Protest in Hong Kong

[mr friendly guy]

http://news.yahoo.com/hong-kong-civil-s ... 13413.html

Hong Kong protests subside as exhaustion sets in
AFP By Aaron Tam
3 hours ago

Exhausted Hong Kong demonstrators were debating the next step in their pro-democracy campaign Monday as their numbers dwindled and the city returned to work after a chaotic week of mass protests.

The government had been forced to shut its headquarters on Friday due to the ranks of protesters blocking the access roads, leaving 3,000 civil servants at home. On Monday a knot of protesters kept the entrance to the complex partially blocked with barricades, but opened a narrow section to allow workers to enter.

"I'm happy the protesters opened the barriers today," one female civil servant said as she pushed through. "I need to work!"

In fear of a repeat of ugly scenes a week ago when police unleashed tear gas on the crowds, only a committed core of about a thousand had waged a vigil through the night.

After a public holiday Wednesday and Thursday, for many in the city Monday was their first day back at work.

With some buses still diverted due to roads occupied by the protesters, highways were gridlocked with traffic and subway trains were packed as frustrated commuters tried to find a different route to work.

View galleryThe statue 'Umbrella Man' by the Hong Kong …
The statue 'Umbrella Man' by the Hong Kong artist known as Milk, is set up at a pro-democrac …
"They have to let the cars through as soon as possible -- they are blocking the way," said Michael Lau, 25, who rides the tram to work.

Secondary schools in the affected areas also reopened on Monday as the city administration pushed for Hong Kong to get back to normal.

- Exhaustion sets in -

While relieved that they had not been cleared away by police ahead of the government's Monday deadline to abandon the protest sites, tiredness was beginning to show for the few hundred who remained.

"It's good that nothing (no police action) happened but... I hoped that something would happen so we could end this thing quickly," said 18-year-old Otto Ng Chun-lung, a pro-democracy protester and sociology student.

View galleryA wall is covered in post-it notes, in support of the …
A wall is covered in post-it notes, in support of the pro-democracy movement, next to the central go …
"This is my opinion -- because everyone is just exhausted and we can't go long, long, long time."

But some of those on the streets have vowed to stay and others have promised to return later in the day, insisting their campaign was not losing steam after the week-long standoff that has at times erupted into violence.

"We're going to be here until we get a response from the government," said 20-year-old student Jurkin Wong, who was sitting with friends as they woke from fitful slumber on the streets. "We have to stay here. It's for our future."

"If I'm not working, I will be here -- the numbers are dropping but our hearts have never left," piano teacher Denise Wong told AFP.

The protesters are demanding the right to nominate who can run for election as the former British colony's next leader in 2017. China's Communist authorities insist only pre-approved candidates will be able to run, a system activists dismiss as "fake democracy".

View galleryA local resident watches as protesters gather in the …
A local resident watches as protesters gather in the Mong Kok district of Hong Kong, on October 5, 2 …
Handed back to Chinese rule in 1997, Hong Kong is governed under a "one countries, two systems" deal that guarantees civil liberties not seen on the mainland, including freedom of speech and the right to protest.

But tensions have been rising over fears that these freedoms are being eroded, as well as rocketing inequality in the Asian financial hub.

- Plea to leave -

University staff made an impassioned plea Sunday for students to head home after the city's embattled chief executive Leung Chun-ying issued an ominous warning that the situation could "evolve into a state beyond control" if the protests do not end soon.

Other movement supporters have also been trying to persuade the remaining students that they should beat a tactical retreat.

"Even those (members of the public) who support the movement don't want to lose money," political analyst Willy Lam told AFP.

"A large number of people here have stocks and shares and have lost money.

"I think it's a wise decision to make a strategic draw down (of people on the ground) as it's hard to convince the public that continuing the blockade would achieve results.

"If talks between the students and the government prove totally futile... and (Chinese president) Xi Jinping is against concessions, then it's possible to switch on the movement again. By that time they would have the moral high ground."

There were hopes of a breakthrough on Sunday when student leader Lester Shum met with mid-ranking officials with the aim of setting conditions for a meeting with Leung's deputy Carrie Lam. However, no agreement was announced.

