China Hong Kong SAR: News and Images

[powastick]

I bet 75% of pro democracy are falun gong.

 

[Götterdämmerung]

not from germany

Bloody liar! I can reach Xinhua from Germany.

 

[Desertfalcon]

US democracy means the majority of idiots rules over everyone, thus, the US Congress has super low approval ratings, Bush was and Obama is the idiot leader in the White House, and the US is a declining superpower. US elections are the world's most expensive with corporations and central banks legally bribing US politicians.

US capitalism means central banks print out lots of money so the US rulers could live in luxury. The US petrodollar spreads US inflation all over the world, but the US needs a ridiculously expensive military policy to enforce the petrodollar in resource rich nations. US too-big-to-fail corporations and their managers screw over most Americans. The US consumes until they become overweight and all of the health problems associated with eating too much junk food. The US consumes until they have huge debts even after outsourcing lots of labor to cheap nations, importing more affordable workers for hi-tech labor, and importing lots of cheap labor from Hispanic nations, but the Hispanics have high rates of crime and social problems like low intelligence, procreating too much, broken families, and high car accident rates.

The the US democracy and US capitalism requires racial quotas at work and school and other forms of welfare to help out obnoxious Jews who insist on bossing around everyone and accusing everyone of being anti-Semitic and dysfunctional blacks and less dysfunctional Hispanics.

Yes, that is why the USA is one of the most undesirable places to live and we have masses of Americans flooding into Mexico, China, India, and other countries. That is why America is so poor and why no one wants to live here. It's why we have no illegal immigrants. It's why no one ever risks their life to get to America or fight for it once they are there. It's why no one is trying to emulate America. It's why YOU obviously, don't live in America.

I guess these proud new American citizens are just deluded...

 

[Aepsilons]

Political movements often conjure images of passionate university-goers championing progressive views they learned on campus. But the long, storied history of Hong Kong’s student-led political movements is taking a different turn: The most prominent student leader of the territory’s pro-democracy protests is only 17 years old.
Sporting heavy black glasses and a bowl cut, Joshua Wong Chi-fung doesn’t exactly cut a menacing figure. But his activism against what many in Hong Kong perceive to be the Chinese Communist Party’s encroachment onto their freedoms has already attracted Beijing’s attention. Mainland authorities call him an “extremist.” A party document on national security identifies Wong by name as a threat to internal stability. Pro-Beijing newspapers in Hong Kong, meanwhile, accuse him of working for the US Central Intelligence Agency to infiltrate Hong Kong schools. (Wong denies the charges.)
Joshua Wong’s fight against “brainwashing”

Convener of the students group "Scholarism" Joshua Wong attends a sit-in protest outside the government headquarters in Hong Kong, Wednesday, Sept. 5, 2012. Protesters urged the government to cancel new additional course, "Moral and National Education" subject, to be introduced for school curriculum, starting from a new school year. (AP Photo/Kin CheungWong at a 2012 sit-in protesting “national education” in front of government headquarters.AP Photo/Kin Cheung
Wong got his start in 2011, when he and fellow students founded a group called “Scholarism,” which they thought was catchier than the direct translation of the Chinese, meaning “scholarly trends.” Wong and Scholarism rose to prominence in 2012, when the Hong Kong government tried to roll out Communist Party-approved “patriotic” education in Hong Kong’s public schools, to replace civics classes. The curriculum included textbooks like one titled “The China Model,” which characterized China’s Communist Party as “progressive, selfless and united,” and criticized multi-party systems like Hong Kong’s while avoiding major (unflattering) events—notably, the Great Leap Forward, the Cultural Revolution and the Tiananmen Square massacres of 1989—reports the New York Times (paywall).


One Hong Kong journalist likened the move to a Trojan horse that dissolved Hong Kong’s identity; Wong called it “brainwashing,” an attempt to require students to “develop an emotional attachment to China,” as he put it in this video by the South China Morning Post (paywall). In Sep. 2012, Wong and Scholarism mobilized more than 120,000 people to demonstrate (paywall) against the education program, including a slew of students who went on hunger strike. Within days, the Hong Kong government scrapped the plan for mandatory implementation.

Wong’s next battle: “universal suffrage”

But Wong and Scholarism knew that as long as Hong Kong lacks representative government, both the education issue and the Chinese government’s failed 2003 attempt to impose US Patriot Act-style rules on Hong Kong would eventually resurface. So they began researching the controversy that’s now galvanizing the Umbrella Revolution: universal suffrage.

This issue is really confusing—and, as even Wong admits, “really boring.” The background goes something like this: Hong Kong is governed by what’s called the Basic Law, which legal scholars from the then-British colony and the mainland wrote up prior to the 1997 handover. The law promises Hong Kong a “high degree of autonomy” until 2047 (after which, it is assumed, it will merge with the People’s Republic of China for good). It also indicates, although vaguely, that the ultimate objective is for the chief executive and the congress to be elected by universal suffrage by Hong Kong’s seven million people.

