Thousands of Hong Kong students start week-long boycott

nimo_cn

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 18, 2009
Messages
4,003
Likes
824
Country flag
Yes, CCP benefits more by its rule over the people of China than do the people from CCP. Your statement shows that CCP is not the people and people are not the CCP. Shows how brain dead people can become through constant indoctrination.
No issues with your statement Occupy HK is destined to fail. Who would imagine the mainland's farm animals to rise against the keepers?
there are around 80 millions CCP members in China, with their family members all together that is about 240 million. I don't think any political party on this planet could be more representative than CCP.

Sent from my HUAWEI P7-L07 using Tapatalk 2
 

Srinivas_K

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 17, 2009
Messages
5,952
Likes
6,932
Country flag
there are around 80 millions CCP members in China, with their family members all together that is about 240 million. I don't think any political party on this planet could be more representative than CCP.

Sent from my HUAWEI P7-L07 using Tapatalk 2
How many of them are enjoying freedom and civil rights??

The creamy layer/elite will be in thousands and the remaining all will be like factory workers for CCP, And worse these guys have to listen and defend CCP for little pay.

This is not because that they love CCP ideology, majority in China do not like CCP.

CCP will and must give away for liberal governance otherwise , in this age of globalization and connected world it will become difficult for CCP to survive.
 

tramp

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 17, 2009
Messages
1,464
Likes
579
When will the Chinese hen develop tits to feed the crying chicks?

what? sound like you just cant take other ppls opinons, most chinese choose stability, democracy is great but without stability/economy its nothing. china see soviet split as best evidence of instability. when most chinese has better lives comparable to japanese/westerner then they will ask democracy. political reform is inevitable in china, just matter of time, but before that china will only has small political changes.
 

tramp

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 17, 2009
Messages
1,464
Likes
579
It's not for nothing that the phrase 'as thick as thieves' developed.

there are around 80 millions CCP members in China, with their family members all together that is about 240 million. I don't think any political party on this planet could be more representative than CCP.

Sent from my HUAWEI P7-L07 using Tapatalk 2
 

ice berg

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 18, 2011
Messages
2,145
Likes
291
The business community has got Hong kong good deal ... Please explain and give sources. The business community was the ones that got the promise and language in constitution of Hong kong that allows people to protest , free speech and even vote in elections that is unheard of in prC. What's that got to do with business community, ->. In fact one would imagine Hong kong business community are known to be clear and direct and won't have language that is flexible in their contracts,

Also have you eleven read the article you provided. Please read it and the juice is near the end,

How Mrs Thatcher Lost Hong Kong: Ten years ago, fired up by her triumph in the Falklands war, Margaret Thatcher flew to Peking for a last-ditch attempt to keep Hong Kong under British rule - only to meet her match in Deng Xiaoping. Two years later sh



She could not get the lease extended on the areas that were on lease. But what about Hong Kong Island and Kowloon on the areas where UK owned the land perpetually that is where the opportunity came to create a special administration region with different constitution and agreement between UK prC and Hong kong people. The UK gave up Hong kong island and Kowloon by taking promise in writing from prC in writing that was submitted to the United nations,

I might talk bs according to you but what you say is not truth. No problem.

If you were saying UK gave up Hong kong too easily that can be communicated in a better way. I am sure UK understood that Hong kong Island and Kowloon was not easy to manage but it does not say anywhere that it was impossible. Also UK And Hong kong Island and Kowloon were supported according to international law.

Yep they eventually did transfer sovereignty over Hong kong Island andl Kowloon And it is undeniable they got a agreement and constitution of Hong kong that entitles the people of Hong kong to free speech, right to protest and even vote in elections for 50 years that was and is unheard of on prC territory and in agreement with CCP.

These agreements and constituion also created requirements on parliament and election of leader and language that was undeniable open to conflict creation. The UK had to present this to their own parliament and people on why they are giving up Hong kong Island and Kowloon, and the reason is obvious, and it is playing out now,

when you say that Hong kong would have been taken back one way another ... Please remember:

You are saying that CCP Would have invade hong kong Island and Kowloon ... It's fine to be combative but please speak with reason.

