HK Granted Greater Democracy

[J-10]

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gHHvVBgWv1rAy38ukZTtZ6yIT8dAD8TQRINO1
HK Granted Greater Democracy
Sat Dec 29, 2007

HONG KONG (AP) — Beijing will allow Hong Kong to directly elect its leader by 2017 and all its lawmakers by 2020, the territory's chief executive said Saturday.

Donald Tsang said the move was a "most important step" in the former British colony's political future.

The government in Beijing has been debating Hong Kong's political development and had been expected to announce its decision later Saturday on a timetable for allowing direct elections.

Tsang, however, announced the decision during a televised press conference early Saturday.

"We are grateful and we welcome Beijing's decision. It sets a clear timetable for electing the chief executive and legislators," Tsang said.

The issue of electoral reform has polarized Hong Kong's political camps, with pro-democracy parties wanting greater political freedoms by 2012 and pro-Beijing parties camp pushing for 2017.

Tsang said parties should put aside their differences.

"We must treasure this hard-earned opportunity," he said.

When Hong Kong returned to Chinese rule in 1997 it was granted a wide degree of autonomy and a pledge that it would ultimately be allowed to directly elect all of its legislators and its leader, although no date was ever given.

A decade on, still only half of the 60-seat legislature is elected, and the territory's top leader, or chief executive, is chosen by an 800-strong committee full of Beijing loyalists.

Democrats say the city — a bustling international financial center_ is mature enough to choose its own government. Beijing and its allies want a more gradual approach.

[msnger]

This is great news, I hope China grant full Democracy to Hong Kong but I know I'm dreaming :(

[joeche]

This is great news, I hope China grant full Democracy to Hong Kong but I know I'm dreaming :(

Dream will finally come ture.

[Ordie]

Why 2017?

Does Beijing not trust Hong Kong residents?

[Violet Fashion by Mindy]

China has a population of over 1 billion. What I see happening is China using Hong Kong as the school project on how it all works, take notes, make changes, see how a multi party system works and so on.

Democracy is all fine and good. But the population needs to be educated enough to understand it. Otherwise candidates only get elected on popularity and the country ends up in ruin as we have seen time and time again amongst the developing world.

China would end up in major civil war if the commies said today we will have multi party election in 6 weeks time.

[I can't think of a name]

2017?

China is soooooo Generous.

HK is as developed as most places. Why is it not ready NOW for Democracy? Please tell us.

I guess the PRC needs time to groom a stooge to get in charge.

[I can't think of a name]

China has a population of over 1 billion. What I see happening is China using Hong Kong as the school project on how it all works, take notes, make changes, see how a multi party system works and so on.

Democracy is all fine and good. But the population needs to be educated enough to understand it. Otherwise candidates only get elected on popularity and the country ends up in ruin as we have seen time and time again amongst the developing world.

China would end up in major civil war if the commies said today we will have multi party election in 6 weeks time.

Hong Kong is very different from the mainland. It has many educated men and woman. Why are they not ready now? What is the reason for 2017?

[Violet Fashion by Mindy]

A country needs time in developing all the procedures, practices, laws. It's not easy and it definitely takes time.

China believe it or not does have a growing trend towards democracy. Albeit in a single party fashion in rural areas.

Unless ALL of the ingredients are there democracy will and has always failed to deliver.

[I can't think of a name]

I would like to have evidence of "Democracy" at the rural levels. I believe you are speaking about county level elections they have been talking about since the 1990s.

I have seen no evidence of this happening aside from talk by PRC media organs. Talk is cheap, and the PRC does a lot of it to appease wishful thinkers who want everything to be chummy chummy with the panda.

Ask the Uighurs or Tibetans how much say they have in how things are run. Heck, Xinjiang has two governments that answer to Beijing. The "Autonomous" government and the Xinjiang PCC (Bingtuan). The Rural areas are more like warlord governments that are only subordinate to Beijing.

State Control is still strong. Don't confuse democracy and market driven economics as one leading to the other. They are mutually exclusive.

[Ordie]

Hong Kong people are much more savvy, sophisticated and educated than thier mainland cousins to be treated like children from Beijing father.

It's obvious that 2017 was selected because there would have been a generation of Hong Kong people with little or no recollection of the "bad old British Colonial days" and a wave of mainland residents that would had established residency in HK.