That’s not how it is at the moment. Hong Kong’s chief executive is currently chosen by an “election committee” made up of 1,193 members selected to represent “functional constituencies,” such as business and labor groups. Beijing controls who is on the committee, and, in turn, whom the committee elects; the committee also decides who runs. Ultimately, since the Chinese government still has to officially “appoint” the chosen candidate, it has veto power over the chief executive.
In 2007, the National People’s Congress, China’s legislature, promised that by 2017, Hong Kong’s chief executive “may be implemented by the method of universal suffrage.” Some in Hong Kong read that to mean by 2017, they’d have fully democratic elections. But the NPC, evidently, had something else in mind: that each and every Hong Kong citizen would be allowed to vote—but only for one of three candidates selected by the (Communist Party-picked) “electoral committee.”

Civic nomination vs. Communist Party nomination

What’s bizarre is that many ostensibly pro-democracy politicians in Hong Kong accept this policy—including, most prominently, Hong Kong’s Democratic Party, according to Suzanne Pepper, who blogs on Hong Kong politics.

Wong highlights that this cynical pragmatism plays to the mainland’s bullying, recalling that Albert Ho, leader of the Democratic Party, once asked him during a radio show, “Do you really think Beijing will accept public nomination?”
Only when the people select the candidates—or when they select the people who select the candidates—can suffrage truly be universal, says Wong. He and Scholarism have championed the idea that civic nomination was essential to create a truly representative democracy. When the Hong Kong government’s working group on the election issue called for public recommendations, Scholarism’s joint proposal with the Hong Kong Federation of Students was one of only two that insisted on public nomination of candidates for the election of chief executive, writes Pepper.

Flash forward to the “Umbrella Revolution”


This careful analysis of the murky laws that govern the relationship between the mainland and its wealthy capitalist territory is what’s landed Joshua Wong at the center of the showdown with the Communist Party. And, for that matter, his role in the protests erupting in Hong Kong’s downtown thoroughfares. Along with 12 other student activists arrested on Sep. 26, the Hong Kong police dragged a screaming, bleeding Wong away as he and others demonstrated outside government headquarters. Many were soon freed. Wong, however, remained in custody until Sep. 28, when a Hong Kong high court ordered his release, citing a lack of legal grounds for continued detention, over objections from government lawyers (paywall); the judge also quashed government efforts to attach conditions to Wong’s release, said his lawyer.

Scuffling with the police is the type of thing that usually leaves Hong Kong citizens wary of “politics.” But the students are now winning the sympathy of broader Hong Kong society. And regardless of how his approach to civil disobedience comes across, Wong’s recent arrest nonetheless symbolizes what makes Hong Kong different from the mainland: its rule of law.
Separation of powers allowed the court to overrule government wishes to detain Wong for longer and release him conditionally. The court’s decision was based on a writ of habeas corpus, which guarantees the right to have a judge decide whether the authorities have lawful grounds for a person’s arrest.

Those protections don’t exist in mainland China, where rules are not conducted by law, but by government fiat. That said, mainland China relies heavily on Hong Kong as an international center of finance and commerce, which is only made possible by its strong property and contract rights. Unless Wong and his fellow students prevail, that rule of law the mainland depends on could soon disappear.

Meet the Hong Kong teenager who’s standing up to the Chinese Communist Party – Quartz

Excellent read ! Thank you for sharing with us.

 

[halupridol]

gutts

 

[Aepsilons]

I admire his passion, his ideologue. He reminds me of a young Dr. Sun Yat Sen.

 

[longyi]

I bet he already has a green card in his wallet and you won't see him around after this protest.

 

[Aepsilons]

I bet he already has a green card in his wallet and you won't see him around after this protest.

Why should he leave for the U.S? The opportunities he has in Hong Kong is voluminous. There are westerners , even Japanese leaving for Hong Kong to attend college, even find work. If this young man really means what he says, then he'll stay in his native Hong Kong.

 

[longyi]

Why should he leave for the U.S? The opportunities he has in Hong Kong is voluminous. There are westerners , even Japanese leaving for Hong Kong to attend college, even find work. If this young man really means what he says, then he'll stay in his native Hong Kong.

Think deeper

 

[Aepsilons]

By: Reiji Yoshida,
Staff Writer at Japan Times

In the past few days, high-ranking government officials were willing to discuss the importance of keeping Hong Kong stable, prosperous and free. The city is particularly important to the future of Japan and the Asia-Pacific region, they said.

But when pressed by reporters, they have been tight-lipped about whether they support the pro-democracy demonstrations in Hong Kong and residents’ calls for universal suffrage. This has raised suspicions they are afraid of upsetting Beijing.

