Like Tree36Likes

2018 Legco By-(s)election discussion...

Closed Thread
Page 4 of 7 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 LastLast
  1. #31

    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    3,772
    Quote Originally Posted by civil_servant:
    I don't see how the vision that Eddie Chu presents can be equated to oppression of the CPC. He's got my full support.
    Very good because Chu is currently campaigning for legal means to counter Agens Chow's illegal disqualification, so there is some progress with you.

    Before long the government will also find a way to block Chu, he is too much a thorn in the side of many government-linked triads in the NT alone. When they disqualify him I'm sure you'll find another excuse to ease your lack of conscience.
    TheBrit, East_coast and Mefisto like this.

  2. #32
    Quote Originally Posted by Gatts:
    Eh yes?...I don't know what kind of revolutionary hallucinations you have but they are only stating what 1 C 2 S's was promised to be: 50 years no change, no interference by Beijing?
    Really? From what I read, there was a commitment to pass Article 23 and to implement universal suffrage in the meantime. Where's Article 23? At least Beijing made some effort towards universal suffrage with a caveat. Maybe this was due to a lack of Article 23?

  3. #33

    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    猴山
    Posts
    23,652
    Quote Originally Posted by civil_servant:
    At least Beijing made some effort towards universal suffrage with a caveat.
    Unfortunately the caveat was 'This is not clearly not universal suffrage but if you accept it you are also agreeing that it fully meets the requirement for universal suffrage as required by the basic law'

    Quote Originally Posted by civil_servant:
    Where's Article 23?
    The proposed laws to fulfill the few gaps were far to draconian for the public to stomach. Article 23 could be fulfilled with laws that were acceptable to the public but that would not be acceptable to Beijing who appear to need society to be scared of the state to be able to govern.

  4. #34
    Quote Originally Posted by East_coast:
    Perhaps a better example would be Nick Clegg stupidly advocating for proportional representation and the public sensibly voting down the idea!!!
    I don't see proportional representation in their statement.

    I see CPC demonization though. Also, if you read this article, you see the same undertone as in Spain.

    Reclaiming Our Right to Self-Determination in Post-Umbrella Hong Kong | World Policy Institute

    The colonists took the right to self-determination, the CPC took the right to self-determination, agreements signed without the support of the people, we got the short-changed, let's revisit history and set things right, blah blah blah. Basically, their statements are undermining the entire existence of One Country, Two Systems.

  5. #35
    Quote Originally Posted by Gatts:
    Very good because Chu is currently campaigning for legal means to counter Agens Chow's illegal disqualification, so there is some progress with you.

    Before long the government will also find a way to block Chu, he is too much a thorn in the side of many government-linked triads in the NT alone. When they disqualify him I'm sure you'll find another excuse to ease your lack of conscience.
    You mean file a judicial review? Didn't Kwok Cheuk-kin already do that?

  6. #36

    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    猴山
    Posts
    23,652
    Quote Originally Posted by civil_servant:
    I don't see proportional representation in their statement.
    You are correct, Just as you don't see any pro-independence.

    They are effectively asking for a check and balance on the executive branch that is normal practice in most developed countries. Again there is a long list of people voting for the model of governance. You don't have to keep going back to Spain, try another one.
    Gatts likes this.

  7. #37
    Quote Originally Posted by East_coast:
    You are correct, Just as you don't see any pro-independence.
    That's not what the officer said. He basically said it violated the basic law.

    There's this.

    As a British colony, in accordance with the U.N. Charter, we rightfully deserved a referendum with which we could express our stance. That opportunity was wrongly taken away from us.
    And then there's this.

    We are therefore prepared to advance our struggle from the local and national levels to a more global level. We ought to regain Hong Kongers’ right to self-determination from the international community so that the people, rather than the authoritarian regime in Beijing, can truly decide our own future.
    Basically, he's saying the outcome of events was unjust and therefore the system that is in place should be invalidated by the International community. This is different from Eddie Chu practicing self-determination as being allowed within the context of the basic law. Hence you can't take sections of the basic law to undermine the basic law itself. Because if you do that, Hong Kong is then just a part of China trying to make a claim for self-determination under International law. This may not have any validity under the Chinese constitution. If Demosistō wants to go down that route, they should abandon the basic law first and then fight for autonomy under Chinese law. So, who wants to do that?

  8. #38

    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    猴山
    Posts
    23,652
    Quote Originally Posted by civil_servant:
    That's not what the officer said. He basically said it violated the basic law.

    There's this.



    And then there's this.
    Both statements point out the public of Hong Kong were never consulted on the future model of governance - That is true. Again no indication of a request for independence.
    Gatts and Mefisto like this.

  9. #39

  10. #40
    Amid government plans to introduce “moral and national education” in 2003 – criticised by opponents as Communist brainwashing – students began staging sit-ins outside government headquarters. Chow joined the demonstrations and it was there she met Joshua Wong, another young activist who would go on to become the most prominent voice in a new generation of democracy advocates.
    Wow, she started young. 6 years old.