Fact of the matter is that Beijing does not trust Hong Kong.

[Ordie]

The Rural areas are more like warlord governments that are only subordinate to Beijing.

True.

Hu Jintao, an native of Anhui, was party head in Tibet. He's a boring, typical party 'yes' man out to get the attention from Beijing bosses. Ironically enough, the Dalai Lama who is from Tibet, is probably more popular than he is at the global scale.

Most of these guys are more concerned about meeting quotas and production levels than listen and care about the locals.

That is why many of the rural farmers are getting fustrated and violently angry at land takings from developers in bed with local party bosses.

[I can't think of a name]

True.

Hu Jintao, an native of Anhui, was party head in Tibet. He's a boring, typical party 'yes' man out to get the attention from Beijing bosses. Ironically enough, the Dalai Lama who is from Tibet, is probably more popular than he is at the global scale.

Most of these guys are more concerned about meeting quotas and production levels than listen and care about the locals.

That is why many of the rural farmers are getting fustrated and violently angry at land takings from developers in bed with local party bosses.

Yep, at the local level bosses get bought off all the time screwing the people. There is nothing people can do about it. "Petitioning" in Beijing gets you locked up.

Jintao also did some ruthless crackdowns. You are are right that these guys just care about meeting numbers and give dull policy speeches. However, they are dull by design.

[plato]

Some people's progress is other people's setback. New York Times called it:"China Delays Hong Kong Elections (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/30/world/asia/30hong.html?_r=1&hp=&oref=slogin&pagewanted=print)".



December 30, 2007

China Delays Hong Kong Elections

By DONALD GREENLEES and KEITH BRADSHER (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/b/keith_bradsher/index.html?inline=nyt-per)
HONG KONG (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/international/countriesandterritories/hongkong/index.html?inline=nyt-geo) — Chinese officials announced Saturday that Hong Kong would have to wait at least another decade for democratic elections to select its leader, and for more than 12 years to have the right to directly elect the entire legislature.
The decision is the latest in a series of setbacks for the democracy aspirations of Hong Kong residents, and another sign that Beijing’s current leaders have scant appetite for experimenting with greater public participation in political decision-making.
The Basic Law, the mini-Constitution imposed by China on Hong Kong after Britain returned the city to Chinese rule in 1997, raises the prospect of choosing Hong Kong leaders starting in 2007 by the principle of one person, one vote. But having already decided in 2004 to postpone universal suffrage until at least 2012, Beijing’s leaders took the next step on Saturday of postponing action for at least five years after that.
Donald Tsang (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/t/donald_tsang/index.html?inline=nyt-per), the current chief executive who is Hong Kong’s leader, plans to retire in 2012.
That has raised the prospect of a struggle among pro-Beijing political groups at that time over who might succeed him.
Pushing back even the possibility of universal suffrage until 2017 means that whoever succeeds Mr. Tsang would probably be running for re-election and would have all the advantages of an incumbent.
Delaying action until 2017 also means that Beijing’s current leaders would leave the problem of how to handle Hong Kong to their successors, which will be chosen in 2012, as President Hu Jintao (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/h/hu_jintao/index.html?inline=nyt-per) and Prime Minister Wen Jiabao (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/w/wen_jiabao/index.html?inline=nyt-per) are both expected to retire in early 2013.
The Chinese government’s timetable for democratic reform in Hong Kong follows a decision by the Standing Committee of China’s Parliament, the National People’s Congress, to reject universal suffrage there in 2012, a timetable that opinion polls suggested is favored by a majority of the people of Hong Kong.
The earliest voters would be entitled to elect the chief executive by popular vote is now 2017. They must wait until 2020 before possibly having the opportunity to vote for the entire 60-seat Legislative Council.
Currently, half of the council is elected by limited franchise from special interest groups; voters choose the other half from geographic constituencies.
The chief executive is chosen by an electoral college of 800 representatives, most of them loyal to Beijing.
Chinese officials also announced on Saturday that if universal suffrage is introduced in 2017, only candidates nominated by a committee that would probably resemble the current electoral college would be allowed on the ballot.
This slow road to democracy was strongly criticized Saturday by local democratic parties.
In a joint statement, democrats called on the central government to “respect the wishes of Hong Kong people” and reverse the decision.
The United States and Britain also criticized the announcement.
“We believe they should have the opportunity to achieve their aspirations for democracy as soon as possible,” said Dale G. Kreisher, a spokesman for the American consulate.
David Miliband, the British foreign secretary, said: “Today’s announcement by the National People’s Congress that there will not be universal suffrage in the 2012 Hong Kong elections will be a disappointment for all those who want to see Hong Kong move to full democracy as soon as possible.”
But government officials in Hong Kong and Beijing said the decision finally gave Hong Kong the certainty of a timetable for achieving universal suffrage.
“The timetable for universal suffrage has been set,” Mr. Tsang said.
“Hong Kong is entering a most important chapter in its constitutional history.
“We should try to apply fresh thinking to secure implementation of universal suffrage for the chief executive first in 2017, to be followed by that for the Legislative Council in 2020. We must treasure this hard-earned opportunity.”
Mr. Tsang and a senior congress official, Qiao Xiaoyang, justified the decision to wait another decade before introducing universal suffrage on the grounds of preserving stability of a community still divided over how and when to achieve full democracy.
Hong Kong still faces a long process of hard negotiation over how the new electoral system will work, and the proposed timetable could be derailed.
The democratic and pro-Beijing forces are deeply divided over many practical issues, including the rules governing a nominating committee that will select candidates for chief executive and how many of them will be able to run.
The ruling of the Standing Committee only states that direct elections “may be implemented” beginning in 2017.
It requires the existing system to remain in place unless Hong Kong’s legislature can agree by a two-thirds majority on any changes.
New election laws would also have to be approved by the chief executive and the congress.
The chairman of the Democratic Party (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/d/democratic_party/index.html?inline=nyt-org), Albert Ho, said there was no guarantee democracy would be achieved according to the proposed timetable.
“This could be an empty goal,” he said on local radio.
Michael E. DeGolyer, a political analyst, said achieving progress toward democracy depended largely on the ability of Hong Kong politicians to agree on an electoral system.
He said the congress had simply given the chief executive the authority to propose an electoral system based on universal suffrage.
“It did not say you will present us a plan. It said you ‘may’ present us a plan,” Mr. DeGolyer said. “It might be something that Hong Kong people themselves decide not to do for some reason.”