Last time I checked CCP and Prc do not claim that they are habitual failed state that does not honor agreements and follow I ternational law,

What UK (of which India was a colony until 1945) has done with CCP has created an area that is on its border and having great autonomy and being labeled special that the people of prC are not even provided the same,

People can call that bs but even the CCP is having trouble dealing with it.

many say India experience something similar and its called partition, and we deal with its pain even till today. But India knew what they were doing.

Do you know what CCP is doing. Why did they sign the agreement and give such freedoms and rights to Hong kong and Macau by way of their constitutions.
Until 2047 prC has to manage.

Also I know that the intellectuals in CCP that manage Hong kong are not like you. They know the truth and are pragmatic and more in tune with the business community of Hong kong,
You are either trolling or been lazy not reading the articles I provided:


If you actually are reading the articles, you will notice that right after your quotes:
........ Hong Kong, she duly told Deng, was British by virtue of three treaties which were valid in international law, two of which were cessions. These were substantial obligations. China could not simply disregard them. If it wanted to resume the whole of Hong Kong, the only way in which it could legally do so would be through varying the terms of the existing treaties, by agreement with Britain.

.... agreement on administration must come first. For the time being, she concluded, the two countries should pursue discussions at a diplomatic level.

Here comes the most important one:

Deng returned to the offensive by repeating his rejection of continued British rule in more categorical terms. If he agreed to let Britain stay in Hong Kong beyond 1997, he said, he would be no better than the traitors of the Qing dynasty who had first yielded Chinese soil to Britain under treaties which were illegal and invalid. He could not do it. China must resume sovereignty over Hong Kong, and sovereignty must include administration. The British flag would have to go. The British governor would have to go. And it would be China alone which decided what policies were 'suitable' for Hong Kong in the future. None the less, he said, China hoped that Britain would 'co-operate' in the transition, and it was prepared to enter into 'discussions' to that end. But it would not be bound by their results. If they failed to produce an agreement acceptable to China within two years, then China would announce its own policies for Hong Kong unilaterally. The meeting was over.

Read and read it again till you understand what was been said here. No British administration, no British flags and China got to decide what policis were suitable for Hong Kong. These are plain English. For the British it was about leaving behind a british administration, to have some saving grace. It was never about the constitution.

Want more plain English instead of your BS?
Cottrell's evidence is mostly that it is not, but he fails to mention the airport issue and the 1991 Memorandum of Understanding signed by John Major in Beijing. These showed that the Chinese-British row is only marginally about constitutional change. The central issue is China's persistent contention that, whatever its promises of autonomy, sovereignty and administration are inseparable

http://www.amazon.com/The-End-Hong-Kong-Diplomacy/dp/0719552915
BOOKS - THE END OF HONG KONG - NYTimes.com

http://rendezvous.blogs.nytimes.com...rned-before-china/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0

“For the British Prime Minister this was a discussion about sovereignty and administration. For the Chinese, there was never any question about the recovery of sovereignty,” Mr. Akers-Jones wrote. In 1984 Britain and China signed a treaty declaring all of Hong Kong would be handed back to China in 1997.

Source: http://rendezvous.blogs.nytimes.com...rned-before-china/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0

Of course the UK gave up the Kowloong. Read my quotes again from my previous post:
Belatedly, Thatcher had taken advice from diplomats whose logic she respected - Youde, and Sir Percy Cradock, Britain's Ambassador in Peking. They told her to expect that China would press for a resumption of the whole of Hong Kong in 1997; and that Peking wanted to turn Hong Kong into a 'special zone' of China, where the practice of capitalism would be permitted. They also warned her that Britain's hold on Hong Kong was more tenuous in practical terms than a reading of the 19th-century treaties might suggest.
Though Hong Kong Island and Kowloon had been ceded to Britain 'in perpetuity', there was no physical border between these ceded portions and the New Territories, and no way in which Britain could defend or sustain the ceded portions if China wanted to take them back together with the New Territories.


Again, not my words. Read it again and again till you get it.

P.S I have provided enough links and sources to back up my claim. Maybe you should read them more carefully. There is no reason to argue for the sake of arguing , right?
Against better judgement I actually spend time digging up sources. The least you can do is actually read them, right? Show some respect to people who actually give you a chance to learn something.
 