Looks like its dying down and Beijing didn't even have to lift a hand. In fact according to Reuters Beijing had deliberately taken a hands off approach to see how HK politicians would react. No doubt the democracy wankers will spin things such as brave people defending against a repressive government, (even though that government hasn't deemed the protesters needing its personal intervention to deal with) all the while pining for British rule.

[Thanas]

democracy wankers? Stupid term for people who just want what has been promised to them - free elections.

[mr friendly guy]

democracy wankers? Stupid term for people who just want what has been promised to them - free elections.

Yes. Those who want to bring democracy onto groups which are reluctant. Because that totally ends well.

I should also include those who use democracy as a smokescreen or those who use democracy for the win in lieu of an actual argument.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

democracy wankers? Stupid term for people who just want what has been promised to them - free elections.

Ah nope. In Hong Kong's case, if they did have democracy, Beijing would simply bribe most of them and you'd back to square one.

[Siege]

If that is the case then the protestors have a perfectly valid case against Beijing.

Frankly if you're promised a free choice and then the other guy says "you get to freely pick... from our selection of candidates", then that is something to be upset about. I don't give a hoot if the guy Beijing picked would've still won if they hadn't, government outright restricting who people can vote for and calling it democracy is still bullshit.

Ridiculing people for being upset with corruption and cronyism and then pointing out that if they had their way they would just be brought in line through corruption and cronyism isn't helpful.

[K. A. Pital]

It is bullshit. Then again, HK's basic law makes it more like a corporation than a real state. Also, how could HK and China be reunited if by 2047 the internal border is done away with and they stop being an enclave alltogether? They are asking for something that Beijing could have given only if they had it themselves. Which is, perhaps, never going to happen, with the CPC taking clues from Singapore and forever remaining in the ruling party position.

[Siege]

Do these protestors even give a shit about how Hong Kong and China are reunited in 2047? That's not their issue, their issue appears to be the lack of democracy which they were promised, and which they presumably hope will solve some of Hong Kong's woes. That hope may be naive but it's admirable that at least they have the gumption to get on the streets and make a fuss. I don't see many people here calling the Ferguson protestors wankers for trying to effect change, even though their hopes for improvement in their situation could be called just as naive.

[K. A. Pital]

I did say the goals are fine. I merely noted that it is very unlikely anything will be given to them under the current situation. China will not allow separation, and by 2047 HK's autonomy will cease to exist. Their city was governed like a corporation, making it easy to arrange a handover - just like with property. And that is unlikely to change. Of all East Asian nations only Taiwan and South Korea have a more or less functioning democratic mechanism, and those are de-facto sovereign.

[Thanas]

democracy wankers? Stupid term for people who just want what has been promised to them - free elections.

Yes. Those who want to bring democracy onto groups which are reluctant. Because that totally ends well.

I should also include those who use democracy as a smokescreen or those who use democracy for the win in lieu of an actual argument.

So what? They were promised free elections. China broke that promise. If you want to rail at the party who started this thing, rail against China.

[mr friendly guy]

Unfortunately when even an anti Chinese professor describes Beijing as sticking to the letter of the agreement, the case weakens. Moreover Beijing has to ensure HK can't be used against it. I mean its not like foreign NGOs cough NED cough and foreign government apparatus cough CIA cough haven't tried to disrupt countries from within, including China.

[AniThyng]

Unfortunately when even an anti Chinese professor describes Beijing as sticking to the letter of the agreement, the case weakens. Moreover Beijing has to ensure HK can't be used against it. I mean its not like foreign NGOs cough NED cough and foreign government apparatus cough CIA cough haven't tried to disrupt countries from within, including China.

The fact that the US really does do this really pisses me off because when anti-democratic nationalists accuse pro-democracy liberals of being backed by shadowy foreigners, they are likely to be right.

Thanks Obama!

[Siege]

The protestors aren't obliged to give a single shit about the letter of the agreement. Nor is there much reason for them to care about an authoritarian government's nebulous fears of disruption by foreign intelligence, especially when it's that same government that raises their hackles.

