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!

Is Occupy Central a Scam?

Here’s an interesting column piece today. An activist who contributes to AM730, a local Chinese language newspaper, commented on Occupy Central, a hot topic that pan-democrats and pro-Peking individuals debate and talk about an awful lot recently.

Occupy Central,  A Big Scam

Jimmy Lai, Martin Lee and the old hands, who are long perceived to be leaders of pan-democrats, have voiced their support for the “Occupy Central” proposal raised by Professor Benny Tai. All those who criticise the framework of their activity or those who are disappointed by the fact that no formula has been agreed for Hong Kong’s “general election” over the past decade (the standard which says “(it must) fulfill international human rights” eventually came out – Wow! And the Pope is Catholic!) are categorized as “intend to resolve the issue with violence, want to see bloodshed, want to hijack the activity” – some pro-democrats even questioned: if not doing it this way (peaceful demonstration that does not disrupt the social order), what other ways are there? Are we just going to sit and do nothing? In 2010, Democratic Party had a closed door negotiation with China Liaison Office about Hong Kong’s political reform, Helena Pik-wan Wong, the Deputy Convenor of the Alliance for Universal Suffrage, asked the public to wait for another 8 years (before HK can have universal suffrage in general election). The opposition then was also condemned to be dividing the pan-democrats, causing troubles, etc. Some questioned the opposition “if we do not pass the reform bill, what are we going to do? (Isn’t that better than) making no progress at all?” Where these very words are still vivid memories, the same thing is happening yet another time.

In the past, Hong Kongers looked up to the 4/June movement and saw it as the “halo” of democracy (a common term of reference to describe the holiness and nobility of a movement, I’d use “holy grail” in the following as I find it translates better, the word halo rhymes with Central in Cantonese). Those leaders who sacrificed touched people’s heart. Over twenty years have passed, those who passed away are still heroes, but to Hong Kongers they are not as close and powerful to us as the immediate threats and pain we face daily as our culture and livelihood being tormented and facing the ever intensifying chinafication.

Out-dated politicians are still holding on to the halo today. They failed to grasp the change of people’s sentiments. Instead, they turn to focus on constructing a scam that can bring them a new holy grail. To them, there isn’t much time left (why did they ask people to wait for a few years then? Shouldn’t they have apologised for betraying the people of Hong Kong?), they have to find something to do.

Occupy Central is certainly a powerful civil disobedience action. Whether or not it will bring universal suffrage in general election is still a mystery; joint resignation by pan-democrats at the Legislative Council to trigger bi-election, a way lower cost method for people to express their views compare to ten thousand people being arrested voluntarily (as suggested in the Occupy Central proposal), is not accepted; a complicated “Occupy Central guideline” that the general public doesn’t understand suddenly appeared. All these aim at prolonging their possession of the holy grail to secure the value of their continuous existence. Come on!

Hong Kong’s glorious era belongs to them. The dream of Hong Kong’s democracy belongs to them. The way they design and set out is the only way. “War is young men dying and old men talking”. Young thoughts always come to destroy (the old).

Hong Kong Universal Suffrage

As stated in Hong Kong Basic Law, Hong Kong’s mini-constitution, by 2007 Hong Kong people have the rights to elect their own leader, i.e. the Chief Executive. In 2004, the National People’s Congress of Communist China interpreted Basic Law to deny such rights, and in 2007 the NPC once again denied the universal suffrage of Chief Executive of Hong Kong. This constitute a breach of contract (i.e. Sino-British Joint Declaration). Nothing has changed so far. The “political reform” proposed by the Hong Kong SAR government clearly shown that PRC has not intention to demolish functional constituency (members of this constituency are not elected by all the people of Hong Kong, but a small group of so-called elites). The Democratic Party engaged in a closed door negotiation with the Liaison Office of the Central People’s Government and voted for this proposal which essentially represents a decline of democracy in Hong Kong.

With the background above, the people of Hong Kong are increasingly displeased with China’s continuous interference of Hong Kongers’ rights and the hindrance of Hong Kongers’ demand for a democratic society.

In January 2013, Benny Yiu Ting Tai, an associate professor at The University of Hong Kong, announced his “Occupy Central” proposal. The proposal (as it develops over time) includes 7 steps: 10,000 participants signing declaration (taking a vow and pledge that they’re willing to take it to the street), live TV broadcast of discussion, electronic voting on formula (of universal suffrage), referendum on formula, Super-Seat Legislative Council member resign and trigger another referendum, legal and affect-no-social-order movement, occupy Central in July 2014.

The notion Occupy Central received a lot of attention, and supports of the public when it was first announced (without any of the above steps). However, as Professor Tai’s theory develops, debates arise – will this actually work?

Hong Kong has been fighting for universal suffrage of its own Chief Executive for a long time. The bottom line for any democratic election is that candidates running for the leader of a society election will not be sift from a number of candidates by any sort of committee and finally be elected by the people – 1 person 1 vote. All Legislative Council members are elected by the people, again 1 person 1 vote.

The pro-Peking (PRC) individuals jumped out to defend China’s position recently as the debate heats up. There are reports and rumours saying that there will be a “pre-election” before the universal suffrage in 2017, meaning a selection of candidates will be elected by a committee controlled by the PRC. The PRC government officials also said that “the CE must love China and love Hong Kong”, putting China in front of Hong Kong, the place the CE will govern, and setting “love China” as a criteria is simply not acceptable nor necessary. The same official also said that “PRC will not accept a CE that is not patriotic” – this means that Hong Kong people ruling Hong Kong is only a myth. Not to mention the fact that PRC as a nation is hijacked by the China Communist Party, if one is not loyal to the Party means that he/she is not patriotic.