Last edited:

Compersion

Senior Member
Joined
May 6, 2013
Messages
2,183
Likes
778
Country flag
You are either trolling or been lazy not reading the articles I provided:


If you actually are reading the articles, you will notice that right after your quotes:
........ Hong Kong, she duly told Deng, was British by virtue of three treaties which were valid in international law, two of which were cessions. These were substantial obligations. China could not simply disregard them. If it wanted to resume the whole of Hong Kong, the only way in which it could legally do so would be through varying the terms of the existing treaties, by agreement with Britain.

.... agreement on administration must come first. For the time being, she concluded, the two countries should pursue discussions at a diplomatic level.

P.S I have provided enough links and sources to back up my claim. Maybe you should read them more carefully. There is no reason to argue for the sake of arguing , right?
Against better judgement I actually spend time digging up sources. The least you can do is actually read them, right? Show some respect to people who actually give you a chance to learn something.
If what you are saying is true, why didn't PRC take Hong Kong over sooner? :wave:

Also the article has two parts.

1. Obiter dictum
2. Ratio decidendi

Also please do not take anything personally. You will be surprised how many non-trolls exist with whom a happy exchange/#disagreement is possible.

I am sure if we met for a drink we will able to say what we have to say. To be honest you have made me go and read up more about hong kong and i thank you for that since it is informative and interesting. I believe you have the skill the support your position with sources but we have to look at the fact:

Also I am sure you are aware of the above terms and their uses.

In the context of your quotes they were not ignored by me but are they authoritative. You are basically saying PRC would have invaded Hong Kong. and that is why UK gave up Hong Kong Island and Kowloon.

If you were saying UK gave up Hong kong too easily that can be communicated in a better way.

I am sure UK understood that Hong kong Island and Kowloon was not easy to manage and also the leased part was definitely integrated into the small part owned by UK. but it does not say anywhere that it was impossible. The UK wanted to continue but PRC refused according to international law and according to lease that ended 99 years. Also UK ownership of Hong kong Island and Kowloon were supported according to international law. I am sure the calculation was - is it worth to keep Hong Kong Island and Kowloon compared to trying to get PRC for the better use of the word "uncomfortable". What is the price of giving up the land. The UK had to justify that to Hong Kong people and also to their own people.

To keep it simple use a simple link:

Transfer of sovereignty over Hong Kong - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In the wake of Governor MacLehose's visit, Britain and the PRC established initial diplomatic contact for further discussions of the Hong Kong question, paving the way for Thatcher's first visit to the PRC in September 1982.[2] Margaret Thatcher, in discussion with Deng Xiaoping, reiterated the validity of an extension of the lease of Hong Kong territory, particularly in light of binding treaties, including the Treaty of Nanking in 1842, the Convention of Peking in 1856, and the Convention for the Extension of Hong Kong Territory signed in 1890. In response, Deng Xiaoping cited clearly the lack of room for compromise on the question of sovereignty over Hong Kong; the PRC, as the successor of Qing Dynasty and the Republic of China on the mainland, would recover the entirety of the New Territories, Kowloon and Hong Kong Island.

During talks with Thatcher, China planned to invade and seize Hong Kong if the negotiations set off unrest in the colony. Thatcher later said that Deng told her bluntly that China could easily take Hong Kong by force, stating that "I could walk in and take the whole lot this afternoon". Thatcher replied that "there is nothing I could do to stop you, but the eyes of the world would now know what China is like".[3]

After her visit with Deng in Beijing, Thatcher was received in Hong Kong as the first British Prime Minister to set foot on the territory whilst in office. At a press conference, Thatcher re-emphasised the validity of the three treaties, asserting the need for countries to respect treaties on universal terms: "treaties ought always to be respected; without such respect, without such necessary trust, it was impossible for any negotiations to take place".

At the same time, at the 5th session of the 5th National People's Congress, the constitution was amended to include a new clause which stated that the country might establish a special administrative region (SAR) when necessary. The additional clause would hold tremendous significance in settling the question of Hong Kong and later Macau, putting into social consciousness the concept of "One country, two systems".
Also to support your view point:

Cookies must be enabled. | The Australian

CHINA seriously considered invading Hong Kong in the middle of talks with Margaret Thatcher in 1982, a former top Chinese official has disclosed.