[J-10]

2017?

China is soooooo Generous.

HK is as developed as most places. Why is it not ready NOW for Democracy? Please tell us.

I guess the PRC needs time to groom a stooge to get in charge.

Before 1997, Why the former British colony's authority was autarchic? they have enough time to fulfil full Democracy as UK, to let Hong Kong people directly elect its leader and all its lawmakers.

[plato]

Before 1997, Why the former British colony's authority was autarchic? they have enough time to fulfil full Democracy as UK, to let Hong Kong people directly elect its leader and all its lawmakers.Is that another question? or is that your answer to the question why PRC wants to delay Democracy in HK? If you asked a question, then I would say it is a good quesion. If that is your answer to the question being asked, then I would say it is an awful answer. So, which is it? a question or an answer?

[J-10]

Is that another question? or is that your answer to the question why PRC wants to delay Democracy in HK? If you asked a question, then I would say it is a good quesion. If that is your answer to the question being asked, then I would say it is an awful answer. So, which is it? a question or an answer?

Ok, I answer your question,

The Basic Law of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China [1990-04-04]
http://en.ec.com.cn/article/entrade/eclaw/engjlaw/200404/402111_1.html


Article 68

The Legislative Council of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region shall be constituted by election.

The method for forming the Legislative Council shall be specified in the light of the actual situation in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region and in accordance with the principle of gradual and orderly progress. The ultimate aim is the election of all the members of the Legislative Council by universal suffrage.

[plato]

Ok, I answer your question,

The Basic Law of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China [1990-04-04]
http://en.ec.com.cn/article/entrade/eclaw/engjlaw/200404/402111_1.html
That is much better, thanks. But, you didn't answer my question, you just answered some other people's question. I didn't ask you anything. Still, it is a good start. thanks

[J-10]

In Hong Kong,
Before 1997, no democracy, autocratic;
After 1997, by now, partial democracy;
In 2017, full democracy(universal suffrage).

