China rules that Hong Kong election candidates must be approved by a pro-Beijing nomination committe
45 replies, posted
[img]http://imgkk.com/i/rc1j.jpg[/img]
[url]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-29004025[/url]
[quote]Democratic groups in Hong Kong have vowed to fight a Chinese government ruling that effectively gives China control over the candidates for the next leadership election.
The election, due in 2017, will be the first in which the Hong Kong chief executive is directly chosen by voters.
However, China's legislature ruled the candidates must be approved by more than half of a special nominating body.
Angry democracy activists vowed to take over the Central business district.
Co-founder of the Occupy Central protest group, Benny Tai Yiu-ting, said: "This is the end of any dialogue. In the next few weeks, Occupy Central will start wave after wave of action.
"We will organise a full-scale act of occupying Central."
On Sunday a group of pro-democracy supporters protested in a park in front of Hong Kong government headquarters.
One protester, Henry Chung, told Agence France-Presse: "I am very sad. We have waited so many years. But now we have nothing."[/quote]
It's like China doesn't even care about what the people in Hong Kong want.
[quote]Li Fei, deputy secretary general of the NPC Standing Committee, said that openly nominating candidates would create a "chaotic society".
He said: "Many Hong Kong people have wasted a lot of time discussing things that are not appropriate.[/quote]
Jesus Christ on a unicycle.
So basically they're losing their political rights because the UK gave it up.
Amazing. How did nobody see that coming.
This is not good at all. I knew at some point that Beijing would attempt to reign in the mostly democratic Hong Kong. The only reason why many businesses found China attractive was because of Hong Kong's status as a democratic capitol inside of an oppressive Communist regime. They were able to do business there without much fear of the rest of China interfering much. Now with this going on I'm sure that they'll do a 180 and begin to backtrack if they have a lick of sense.
Otherwise they'll start losing business as Beijing's grip over Hong Kong tightens. We can always find another country to do most of our manufacturing.
[QUOTE=Zonesylvania;45854350]It's like China doesn't even care about what the people in Hong Kong want.[/QUOTE]
[quote] It's like China doesn't even care about it's people want.[/quote]
So much for one country, two systems.
[QUOTE=Xystus234;45854360]So basically they're losing their political rights because the UK gave it up.
Amazing. How did nobody see that coming.[/QUOTE]
From what I recall we only had it on Lease for a certain amount of years anyway, but yes, it'd be better off under UK rule now.
[QUOTE=Thomo_UK;45854371]From what I recall we only had it on Lease for a certain amount of years anyway, but yes, it'd be better off under UK rule now.[/QUOTE]
iirc it was on lease for 100 years
[QUOTE=Amez;45854363]This is not good at all. I knew at some point that Beijing would attempt to reign in the mostly democratic Hong Kong. The only reason why many businesses found China attractive was because of Hong Kong's status as a democratic capitol inside of an oppressive Communist regime. They were able to do business there without much fear of the rest of China interfering much. Now with this going on I'm sure that they'll do a 180 and begin to backtrack if they have a lick of sense.
Otherwise they'll start losing business as Beijing's grip over Hong Kong tightens. We can always find another country to do most of our manufacturing.[/QUOTE]Not really, very little manufacturing is done in Hong Kong at all. Vast majority of Chinese manufacturing is done on the mainland. Hong Kong is more finance and service stuff.
[QUOTE=Thomo_UK;45854371]From what I recall we only had it on Lease for a certain amount of years anyway, but yes, it'd be better off under UK rule now.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, the longest time a property could be leased for was ninety-nine years, unfortunately it wasn't renewed.
You cowardly British should have kept Hong Kong, or at least have returned it to the Republic of China.
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taiwan[/url]
[QUOTE=Rangergxi;45854400]You cowardly British should have kept Hong Kong, or at least have returned it to the Republic of China.
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taiwan[/url][/QUOTE]
So the PRC could invade and annex it later on?
We should of kept it
[QUOTE=Sgt Doom;45854389]Not really, very little manufacturing is done in Hong Kong at all. Vast majority of Chinese manufacturing is done on the mainland. Hong Kong is more finance and service stuff.[/QUOTE]
I thought most of our overseas headquarters and whatnot were based in Hong Kong to direct manufacturing and the actual manufacturing was done in mainland China.
In 1997 Britain wasn't in any position to keep Hong Kong, and no one was terribly interested in starting a war over some colonial heirloom. So hand wringing over it now, is just as a pointless as it was back then.
Anyway this isn't much of a surprise, Beijing wants total control and allowing Hong Kong greater political autonomy opens a can of worms with other disaffected regions of the country. What will be interesting to watch out for is if the protests continue and how the mainland responds to continued resistance.
[QUOTE=Xystus234;45854360]So basically they're losing their political rights because the UK gave it up.
Amazing. How did nobody see that coming.[/QUOTE]
It should be noted that they did not have the right to vote when being a colony of UK. The governor was appointed by the UK government.
They have been gaining some democratic rights since the handover in 1997. But this is not really the same right that the PRC government promised. So the protests are partly because of this reason.