The Chinese were ready to resort to "requisition by force" if the negotiations had set off unrest in the colony, said Lu Ping, who later headed negotiations with Chris Patten, the last governor.

Baroness Thatcher said later that Deng Xiaoping, then China's leader, told her directly: "I could walk in and take the whole lot this afternoon."

She replied that China would lose everything if it did. "There is nothing I could do to stop you," she said, "but the eyes of the world would now know what China is like."

Only now has Lu confirmed that the Chinese were not bluffing.

He said Deng feared that announcing the date for the 1997 handover would provoke serious unrest in Hong Kong and China would have to invade.

The Thatcher-Deng talks in Beijing came shortly after Britain's reconquest of the Falklands.

The harsh tenor of the negotiations left British officials such as Sir Percy Cradock, Baroness Thatcher's principal adviser, badly shaken.

Baroness Thatcher flew on to Hong Kong, she recalled, with a sense of foreboding.

Britain and China eventually agreed to a joint declaration that Hong Kong would return to China but could enjoy its own freedoms for 50 years.

The compromise led Cradock and Patten to exchange barbed remarks in the 1990s over how to handle the Chinese.
(I am sure you will read the whole article - especially the end where PRC can want to do unreasonable measures - like invade - but reasonable people interject).

Is PRC known to be a failed state and one that does not does not honor agreements and follow International law. The handover was done on 1997 and under one country two system with a document that was drafted by UK, CCP and Hong Kong people.

The fact that PRC waited until 1997 shows there was some reason. And to determine if you are authoritative that PRC would really have invaded Hong Kong:

Two rounds of negotiations were held in October and November. On the sixth round of talks in November, Britain formally conceded its intentions of either maintaining a British administration in Hong Kong or seeking some form of co-administration with the PRC, and showed its sincerity in discussing PRC's proposal on the 1997 issue. Obstacles were cleared.
(from the link above).

Unless you are a high ranking official and have the transcripts to the negotiations held in October and November and what was exactly said. The fact is that PRC did not invade Hong Kong and the fact is that UK gave up Hong Kong Island and Kowloon and the fact is that Hong Kong get a Constitution that prescribed many items that have never been established inside PRC land (like right to protest, freedom of speeach, and even vote in elections and the selection of its leader and parliament by universal suffrage and even apply transparent legal procedure).

I am sure that if you continue to express your position you will eventually end up saying the Najing Treaty was unequal. Is it authoritative argument.

The reason PRC gave Hong Kong people the Hong Kong constitution was because UK and Hong Kong people extracted it from CCP knowing that they want to impress and display a model to Taiwan. The CCP leader at the time Deng Xiao Ping focus was on Taiwan. Invading Hong Kong must have been a option but not a solution.

And there are many sources that say PRC will invade Taiwan yet ... also why not before

What is the fact. One can apply many different approach to analysis. Jiang Zemin is intelligent no doubt. But what is the fact:


Tung Chee-hwa - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Tung's reputation suffered further damage when Hu Jintao gave him a humiliating public dressing-down for poor governance in December 2004. Official sources specifically cited the poor handling of the Link REIT listing, the West Kowloon cultural project, the Hung Hom flats episode.[27] Tung himself denied it was a dressing-down, and insisted that he retained the President's support, although he and the rest of the government were asked to examine their past inadequacies.[28] Hu's words, however, were thinly veiled criticism. Nevertheless, in his January 2005 Policy Address, Tung gave a rather critical verdict on his own performance.

The speculation which was running rife in the weeks in the run-up to his actual resignation, and its intensity, continued to perpetuate the impression of Tung's "weakness" and "confusion".[29] Prior to Tung's resignation, in mid-February Stanley Ho, a tycoon with close ties with Beijing, had already commented on the possible candidates for the next Chief Executive and personally endorsed Donald Tsang.[30] This started rumours that Tung would be nominated to the election of vice chairman of Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference (CPPCC) of the PRC. On the night of 27 February 2005, it was revealed that he and nine other persons would be appointed as new members to the CPPCC. All the local newspapers, except for the three controlled by the PRC government, namely Ta Kung Pao, Wen Wei Po and Hong Kong Commercial Daily, went to the presses preemptively on the morning of 2 March with the headline "Tung Resigns".[31] Tung declined to comment when questioned by journalists waiting at the government headquarters.