The four high-ranking government officials contacted by The Japan Times, two who spoke publicly and two who spoke separately on condition of anonymity, responded exactly the same way: by ducking the question.
This signals that not responding is the government’s official policy on the Hong Kong demonstrations.
Unlike the United States, Japan rarely criticizes China on human rights issues to avoid accusations by Beijing that Tokyo is interfering in its domestic affairs.

“The future of Hong Kong is extremely important to the future of Japan. The prosperity and stability of Hong Kong will play an important role for not only China, but also for the whole of Asia,” Chief Cabinet Secretary Yoshihide Suga said Friday at a news conference.

But when asked whether Japan supports the street protests, as the U.S. White House officially did on Monday, he didn’t answer.

When pressed to clarify the government’s apparent policy of ignoring Chinese human rights issues, Suga finally said: “At any rate, we believe it’d be the best solution if the problem in Hong Kong is solved democratically in Hong Kong.”

Prime Minister Shinzo Abe is trying to arrange a meeting with Chinese counterpart Xi Jinping on the sidelines of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation forum in November in Beijing. This is widely believed to be another reason for Tokyo’s restraint, though Suga denies it.

“We should not say any more (than what’s been officially said). That would be better,” one of the two anonymous officials said Friday.

“It shouldn’t be made clear” whether Japan supports the protest, the official said.
The two anonymous bureaucrats said Japan needs to keep an eye on the protest movement.
“How will China settle this issue? Nobody wants to settle it in a violent way,” one of them said.
“We are speaking in a very careful manner. This is a domestic issue of China,” the official said.

All four officials stressed Hong Kong’s economic importance to Japan. For many companies, the special administrative region has served as the gateway to the Chinese market, where both manufacturing companies and entertainment businesses can flourish by selling Japanese goods and culture.

Since 2007, Hong Kong has been the world’s top destination for Japanese food exports. Hong Kong imported ¥111 billion of those products in 2011, accounting for about one-fourth of Japan’s food exports.



Japanese officials silent on drama unfolding in Hong Kong | The Japan Times

 

[Aepsilons]

Think deeper

If he is an agent of the US, then he should leave. If he is genuine in his concerns for Hong Kong, then he should stay.

 

[mike2000]

lool what do you want Japan to say/do? It has little or no influence in Hong Kong(don't forget they are also anti Japanese and have a hatred of Japans war crimes in Hong kong when Japan took them from us during world war II) unlike Taiwan who is pro Japan. So the main player in this is my country who colonised Hong kong for a hundred years and the U.S. We will keep the pressure/support to our pro democracy camp.
Japan can offer verbal support though, it will be helpful in keeping the Chinese in check. Though they could also retaliate in Okinawa. But that's another topic.

 

[AgentOrange]

lool what do you want Japan to say/do? It has little or no influence in Hong Kong(don't forget they are also anti Japanese and have a hatred of Japans war crimes in Hong kong when Japan took them from us during world war II) unlike Taiwan who is pro Japan. So the main player in this is my country who colonised Hong kong for a hundred years and the U.S. We will keep the pressure/support to our pro democracy camp.
Japan can offer verbal support though, it will be helpful in keeping the Chinese in check. Though they could also retaliate in Okinawa. But that's another topic.

It's just the US. Britain has no influence in Hong Kong and is irrelevant globally. Nice attempt to ride the US' coattails though. 6/10 for effort.

 

[mike2000]

It's just the US. Britain has no influence in Hong Kong and is irrelevant globally. Nice attempt to ride the US' coattails though. 6/10 for effort.

Britain has no influence in Hong kong?? Tell you the truth, we do have, even more than the U.S when it comes to Hong Kong. Maybe Chinese Dragon can expantiate on this for you.

 

[powastick]

That boy doesn't know anything about democracy. 17 years old don't know the world works. In Malaysia, opposition have zero representation despite having substantial seats. Then you have those poor folks, easily sway with money, false promises and sweet talks. Government less than 2/3 majority is crippling. Ruling faction will then spend recklessly to win support scarifying the future. Instead of 20-50 year plan, you have 5 years plans that gears towards winning election. You want free press, think again, CNN is as bad as RT. CNN reporting half truth, twisted truth, and extremely bias.

Triads? Yes we have triads in Malaysia, and they influence politician. Malaysian Chinese politician have to pay respect from them to get support. In democracy, you get all sorts of people influencing the government especially those with some power and money. There is no democracy, you'll have oligarchy. There is no power to the people. They always say the grass is greener on the other side.

I applaud the American into making democracy into a fanatical cult. Americans thinking themselves to be like Jesus. You aint Jesus when you murder millions and cause two people to fight each other. That is the devils job.