[J-10]

China has a population of over 1 billion. What I see happening is China using Hong Kong as the school project on how it all works, take notes, make changes, see how a multi party system works and so on.

Democracy is all fine and good. But the population needs to be educated enough to understand it. Otherwise candidates only get elected on popularity and the country ends up in ruin as we have seen time and time again amongst the developing world.

China would end up in major civil war if the commies said today we will have multi party election in 6 weeks time.

I basically agree your view.

[plato]

Well, it is NOT rocket science to figure out that China cannot become a democracy overnight. Just look at South Korea and Taiwan. They didn't become democratic overnight, either. However, they have been constantly moving towards democracy. Has China been moving towards democracy for the past 10 years? Has China been preparing for democracy for the past 10 years? That is up for debate.

[Mobydog]

2017?

China is soooooo Generous.

HK is as developed as most places. Why is it not ready NOW for Democracy? Please tell us.

I guess the PRC needs time to groom a stooge to get in charge.And the British was generous too.

HK is as developed and wealthlier than most places before 1997. Why is it not ready 'THEN' for democracy ? Please tell us "Why didn't the British give HK the democracy, you and the West, are demanding now ?"

I guess the British only does these things, only when it's isn't their's anymore ? Same with Macao... Western Hypocracy.

[I can't think of a name]

Well for starters the "Four Tigers" (HK, Singapore, Taiwan, South Korea) only really developed fully in the 1980s. Give that time to sink in the 1990s and guess what. It is already time to hand it over to China. The UK making HK democratic would have been pointless considering it was not theirs for much longer.

Anyway, your argument is typical of Chinese internet nationalists. It is a logical fallacy called a RED HERRING. Disgusting Chinese nationalist feel that China has been cheated out of its rightful place in the world. It missed out on the years of development and expansion the west endured. So they want China to catch up anyway possible even though the West has moved on. That is a dangerous attitude.

So by their logic, the British not giving HK elections when it was a backwater ignored by Beijing is equivalent to denying one of the most developed places in Asia the right to elect their leaders.

[Shoplifter]

Before 1997, Why the former British colony's authority was autarchic? they have enough time to fulfil full Democracy as UK, to let Hong Kong people directly elect its leader and all its lawmakers.

The British began an attempt via the Joint Declaration to build a lasting democracy in Hong Kong. Negotiations for this began in earnest in 1979.

The consensus was that there was little point in creating a democracy in Hong Kong as it would be immediately dismantled by the PRC unless it was protected by agreement.

The first sentence of Section 3, Subsection 4 of the Sino-British Joint Declaration is "The Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region will be composed of local inhabitants."

[Mobydog]

Well for starters the "Four Tigers" (HK, Singapore, Taiwan, South Korea) only really developed fully in the 1980s. Give that time to sink in the 1990s and guess what. It is already time to hand it over to China. The UK making HK democratic would have been pointless considering it was not theirs for much longer. You talk as if the British didn't know they had to hand HK back in 1997. And what has democracy has to do with the handing over ? If the British gave HK democracy, and the Chinese were to abolish that system.. wouldn't that gives more Acid for the British to Bark at ? In any case, Patten wanted to buy HK from the Chinese, which was rejected. Thus the talk of democracy came in.. but it seems, not during the British rule.


Anyway, your argument is typical of Chinese internet nationalists. It is a logical fallacy called a RED HERRING. Disgusting Chinese nationalist feel that China has been cheated out of its rightful place in the world. It missed out on the years of development and expansion the west endured. So they want China to catch up anyway possible even though the West has moved on. That is a dangerous attitude. I'm not Chinese and your profound hatred of a country that has done nothing to you.. is just as dangerous.. and the West hasn't moved on.. Not USA nor British Govt. Read the news lately... says peace on one side while doing things the other.


So by their logic, the British not giving HK elections when it was a backwater ignored by Beijing is equivalent to denying one of the most developed places in Asia the right to elect their leaders.What's happening is the opposite of what your are saying.. and HK isn't a backwater at all in the 80's.. and they more democratic today then during british. You are simply giving excuses.