I don't think that's unfortunate, I think it's good that people are standing up and demanding a better deal. Appeals to treaty fineprint aren't a swaying argument for limiting democracy and should rightly fall on deaf ears when free and fair elections are at stake.

[Ralin]

Moreover Beijing has to ensure HK can't be used against it. I mean its not like foreign NGOs cough NED cough and foreign government apparatus cough CIA cough haven't tried to disrupt countries from within, including China.

Could you elaborate on how, exactly, open elections would let the Yankee American imperialists use Hong Kong against China in a way that they can't now?

[Thanas]

Unfortunately when even an anti Chinese professor describes Beijing as sticking to the letter of the agreement

Then I don't know what he is smoking, because "you get to vote freely....on all candidates approved by us" is not what any reasonable person would call "fair and free elections". That is like claiming the GDR was a democracy because after all people could democratically vote on all candidates approved by the leadership.

[K. A. Pital]

Letter of agreement and democracy are two different things. Universal suffrage is not the same as free elections. If no democracy was promised, then no promise could be broken as all that was promised is semi-authoritarian rule backed by elections. Don't believe me? The Basic Law says:

"The ultimate aim is the selection of the Chief Executive by universal suffrage upon nomination by a broadly representative nominating committee in accordance with democratic procedures."

As one can see, it is the selection among nominees, not just any person who decided to take part in the elections. Where is the democracy promise that you are referring to?

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

The protestors aren't obliged to give a single shit about the letter of the agreement. Nor is there much reason for them to care about an authoritarian government's nebulous fears of disruption by foreign intelligence, especially when it's that same government that raises their hackles.

I don't think that's unfortunate, I think it's good that people are standing up and demanding a better deal. Appeals to treaty fineprint aren't a swaying argument for limiting democracy and should rightly fall on deaf ears when free and fair elections are at stake.

I think if they really want free and fair elections, they'd need to rewrite a good chunk of the constitution. This is a country where single persons and corporations are near interchangeable, because there are plenty of millionaires and billionaires around and they all have connections with the mainland government. The top dog for example is Lee Ka Shing, who is worth 31.9 billion USD alone and is the richest man in Asia. Never mind his family. Together they control a good chunk of the economy, and he alone controls the company that runs Hong Kong's port.

In that committee that selects the Chief Executive, about near 50% represent business interests. That is how much power the business interests in the country wield. It's far deeper and more fundamental than it is in the United States. For reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Election_Committee

[mr friendly guy]

The protestors aren't obliged to give a single shit about the letter of the agreement.

By that logic Beijing aren't obliged to do the same to the protesters when the majority disagree with them. See how easy it is to play this game.

Nor is there much reason for them to care about an authoritarian government's nebulous fears of disruption by foreign intelligence, especially when it's that same government that raises their hackles.

Are you saying foreign disruptions as described don't occur or even if they did it doesn't really matter anyway and the government subjected to this should just cop it sweet.

I don't think that's unfortunate, I think it's good that people are standing up and demanding a better deal. Appeals to treaty fineprint aren't a swaying argument for limiting democracy and should rightly fall on deaf ears when free and fair elections are at stake.

So we should go an force democracy elsewhere? Just want to clarify that.

Could you elaborate on how, exactly, open elections would let the Yankee American imperialists use Hong Kong against China in a way that they can't now?

Is this supposed to be serious question? I will answer it if you are not trolling and you seriously cannot imagine it. So is it a serious question?

Unfortunately when even an anti Chinese professor describes Beijing as sticking to the letter of the agreement

Then I don't know what he is smoking, because "you get to vote freely....on all candidates approved by us" is not what any reasonable person would call "fair and free elections". That is like claiming the GDR was a democracy because after all people could democratically vote on all candidates approved by the leadership.

You have been following this thread right? Please tell me you read what was said earlier.

[Siege]

By that logic Beijing aren't obliged to do the same to the protesters when the majority disagree with them. See how easy it is to play this game.