The election of a new HK Chief Executive won't happen until 2017 and will be based on a reformed system. Many hoped that it'd be real universal suffrage, but as you can see PRC is reluctant to that. Many groups have proposed ideas on how to successfully and fairly pick a Chief Executive, but I don't think PRC is going to listen.
I'm not exactly sure how the most recent Chief Executive was picked, [del]but I think it's something like, a committee of about 1200 people many with ties to PRC chooses a number of candidates. These candidates are presented to the public, and they are allowed to elect one to represent HK.[/del]
[QUOTE=smurfy;45854882]Previously the Chief Executive was just chosen by the election committee of 1200, and a candidate needed the backing of 12.5% of the committee to get on the shortlist. This will be the first direct election but now you need to be cleared by 50% of the committee, which will be virtually impossible for any pro-democracy candidate.[/QUOTE]
:(
[QUOTE=harrison39;45854587]:([/QUOTE]
Good luck out there.
Funny how most of these ex-UK colonies would be better off if the UK still held them
Palestine with these conflicts
India with their rape problems
Nigeria's Ebola outbreak may not be as serious
Pakistan is a terrorist hotbed
Now Hong Kong with their democracy problems, a shame we only rented it...
[QUOTE=Midas22;45854651]Funny how most of these ex-UK colonies would be better off if the UK still held them
Palestine with these conflicts
India with their rape problems
Nigeria's Ebola outbreak may not be as serious
Pakistan is a terrorist hotbed
Now Hong Kong with their democracy problems, a shame we only rented it...[/QUOTE]
Palestine was fucked since the Sykes-Picot Agreement.
India and Pakistan were chafing under Raj rule.
Nigeria (and most other British colonies) was fucked by artificial borders.
[QUOTE=Hamsteronfire;45854735]Palestine was fucked since the Sykes-Picot Agreement.
India and Pakistan were chafing under Raj rule.
Nigeria (and most other British colonies) was fucked by artificial borders.[/QUOTE]
Not to mention democracy didn't really exist during UK's rule. And "rented" is maybe not the correct word for something that was acquired with force.
[QUOTE=Swebonny;45854573]It should be noted that they did not have the right to vote when being a colony of UK. The governor was appointed by the UK government.
They have been gaining some democratic rights since the handover in 1997. But this is not really the same right that the PRC government promised. So the protests are partly because of this reason.
The election of a new HK Chief Executive won't happen until 2017 and will be based on a reformed system. Many hoped that it'd be real universal suffrage, but as you can see PRC is reluctant to that. Many groups have proposed ideas on how to successfully and fairly pick a Chief Executive, but I don't think PRC is going to listen.
I'm not exactly sure how the most recent Chief Executive was picked, but I think it's something like, a committee of about 1200 people many with ties to PRC chooses a number of candidates. These candidates are presented to the public, and they are allowed to elect one to represent HK.[/QUOTE]
Previously the Chief Executive was just chosen by the election committee of 1200, and a candidate needed the backing of 12.5% of the committee to get on the shortlist. This will be the first direct election but now you need to be cleared by 50% of the committee, which will be virtually impossible for any pro-democracy candidate.
Why the fuck is China even doing this? It's going to be more trouble than it's worth to try to enforce a non-democratic ruling over a city that's decidedly more democratic than all of mainland China. No one but the most hardcore Beijing supporters are going to want this.
[QUOTE=smurfy;45854882]Previously the Chief Executive was just chosen by the election committee of 1200, and a candidate needed the backing of 12.5% of the committee to get on the shortlist. This will be the first direct election but now you need to be cleared by 50% of the committee, which will be virtually impossible for any pro-democracy candidate.[/QUOTE]
Ah, that's interesting. I'll put your quote in my post.
[QUOTE=Sgt Doom;45854389]Not really, very little manufacturing is done in Hong Kong at all. Vast majority of Chinese manufacturing is done on the mainland. Hong Kong is more finance and service stuff.[/QUOTE]
Depends, my aunt has been in clothing for decades and was always flying out to hong Kong and its area to inspect stuff, the reason why companies liked hong Kong was essentially its lack of communist oversight and its openness to foreign investments, China clamping down on them will hurt their banking sector because who knows what weird regulations the communists will throw at them
[video=youtube;piEayQ0T-qA]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=piEayQ0T-qA[/video]
Just like this?
The British were cowards simply handing Hong Kong over.
[QUOTE=download;45862009]The British were cowards simply handing Hong Kong over.[/QUOTE]They wouldn't have been able to hold onto it, had they tried. Falklands was tricky enough, fighting the PRC over Hong Kong wouldn't have really ended well.
Isn't Hong Kong a economical gem? I wonder if that could ruin it.
[QUOTE=download;45862009]The British were cowards simply handing Hong Kong over.[/QUOTE]
the british lease on the new territories was up. They could have kept the island of hong kong itself but that would have been a mess. I still prefer this deal over having all of HK straight up reclaimed by china, this 50 year interim ain't half bad.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.