Like Tree44Likes

What caused hong Kong to sharply go left wing since late 2000s? and legco to embrace business unfriendly radical eco fads and socialism to be politically correct

Closed Thread
Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 LastLast
  1. #31

    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    NT/CUHK
    Posts
    910

    DUDE!
    Par-a-graphs. Short ones. Par-a-graphs.

    I agree that there needs to be more attention paid to maximizing the benefit of specific recycling programs and other eco programs. But it's a keep-trying-till-you-get-it-right situation.


  2. #32

    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Posts
    104
    Quote Originally Posted by Bob Loblaw:
    DUDE!

    I agree that there needs to be more attention paid to maximizing the benefit of specific recycling programs and other eco programs. But it's a keep-trying-till-you-get-it-right situation.
    There is no need to experiment something that is already proven to be a failure. I know Singapore wont try it no matter what the activites try to get them to. Just because its a fad which others are doing doesn't mean is a smart move. I thought Hong Kong was smart enough to not to jump off the cliff with others until 2008 when legco got taken over by you know who. Why not reward recycling instead which is a much more successful move elsewhere as well as developing compostable plastics?
    Last edited by jcs609; 02-04-2015 at 03:23 PM.

  3. #33

    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    1,362

    Just want to point out that Legco isn't split into left-right political ideology lines, it's split into blind Beijing appeasement on one side and Hong Kong interests lines on the other.

    Nanny state/eco laws do not seem to be driven/implemented by any political left-right ideology.

    Gatts and East_coast like this.

  4. #34

    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    猴山
    Posts
    23,652
    Quote Originally Posted by jcs609:
    There is no need to experiment something that is already proven to be a failure. I know Singapore wont try it no matter what the activites try to get them to. Just because its a fad which others are doing doesn't mean is a smart move.
    You are probably correct that the current administrations attempts of eradicating the purpose of LegCo to vet and validate laws to make sure they are sensible and as fair as possible is a little sad. If a law is implemented then a good system of governance would recognise the impracticality of the law and modify it quickly.

    Obviously no law is written in stone and can not be changed for the benefit of society. The sign of good governance is the ability of an administration to recognise mistakes they make and quickly change things.

    Quote Originally Posted by jcs609:
    I thought Hong Kong was smart enough to not to jump off the cliff with others until 2008 when legco got taken over by you know who. Why not reward recycling instead which is a much more successful move elsewhere as well as developing compostable plastics?
    Do you mean the ever more fearful or favoursome whip on the pro-establishment side that now means that their members in LegCo no longer think about the laws they are passing?

  5. #35

    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    474
    Quote Originally Posted by ray98:
    Just want to point out that Legco isn't split into left-right political ideology lines, it's split into blind Beijing appeasement on one side and Hong Kong interests lines on the other.

    Nanny state/eco laws do not seem to be driven/implemented by any political left-right ideology.

    I don't agree, even Democratic party and Civic party do not put interest of HK people in first place, they believe in pan- China ​Chauvinism

  6. #36

    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    1,362
    Quote Originally Posted by cykgary:
    I don't agree, even Democratic party and Civic party do not put interest of HK people in first place, they believe in pan- China ​Chauvinism
    That's your view - I disagree.

    To jcs609, according to Stand News, one of the so called socialists Raymond Chan of People's Power just extracted the urine out of a debate on limiting salt and sugar in foods - he asked: "What's next? A committee on less meat, more vegetables? A committee for daily exercise? A tax on sugar and chocolate?"
    Last edited by ray98; 03-04-2015 at 02:21 AM.

  7. #37

    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    1,186
    Quote Originally Posted by Titus:
    Like the whole bicycling thing, yes yes it's great if everyone rode bicycles like PRC citizens did pre 2005s. But HK is just NOT Vancouver with big open spaces to build bike lanes and such no matter how hard we wish. [...]
    JUST my 2 cents that probably is a very weak argument lol
    Your anti-bicycle argument is very weak indeed.