Nonsense. It behooves the government that signed the agreement to adhere to its letter and its spirit. If it chooses to interpret the agreement in such a narrow fashion that people who were promised free elections are left to conclude they will not in fact be getting free elections, then that is perfectly legitimate grounds to challenge the status quo by means of peaceful protest.

Furthermore the only way to definitively find out whether or not the majority disagrees with the protestors is - guess what - free elections.

Are you saying foreign disruptions as described don't occur or even if they did it doesn't really matter anyway and the government subjected to this should just cop it sweet.

It's funny how when people say "are you saying that", whatever follows after is never what you were actually saying. No, that is not in fact what I am saying, I am saying that the protestors have no obligation to care for or share the Chinese government's nebulous fears of disruption by foreign intelligence. You can tell that that's what I was saying by how that's what I said.

So we should go an force democracy elsewhere? Just want to clarify that.

Do explain how you come to the conclusion that this must be what I meant. This should be good.

[mr friendly guy]

Nonsense.

Yes that's kind of the point. If one side as you put it doesn't give a shit about the agreement, then the other side should not either.

It behooves the government that signed the agreement to adhere to its letter and its spirit. If it chooses to interpret the agreement in such a narrow fashion that people who were promised free elections are left to conclude they will not in fact be getting free elections, then that is perfectly legitimate grounds to challenge the status quo by means of peaceful protest.

The problem with writing it in flowery language is, either side can claim a different interpretation. So at the end of the day they come to a compromise agreement, which is what this is.

Furthermore the only way to definitively find out whether or not the majority disagrees with the protestors is - guess what - free elections.

True on the definitive part, but again so what?

It's funny how when people say "are you saying that", whatever follows after is never what you were actually saying.

No people ask "are you saying x" because its not clear from the statement they are reading.

No, that is not in fact what I am saying, I am saying that the protestors have no obligation to care for or share the Chinese government's nebulous fears of disruption by foreign intelligence. You can tell that that's what I was saying by how that's what I said.

Since its flying over your head, WHY are they not obligated to care about the Chinese government's fear? Is it because you don't think it exists, or is it irrelevant or some other reason. Because it sounds like one side has to accomodate the other side's concern, and the other does not have to reciprocate.

Do explain how you come to the conclusion that this must be what I meant. This should be good.

Oh it will be good.
Lets start with a) you don't care about legal agreements as long as it counters democracy
So naturally I wonder if other legal frameworks (lets say mode of government) can be scrapped as long as one side does it for democracy or at least says it does.

b) you believe the benefits of protests for democracy outweigh the bad ie economic hardships the protests are causing on others

So naturally I wonder how much negative effect is acceptable to you, hence I ask about forcing it on non democratic countries.

c) You don't care about foreign disruption to a country (well unless its Putin doing it to Ukraine ) as long as democracy is used as a vehicle.

So naturally I wonder how much disruption is acceptable to you including using force.

BTW - when one asks for clarification its a good bet that I am not 100% sure of the conclusion about what you meant. Which is kind of the purpose of clarifying things. Just saying.

[K. A. Pital]

Um... Selection among nominees is inherently undemocratic, at least in the sense that these elections are not free. However, it is stated as the ultimate goal in the Basic Law which is HK's constitution.

People are thinking that China promised HK democracy. In fact, it promised authoritarian, corporation-like rule. I understand that many people are seriously unhappy with that, and they are now challenging the very concept of nomination.

I am of the opinion that China will either implement free elections everywhere or - more likely - nowhere, but Hong Kong's plea for special status will not be answered.

[Thanas]

You have been following this thread right? Please tell me you read what was said earlier.

I have, I reamin unconvinced that China is abiding by the spirit of the agreement, which in any country is enough reason to protest.

[Siege]

Yes that's kind of the point. If one side as you put it doesn't give a shit about the agreement, then the other side should not either.

Governments have a significantly higher standard of care than their citizens. This is inherent to their standing as, you know, governments. There's a clear asymmetry of power and responsibility in the relation between government and individual citizens, treating them as equals is clearly inaccurate. Government is the dominant political actor and as the mantra goes, with great power, etc. Minimal commitment to your agreements means you deserve minimal respect from your citizens.