On 10 March 2005, Tung assembled a press conference at the Central Government Offices and announced that he had tendered his resignation due to "health problems".[32] After flying to Beijing on 11 March, Tung was elected Vice Chairman of the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference (CPPCC) on 12 March 2005, the last day of CPPCC annual meeting.

His resignation sparked a constitutional debate of whether his successor should fill his remaining term of two years, or start a new term of five years.[33] Tung was mostly chosen by the PRC due to his business background as well as owing Beijing for saving him from bankruptcy with a US$100 million loan.[34]
Hu reprimands Tung - The Standard

In an unprecedented public dressing- down, President Hu Jintao told beleaguered Chief Executive Tung Chee-hwa and his principal officials to examine their past inadequacies, raise their competence and improve their governance.
It is never too late to invade Hong Kong. If PRC finds it too difficult to manage Hong Kong that is a option and I am sure leaders in CCP like Lu Ping are saying that now. Hong Kong invasision is still possible today why bother complying with the Hong Kong Constitution and agreement with UK until 2047.

According to you and your sources that is the best approach and not follow internationally recognized agreements.

The agreement between UK and PRC is a perfect example of a conflict creator and there will be many test for PRC in the upcoming future. If the CCP leaders think that Taiwan is not worth it why do they bother with this in Hong Kong. Already CCP has had to make decision that they would never do inside PRC.



CCP really knows how to take pictures and squeeze. Also please read the CCP constitution when you have time.

Like I said I know that the intellectuals in CCP that manage Hong kong are not like you. They know the truth and are pragmatic and more in tune with the business community of Hong kong. These are the people that have made Hong Kong for the past 17 years grow economically and will make sure that it does in the future because Hong Kong is important to PRC.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Ray

The Chairman
Professional
Joined
Apr 17, 2009
Messages
43,133
Likes
23,722
China media: 'Subsiding' Hong Kong protest


Representatives from Hong Kong's Occupy Central movement have agreed to hold formal talks with the government.

Pro-democracy activists are protesting at China's plans to vet candidates when Hong Kong holds elections in 2017, demanding that Beijing allow a fully free vote for the territory's leader.

As the protests entered their second week, crowds began to die down and civil servants returned to work on Monday.

State-run media outlets have been publishing reports and commentaries noting the "withdrawal" of the crowds and economic repercussions of the protest.

Noting that the protest has subsided, an article in the People's Daily website "applauds" the "mainstream opinion" and "unity of the people" for "conquering the evil forces".

"Those few clowns calling for the occupation of Central (business district) are alienated from the mainstream views of Hong Kong"¦ The dwindling of the movement tells us that the mainstream opinion in the city tilts towards loving the country and Hong Kong, with their hearts closely bonded with the motherland," it says.

The paper says "under the strong current of the mainstream views, the illegal movement is heading for a complete failure,", adding that the 2017 election will "gain victory".

The China Central Television stresses that "unhappiness against the protest is growing" and "the forces of the illegal Occupy Central continue to be weakened".

"Many protesters are becoming unhappy with the organisers. Internal disagreements are appearing over the decision of whether to continue with the protest, as the students have realised that voices against the movement are getting stronger," notes the reporter.

Without showing any footage of the massive street protest, the channel ran views of the quiet streets in Hong Kong with most shops shut down and students wearing uniform returning to schools in an orderly manner.

'Being used'
Echoing similar views, a commentator tells the Shenzhen Satellite TV that the Occupy campaign has "disgusted" the people of Hong Kong.

"This movement has seriously disrupted the social order, causing huge economic losses. Many Hong Kong residents have shown disapproval of the protest"¦The longer the campaign is, the level of disgust and reaction against the campaign will be stronger," he tells the TV network.

The analyst adds that "many students, who were born after the handover of Hong Kong and had no idea how life was under the British colonial rule, regret being used by the campaigners".

Elsewhere, Qiushi, an influential Communist Party magazine, publishes an article warning about the "disasters" that Western-style democracy may bring.

Without referring to the Occupy Central protest, the commentary written by researchers from Academy of Military Sciences, says that Western-style democracy "has no universality" and is "loaded with problems".

