is the equivalent of eternity). If the Brits wanted to “hand Hong Kong back” to a country, they really should have gone to Taiwan which holds the treaties about the above because Kuomintang was the one that overthrew Qing.

In any case, the Brits should have known better that Chinese cannot be trusted (Hong Kongers aren’t Chinese – Chinese is a concept/term that is so vague which covers a lot of things the Western world refer to, which is a massive topic). They must have seen the impossibility of this “One-Country-Two-System” crap. What were the Old China Hands thinking? Do you honestly think that by living in China for a few years you’re able to understand Chinese? Have you read the famous book The Ugly Chinaman and the Crisis of Chinese Culture by Bo Yang. It is such a shame that the book I Don’t Want to Be Chinese Again was not out earlier.

The UN allowed the Chinese to bully them over the issue of taking Hong Kong and Macau off the list of colonies in the 70s was beyond believe. All the nations in the UN are guilty for helping China to conolise Hong Kong. They should right their wrongs.

A friend forwarded this article to me which is very encouraging.