True on the definitive part, but again so what?

So you can't say "the majority disagree with them" because it's not been definitively proven that the majority in fact disagrees with them. Indeed one wonders if there's a clear majority against the protestors why the government has its panties in a twist so much it wants to shut out electoral candidates.

Incidentally, even if the majority did in fact disagree with them they should still have the right to peaceful protest against what they see is a wrong interpretation of the agreements.

No people ask "are you saying x" because its not clear from the statement they are reading.

Then maybe next time people should just ask for clarification instead of making assumptions about what they're reading and then asking closed questions about those assumptions.

Since its flying over your head, WHY are they not obligated to care about the Chinese government's fear? Is it because you don't think it exists, or is it irrelevant or some other reason. Because it sounds like one side has to accomodate the other side's concern, and the other does not have to reciprocate.

Citizens are not obligated to share the concerns of their governments. But you're damn right government has to accomodate its citizens concerns, that's what government is for.

Lets start with a) you don't care about legal agreements as long as it counters democracy

I did not say this at all (here's a hint: when I say "the protestors aren't obliged to give a single shit about the letter of the agreement" that does not necessarily reflect the degree to which I personally care about legal agreements in any way; I am not the protestors). But whatever, I'll accomodate you and say that I feel legal agreements made by governments that do not fully and clearly represent the people have a lower standing than agreements made by those that do. Practically speaking this would be difficult to judge, but then luckily I'm not a judge.

b) you believe the benefits of protests for democracy outweigh the bad ie economic hardships the protests are causing on others

The right to civil disobedience and the struggle for social justice are more important to me than temporary economic hiccups. Government, being the dominant group, has plenty ways to mediate such damages anyway. If it chooses not to, well, I guess that's what it means to have your concerns not heard. It's almost ironic! Maybe they should protest.

Curtailing the right to protest in such a way that it poses no threat to the status quo and established institutions is narrowminded and repressive in much the same way as the Chinese government restricting who one can vote for is.

So naturally I wonder how much negative effect is acceptable to you, hence I ask about forcing it on non democratic countries.

Forcing anything on countries is directly in conflict with democratic principles. That much should be blindingly obvious.

c) You don't care about foreign disruption to a country (well unless its Putin doing it to Ukraine ) as long as democracy is used as a vehicle.

You're hilarious. I can tell by the smiley. First of all, if you peruse the thread on the subject you'll note that my issue with for example the seccession of Crimea was that the referendum there was not held in a free and fair manner. I have not at any point expressed objections to the idea that the people of Crimea (or any other part of the country) might democratically decide to no longer be part of Ukraine.

I'll also point out that sponsoring armed gunmen and covertly sending troops into a neighboring country to enforce your will has preciously little to do with democracy. So frankly I'm left to wonder if you even have a point at all, or if you're simply conflating my personal views on liberal democracy with some kind of mental stereotype of a Western hypocrite you've constructed in your head.

[mr friendly guy]

Governments have a significantly higher standard of care than their citizens. This is inherent to their standing as, you know, governments. There's a clear asymmetry of power and responsibility in the relation between government and individual citizens, treating them as equals is clearly inaccurate. Government is the dominant political actor and as the mantra goes, with great power, etc. Minimal commitment to your agreements means you deserve minimal respect from your citizens.

No offense, but are you just regurgitating talking points? I am trying to see how this is even relevant since
a. The contract as it were, was between two governments so talking about asymmetry of power between government and citizenship is irrelevant
b. Even if it was just between a government and an individual citizen, in such contracts this asymmetry is not taken into account.

So you can't say "the majority disagree with them" because it's not been definitively proven that the majority in fact disagrees with them. Indeed one wonders if there's a clear majority against the protestors why the government has its panties in a twist so much it wants to shut out electoral candidates.

You are not going to go into absolute knowledge philosophical meandering are we? Please tell me we are not going down that route.

Incidentally, even if the majority did in fact disagree with them they should still have the right to peaceful protest against what they see is a wrong interpretation of the agreements.

Have I disputed their right to do so, as opposed to a) their interpretation of the contract and b) the economic hardship imposed from prolong protests.