"There are natural internal defects in the western-style democracy"¦ blindly copying it will only lead to disasters," it says, proposing the "strengthening of confidence" over China's political system.

"All the kind-hearted people must wake up from their blind dream of pursuing the Western-style democracy and see its real face. They also need to clearly understand the features and huge advantage of the Chinese characteristic socialist democracy political system," suggests the article.
BBC News - China media: 'Subsiding' Hong Kong protest
Actually the Chinese Communists are breathing a sigh of relief.

The media report is totally indicative of the relief from the fear that gripped them that the protests may cause an upheaval and a challenge to the Communist way of life.

The media blitz of the Communist Mainland has come whole hog to glorify the Communist way of life and mushy pith of love for the Motherland and such holistic humbug that had hit rockbottom a few weeks back, sending shivers down the CPC's spine.
 

Ray

The Chairman
Professional
Joined
Apr 17, 2009
Messages
43,133
Likes
23,722
Hong Kong protests: China's guide to democracy

Quiz question: What has been the top trending story on China's social media this week? Wrong answer: Hong Kong. Correct answer: People named 'Guoqing', which in Chinese means 'national celebration'.


On Tuesday China winds up a weeklong public holiday to mark National Day, the anniversary of the 1949 Revolution when the Communist Party came to power. Since then, the Party has imposed tight control over the media, and at times of crisis the room for nuanced reporting shrinks to zero.

In the early days of last week, the state propaganda machine met the Hong Kong protests in almost total silence as it awaited instructions from the Communist Party leadership on what to say. Now, despite the distraction of National Day celebrations, the orders have come down, and the machine is working at full throttle.

Democracy, People's Daily-style
The Chinese state controls the press. Over recent days, the Communist Party flagship newspaper has set the tone for Hong Kong coverage with several commentaries and editorials on its front page. Monday's edition explained the Party's thinking on the principle of democracy, with an editorial which argued that "respecting the will and interests of the majority is the common essence of all democracies."

The column went on to argue that Britain had done nothing for democracy in Hong Kong and to insinuate that the 'Occupy' movement is the tool of hostile foreign interests.

Using illegal means to achieve "noble" purposes is a lie told by a small group of ambitious schemers"¦.who maintain the colonial mentality and are hostile towards democracy.

Missing from this primer on democracy is any mention of what citizens should do when they see their laws as unjust and their leaders as unaccountable.

At no point in the past turbulent week have China's media mentioned that Hong Kong's demonstrators are peaceful nor have they tackled the rights and wrongs of non-violent civil disobedience. The People's Daily does not address Mahatma Gandhi, Nelson Mandela or Martin Luther King.

Nor for that matter does it rush to revisit its own revolution. The simple fact is that there would be no celebrating the 65th anniversary of the People's Republic if Mao Zedong had followed current Party instructions on lawful protest.

Mao himself had little time for civil disobedience. He is famous for lines like 'political power comes from the barrel of a gun' and 'revolution is not a dinner party'.

He would have scoffed at the 'umbrella revolutionaries' with their hands in the air and signs apologising for disruption.

The revolution...will be heavily edited
The Chinese public gets its national television news from one place, CCTV. Pictures present particular problems for propaganda organs and several days into the Hong Kong crisis, there were only words.

But since the weekend, CCTV has run long reports from its reporters in Hong Kong showing traffic disruption and a chorus of angry voices opposed to the protests from commuters to shopkeepers and foreign residents.

The only images of the protesters themselves are carefully edited to give the impression that police are dealing with a potentially violent crowd of extremists.

There are no interviews with the demonstrators and no attempt to address their point of view.

Monday evening's news headline on CCTV was 'All walks of life express strong dissatisfaction towards Occupy Central'.

Down the memory hole
Anything which may remind mainland citizens of the Tiananmen democracy protests of 1989 is particularly sensitive. Western social media like Facebook, Twitter and Youtube are blocked in China.

The photo sharing application Instagram which is normally available has also now been blocked so that images of Hong Kong's protest cannot circulate.

And on China's Twitter equivalent, Weibo, searches for "Occupy Central", "Hong Kong students" and "Umbrella Revolution" return error messages.

A concerted campaign to eradicate images which present the demonstrators as idealistic, numerous, vulnerable"¦and especially young.