  8. #38

    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Posts
    104
    Quote Originally Posted by Bob Loblaw:
    DUDE!
    Par-a-graphs. Short ones. Par-a-graphs.

    I agree that there needs to be more attention paid to maximizing the benefit of specific recycling programs and other eco programs. But it's a keep-trying-till-you-get-it-right situation.
    Let me fix that post

    The main points of that post regarding the plastic bag levy are

    1. There is no solid fact data stating that overall plastic waste gone down throughout the SAR following the 2009 bag levy ordinance.

    2. Official data states in San Francisco show grocery/retail bags only accounted for 0.6% of all trash prior to their so called "plastic bag reduction programs." One to two years following their plastic bag ban other types of plastic wastes skyrocketed. Street litter also increased many times and often involved properly disposed but poorly secured garbage during collection. The groups that push these levys repeately spread their gospel that they reduced grocery bags by 70% a claim that is copy and pasted. Though they neglect the fact that over all plastic(bags and otherwise) in the wastestream of all kinds went up to 400% following a bag levy or ban according to official landfill waste audit data.

    3. The groups and their brainwashed politicians who they practically own won't bother fixing the ordinances despite the facts that its confusing and it backfires. They only care about controlling the population which is their definition of success.
    4. Hong Kong has no real recycling options for those who desire to recycle, what about developing that first? The bag levy is like putting an expensive stereo system to make a car with blown engine and shot transmission to go faster.

    Though I would leave any more details to the other Full implementation of the plastic bag levy (exemptions) forum

    Quote Originally Posted by ray98:

    To jcs609, according to Stand News, one of the so called socialists Raymond Chan of People's Power just extracted the urine out of a debate on limiting salt and sugar in foods - he asked: "What's next? A committee on less meat, more vegetables? A committee for daily exercise? A tax on sugar and chocolate?"

    Wow it appears mayor Michael Bloomberg is bring his agenda to Hong Kong after NYC. I used to like Hong Kong as it is one of the few large places in the world where the government used common sense and not jump every paternalistic bandwagon just because interest groups say all the other cities are doing so.

    Quote Originally Posted by East_coast:
    You are probably correct that the current administrations attempts of eradicating the purpose of LegCo to vet and validate laws to make sure they are sensible and as fair as possible is a little sad. If a law is implemented then a good system of governance would recognise the impracticality of the law and modify it quickly.
    Obviously no law is written in stone and can not be changed for the benefit of society. The sign of good governance is the ability of an administration to recognise mistakes they make and quickly change things.
    Do you mean the ever more fearful or favoursome whip on the pro-establishment side that now means that their members in LegCo no longer think about the laws they are passing?

    Obviously the levy since 2009 was complicated confusing and increased plastics and other garbage in the waste stream. Rationally isn't it time for Legco examine and fix issues with it? They should but NO instead they expanded the flawed levy program to cover an additional 100,000 stores with adding even more confusion provisions making it most confusing and far reaching bag levy in the Asia Pacific region. The reason is "plastic bag monster" groups who practically owned some politicians continue to state it as a very successful program. Their success is all about "control" not waste reduction. The facts that it is a flawed program repeats again and again however no place that implemented this ordinance decided to improve the program.
    Last edited by jcs609; 03-04-2015 at 12:38 PM.

  9. #39

    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    猴山
    Posts
    23,652
    Quote Originally Posted by jcs609:
    Rationally isn't it time for Legco examine and fix issues with it? They should but NO instead they expanded the flawed levy program to cover an additional 100,000 stores with adding even more confusion provisions making it most confusing and far reaching bag levy in the Asia Pacific region.
    The Beijing backed government expanded what was a simple law that had minimal impact of waste but a major impact impact on attitude into a befuddled mess. Many would argue that such approach to law-making comes from a government that has no accountability to society and even if they ram through bad laws time and again they can never be voted out.
    Last edited by East_coast; 03-04-2015 at 03:16 PM.

  10. #40

    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    6,452

    Pretty much every law in HK has shit loads of exceptions to appease the functional constituencies. Can't have them bitching about how hard the law makes their lives.

    East_coast likes this.