[Ordie]

The British had contributed tremendously to Hong Kong's economic and social development. Unlike most Asian countries, Hong Kong did not depend on government led industrialization or an oligarchy of international corporations.

Much of Hong Kong's competitive advantage was the Colonial government efforts to provide housing, education, infrastructure, rule of law, professional civil service and most importantly transparency.

In terms of economic devlopment, Hong Kong enjoyed low taxes, no government debt and liberal economic policies.

The major concern of Hong Kong residents in terms of democracy is whether or not thier voices are being heard by the Chief Executive (PRC Governor) or in Beijing.

The Chief Executive Donald Tsang of Hong Kong recently equated the demands for democracy in HK to that of the Cultural Revolution.

This is a slap on the face for many Hong Kong residents who fled China during the Cultral Revolution in the 60's and 70's. It demonstrates the lack of understanding the government has for its people.

[J-10]

Ordie, I always admire your insight and impartial.

[Mobydog]

Message wthdrawn.. sorry

[Ordie]

Mobydog,

Here's the source:

It's French

Not British, nor American nor PRC



From correspondents in Hong Kong
October 14, 2007 04:28pm
Agence France-Presse


HONG Kong's leader has been forced to make an unprecedented apology after warning that democracy could lead to the chaos of the Cultural Revolution, in which millions of Chinese were persecuted.

Chief Executive Donald Tsang said that democracy, if taken to the extreme, could spark scenes reminiscent of the disastrous decade-long purge of capitalist influence, which tore the country apart.
Mr Tsang is currently spearheading the process of introducing universal suffrage into the former British colony.
The backlash over the comments, made during an interview to promote his annual policy address which skirted around the issue of democratic reform, forced the 63-year-old into the apology.
"I am very sorry that I made an inappropriate remark concerning the Cultural Revolution during a radio interview, and I wish to retract that remark," he said in a statement issued yesterday, in what is thought to be his first public apology since taking office.
"Hong Kong people treasure democracy and hope to implement universal suffrage as soon as possible. I share the same aspirations."
Mr Tsang's initial comments were made during a radio interview on local broadcaster RTHK.
"If you go to the extreme (of democracy) you have the cultural revolution for instance in China. Then people take everything into their hands, then you cannot govern the place," he said.
Challenged by the interviewer whether the Communist-inspired purge was in fact a true example, Mr Tsang said: "It was people taking power into their own hands. This is what we mean by democracy".
Universal suffrage was guaranteed when Hong Kong was handed back to China from colonial power Britain in 1997, but no specific timetable was established for introducing it.
Mr Tsang won the "election" for the chief executive post earlier this year against a pro-democracy candidate, but the vote was limited to around 800 business and industrial elites, many pro-Beijing.
A consultation exercise on when to introduce elections for both the chief executive and the legislature was completed this week, and Mr Tsang said he will make recommendations to Beijing once he has studied the findings.
Debate is raging in the city over when full elections should take place. Pro-democrats insist it should be 2012, but the mainland is thought to prefer a target of 2017 or later.
The Cultural Revolution began in 1966, when Communist chief Mao Zedong said that "representatives of the bourgeoisie" had infiltrated all levels of the party.
Students and workers, who became his "Red Guards", were empowered to hound millions across the country for perceived ideological impurity, leading to many Chinese fleeing, often to Hong Kong.


Source:http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,22583631-1702,00.html

[Bohemoth]

Hong Kong flourished because the pragmatic local population were and is mainly interested in making money.

The Brits provided the infrastructure and everybody was happy, but this city, the Pearl of Asia, perfectly located in the center between South and East Asia had also become an international hub with a cosmopolitan flair and a very exciting lifestyle for both expats and locals alike.

Hongkongers were very western-orientated but also never forgot their Chinese roots. Under British rule they enjoyed freedom, safety and wealth, something their relatives in the Chinese Mainland could only dream of and only when the popular last Governour Chris Patten retrieved the Union Jack while bagpipes played Old Lang Syne did many break out in tears and did they realise how much was at stake.

Today, the Hongkongers have to manage their all-day matters themselves and you see them complaining about virtually anything they never complained before during the colonial time. They don't trust each other and they don't trust the communists in Peking. They now fight a battle they should have fought before, for they should know freedom isn't free.

[Ordie]

Bohemoth,

Well said.