China now has its own clear narrative of what's happening in Hong Kong and is working hard to close down any alternative.

But at the same time as depriving his citizens of images from the "umbrella revolution" China's president Xi Jinping will no doubt be watching them closely himself.

BBC News - Hong Kong protests: China's guide to democracy
The chicanery of the Communist Chinese of the Mainland is exposed.

While lauding and showcasing the end of the protest and airing views that are favourable, they club these views as that of the majority, but fight shy to air the views that are contrary to their agenda and the Communist Mainland's agenda.

This also shows how the common Chinese folks are misled by such skilful disinformation and made to believe the unbelievable.

But then the Communists have made pulling wool into a fine art.
 

Ray

The Chairman
Professional
Joined
Apr 17, 2009
Messages
43,133
Likes
23,722
Hong Kong – betrayed by China. And abandoned by the British

The protests in Hong Kong are not just about democracy, but about honouring a promise


One of the most profoundly disappointing responses to the events in Hong Kong has been Britain's silence – or its weak words that have sometimes been worse than silence.

At the very least, Britain should act honourably: it has a moral and legal responsibility to Hong Kong. It did after all sign a treaty, back in 1984, that guaranteed Hong Kong's core values and way of life, including freedom of speech and assembly, until 2047.

The truth is that money talks. Talk to British business people and their first instinct is to keep their heads low; they just want things to carry on as before, would like the protests to disappear, and maintain good relations with China. The view from the British government is not much different.

In fact, I've been surprised at the basic lack of knowledge at the Foreign Office. There doesn't seem to be anybody there who knows Hong Kong, who knows what makes the place tick. Nor is there anybody who can make the argument that the interests of the Hong Kong people might also be good for British interests, indeed the interests of the world at large.

On a personal level, I feel very saddened. I was wheeled out at the time of the handover, when everyone was keen to instil confidence, everyone keen to emphasise that it was just about a change of flag.

It's worth reminding the British people that John Major made a pledge before the handover that Britain would do everything possible to ensure that the terms of the joint declaration were adhered to. At the time of the handover, the then foreign secretary, Robin Cook, reiterated that Britain would use its clout to defend Hong Kong and its freedoms. But where are the public comments from the British condemning China? I wonder even if much has been done in private. At heart, the protests in Hong Kong are not just about democracy. They are about honouring a promise, Beijing's promise to the people of Hong Kong to give us genuine one person, one vote for the election of our chief executive in 2017.

Instead, our own government has taken Hong Kong through a sham consultation and we now have a very rigid framework handed down by Beijing that in effect says to the people of Hong Kong: you can have one person, one vote, provided we pre-screen all the candidates so that we are 100% in control of the final outcome. This is in no way acceptable.

Hong Kong's chief executive, Leung Chun-ying, has taken us through a sham consultation. The report he presented to the Chinese leaderships was dishonest and misrepresented the sentiments of the Hong Kong people.

If he had any courage, he should have presented the mainland leadership with the truth. They could still have chosen to ignore the will of the Hong Kong people, but at least his document would have been an honest one. But he's clearly in the pockets of Beijing, which put him in place. Leung Chun-ying and his team have little credibility left and will find it increasingly difficult to govern Hong Kong.

I genuinely did not think at the time of the joint declaration that it would turn out this way. I thought that the co-signatories, Britain and China, would honour all the promises laid down in the treaty and guarantee Hong Kong "one country, two systems". This included guaranteeing: independence of the judiciary, the rule of law and our rights and freedoms and, in particular, that we would move steadily towards genuine universal suffrage.

In all of this, it is too easy to suggest China was always going to behave in this fashion. Chinese leadership is not monolithic and at the very least one needs to assert one's own interests. And we can be sensible in what we ask for.

From the Chinese perspective, the leadership faces such daunting, fantastic challenges. Strong economic growth was always going to be the main justification for maintaining the legitimacy of one-party rule.

If people are fearful of their future, they are more likely to protest. And of course the Chinese leadership worries about protests spreading. In this light, they might view Hong Kong as an agent of change. So I understand mainland Chinese fears. But if they are allowed to walk away from their commitments under an international treaty, then it doesn't say very much for China's commitment to the rest of the world.