Regina Ip (former Security Secretary in Hong Kong who pushed for Article 23) even said “pre-election” exists in any democratic society. This is complete rubbish – the so-called “pre-election” in democratic societies are elections each political party hold to choose the representative from the party to run for office.

Chinese Call for Referendum

This is a recent post by Mainland Chinese in response to the new measures imposed by Hong Kong SAR government to tackle the formula powder shortage.

HK Government QNMLGB (please see note 1)!

Starting today, Mainlanders call for a referendum:

  1. China to limit electricity supply to Kong Kong – each Hong Konger will be allocated 2 units per day
  2. China to limit fresh water supply to Hong Kong – each Hong Konger will be allocated 2 liters per day

If any one to be found out using more than the above quota will be sentence for life and subject to lifetime deprivation of political rights (please see note 2).

Hong Kong Government: QNMLGB!!!

 

Reply to this post by another Chinese:

Have you no idea about how much of your (Hong Kong’s) resources is from China? Garbage running dogs dare to bite their owners (i.e. China)?

Image

Note 1: Chinese (mainland Chinese) very often use English letters to represent and abbreviate swear words as they’re think using them on blog and websites could make them look less civilised. QNMLGB is a “coded swear word”, which means “f**k your mothers smelly c**t”

Note 2: deprivation of political rights is a typical “punishment” in China, very often activities of human rights campaigns that are found guilty will be given this “punishment”

Freedoms erode – a blatant violation of the Basic Law and Sino-British Joint Declaration

In light of recent rapid decline in freedoms in Hong Kong, the people of Hong Kong must not stand and watch Hong Kong burn. That’s why Hong Kongers took it to the street and the demonstration on 1st January 2013 opened a new chapter of Hong Kong’s continuous battle for freedom and universal suffrage.

I believe that every human being is born free. Before I go into the details of the demonstration, it’s important for me to talk about how freedoms in Hong Kong erode after the handover of sovereignty in 1997.

In the Sino-British Joint Declaration and the Basic Law stated clearly that Hong Kongers’ freedoms are protected:

Sino-British Joint Declaration

(5) The current social and economic systems in Hong Kong will remain unchanged, and so will the life-style. Rights and freedoms, including those of the person, of speech, of the press, of assembly, of association, of travel, of movement, of correspondence, of strike, of choice of occupation, of academic research and of religious belief will be ensured by law in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region. Private property, ownership of enterprises, legitimate right of inheritance and foreign investment will be protected by law.

The Basic Law

Article 27
Hong Kong residents shall have freedom of speech, of the press and of publication; freedom of association, of assembly, of procession and of demonstration; and the right and freedom to form and join trade unions, and to strike.

Article 28
The freedom of the person of Hong Kong residents shall be inviolable.

No Hong Kong resident shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful arrest, detention or imprisonment. Arbitrary or unlawful search of the body of any resident or deprivation or restriction of the freedom of the person shall be prohibited. Torture of any resident or arbitrary or unlawful deprivation of the life of any resident shall be prohibited.

The truth is, the freedoms we enjoy in Hong Kong is gradually being taken away. Not ripped from us all at the same time, but bit by bit…

News reports (over the past years) are clear evidence of these. A few recent news reports are used below to outline what’s been going on in Hong Kong. You’d notice that only one publication is quoted – this is another evidence of the self-censorship amongst the Hong Kong media. Note: some other publications follow up with these reports, and a number of them are relatively unbiased whilst some completely ignore any of the above and continue supporting the Hong Kong SAR government and the China government.

Apple Daily (8th Jan, 2013) “Limiting access to records of registered companies, stops media from investigating and confirming identities – harms public interest”

Investigative journalism is important to a free nation, where people are informed the stories that matter to their livelihood.

Apple Daily (1st Aug, 2012) – Mr Paul CHAN Mo-po, Secretary for Development, was found to own sub-division flats under a company (sub-division flats are illegal in Hong Kong). In light of this scandal, the government stopped the public, including journalists, from obtaining drivers’ identity via going through records of licence plate number. (Mr. CHAN, who’s also recorded in camera for drink driving, is free from any prosecution and charges Apple Daily (4th Oct, 2012))

Apple Daily (13th Dec 2012) – End of 2012, Apple Daily also exposed a massive scandal about “ditch oil” (basically “processed” used oil that’s dumped by restaurants (some even “collect” it from the drains, hence the name), it’s proven to be cancer causing and China has been producing and selling within China for years). The story revealed that a China company has been selling ditch oil to at least one Hong Kong distributor and many restaurant chains have been using such oil. This China company is owned by a State-Owned-Enterprise, which emerged in recent years and already became one of the largest (cooking) oil companies in the PRC.

When the newspaper further investigated the matter in China, the journalists were taken to the police in China and threatened they will not be welcome to China if they report the story. One of the China journalists who first uncovered the ditch oil in the first place was found dead with multiple stab wounds soon after the news was published. The ditch oil business is believed to be owned by the powerful.

Censorship in Hong Kong is not done by the government nor in the form of active involvement. With the number of newspaper in Hong Kong, only one or maybe two would report government’s inadequacy or scandals related to local government officials as well as the government in China.

I’ll follow with another piece about the 1st Jan 2013 demonstration, and media in Hong Kong once again were clearly categorised into two groups: pro-China (the majority) and pro-democracy (minority).

Please leave your comments.