If you think I have quote me, or it you know I didn't, why bother bringing it up? Aside from a cheap shot I suppose.

Then maybe next time people should just ask for clarification instead of making assumptions about what they're reading and then asking closed questions about those assumptions.

I did. Not my problem you misintepreted it as something else.

Citizens are not obligated to share the concerns of their governments. But you're damn right government has to accomodate its citizens concerns, that's what government is for.

However the concerns of the government ultimately spring from concerns from the citizens. The government's job is to try and balance these out. While one group of citizens don't share the concerns of another group, the government certainly has to deal with it.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The next part is when I justify why I think you had reached certain conclusions ie why I asked whether you thought it was ok to force democracy on others. I will give you credit for answering it unambiguously. I won't debate all the side points because its essentially you just reiterating what I thought your position was (albeit in more detail), which in turn was why I had to ask the question. However some clarifications are in order.

I did not say this at all (here's a hint: when I say "the protestors aren't obliged to give a single shit about the letter of the agreement" that does not necessarily reflect the degree to which I personally care about legal agreements in any way; I am not the protestors).

Oh please, this is semantic bullshit. Its like Johnny saying "I didn't say grandma died. Whoever accused me to saying that is lying. I just said grandma is no longer alive."

But whatever, I'll accomodate you and say that I feel legal agreements made by governments that do not fully and clearly represent the people have a lower standing than agreements made by those that do. Practically speaking this would be difficult to judge, but then luckily I'm not a judge.

Like I said. You feel democracy outweighs legal agreements.

Forcing anything on countries is directly in conflict with democratic principles. That much should be blindingly obvious.

No shit. But its perfectly reasonable for me to ask this because they are quite a lot of people who do subscribe to the principle of forcing democracy on others and because your statements previously didn't rule you out of being in this group.

You're hilarious. I can tell by the smiley. First of all, if you peruse the thread on the subject you'll note that my issue with for example the seccession of Crimea was that the referendum there was not held in a free and fair manner. I have not at any point expressed objections to the idea that the people of Crimea (or any other part of the country) might democratically decide to no longer be part of Ukraine.

I'll also point out that sponsoring armed gunmen and covertly sending troops into a neighboring country to enforce your will has preciously little to do with democracy. So frankly I'm left to wonder if you even have a point at all, or if you're simply conflating my personal views on liberal democracy with some kind of mental stereotype of a Western hypocrite you've constructed in your head.

Actually its more that interfering in another nation's affairs irregardless of consequences is ok it we tack the label democracy to it.

[Siege]

No offense, but are you just regurgitating talking points? I am trying to see how this is even relevant since
a. The contract as it were, was between two governments so talking about asymmetry of power between government and citizenship is irrelevant
b. Even if it was just between a government and an individual citizen, in such contracts this asymmetry is not taken into account.

I'm talking about the protestors and their grievances, and have been since I got to this thread. It's you that's constantly trying to return to 'b-b-but the agreement!' even though your own article pointed out the Chinese government 'intended to observe with minimal commitment', and it was you who said that when citizens don't care for an agreement made between governments "the other side should not either" as if citizens and their government were somehow equal. So as far as I'm concerned pointing out the obvious asymmetry of power and the relation government-citizen is very relevant. And if those things are just "talking points" to you, then I suppose that speaks volumes about your outlook on life.

You are not going to go into absolute knowledge philosophical meandering are we? Please tell me we are not going down that route.

Coming from the man who called protestors 'democracy wankers', that is especially rich. God forbid a man explains how he arrived at his position!

However the concerns of the government ultimately spring from concerns from the citizens. The government's job is to try and balance these out. While one group of citizens don't share the concerns of another group, the government certainly has to deal with it.

At least in a democracy they're supposed to!

Oh please, this is semantic bullshit. Its like Johnny saying "I didn't say grandma died. Whoever accused me to saying that is lying. I just said grandma is no longer alive."

No it isn't, but if you can't see the difference then I suppose that can't be helped.

[Covenant]

Snipped--got a reply while I was typing.