Also, they ought to realise that the best way of securing Hong Kong's long-term prosperity and stability is by allowing one person, one vote. We should also remember the positives of the protests. The Hong Kong people everyone has seen on the streets have been very reasonable, peaceful, despite some, at times, terrible provocation.

The protests have also allowed the world to see a different, younger Hong Kong. I call this the egalitarian generation – most people are not connected with making money. (In truth, this is how outsiders still see Hong Kong, understandably perhaps.)

Many of these young people only know life after Chinese rule. They are worried about many of the same things that worry young people in Britain and elsewhere. Will they find a good job? Will they ever be able to buy a home?

For them, the big change in Hong Kong since I was their age is perhaps the decline in social mobility. In earlier decades, there was great social mobility – if you worked hard, you could move swiftly up the social ladder. There was a certain sense of cohesion.

Now within the territory there is a sense of them and us. Those who make money are tempted to stay quiet, to maintain their links, their status. The rest, they want what many people want across the world – a good education and an open society.

Anson Chan was the chief secretary in both the British colonial government of Hong Kong – de facto deputy to the last British governor, Chris Patten – and the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region government under the Chinese rule
Hong Kong – betrayed by China. And abandoned by the British | Anson Chan | Comment is free | The Observer
This says it all.
 
Last edited:

Compersion

Senior Member
Joined
May 6, 2013
Messages
2,183
Likes
778
Country flag
Beijing Meeting Considers Imposing Martial Law on Hong Kong

This article is republished from Hong Kong's Chengming magazine. Chengming has a track record of breaking important stories involving the Chinese regime. As with this article, the magazine often relies on anonymous sources inside the Chinese Communist Party.

At a Hong Kong and Macau Affairs Office meeting held on Sep. 15, Zhang Dejiang, Politburo Standing Committee member and National People's Congress Standing Committee chairman, claimed that by order of the Politburo, the "one country, two systems" status quo between Beijing and Hong Kong would be terminated should the situation become critical.

"If the situation cannot be controlled, Hong Kong's 'one country, two systems' special status will be terminated," Zhang said.

"The authorities have not had one peaceful moment since day one of Hong Kong's return to China," according to Zhang. "Political troubles occur one after another due to the instigation and support of foreign powers and anti-communist international organizations. These people are intent on things like 'bringing about regime change and returning government to the people,' 'resisting communist takeover,' 'letting people in Hong Kong make decisions' and 'universal uprising.'"
http://www.theepochtimes.com/n3/1005287-beijing-meeting-considers-imposing-martial-law-on-hong-kong/
 

Compersion

Senior Member
Joined
May 6, 2013
Messages
2,183
Likes
778
Country flag
Communist Party Factions Divided on How to Treat Hong Kong - The Epoch Times

Communist Party Factions Divided on How to Treat Hong Kong

Beijing Creates Chaos
The CCP's two factions, the supporters of former CCP leader Jiang Zemin and the supporters of current leader Xi Jinping, are divided on the issue of how to treat the protests.
The sources have also revealed that the CCP is in an unstable state, so it would not easily deploy the army. Xi has passed the hot potato of Hong Kong's protests to Leung. If Leung does not handle the protests properly, he will likely be forced to resign.
The CCP's National People's Congress (NPC) will likely not take back their decision against universal suffrage for the next Hong Kong chief executive election. However, they make adjustments and lower the requirements for the chief executive candidates.

On Oct. 5, mainland Chinese media outlet Caixin.com published an article blaming the Leung government for the halt of Hong Kong economic reform policies. Caixin.com is considered the voice of Xi's faction, and its evaluation of Leung is completely different from that of the People's Daily.

Perhaps the timing is a coincidence, but also on Oct. 5 the Central Commission for Discipline and Inspection announced it was beginning a corruption investigation into People's Daily.

Some think the condemnation of Leung by Caixin signals that Xi does not agree with the use of mafia to attack the demonstrators.
Sometime where there is a impasse ... wonder what the truth is
 
Last edited:

Ray

The Chairman
Professional
Joined
Apr 17, 2009
Messages
43,133
Likes
23,722
Hong Kong students call for protests as talks cancelled

Hong Kong's student protest leaders have called on supporters to stage a major rally later on Friday after the government cancelled planned talks.

The two sides were supposed to be meeting on Friday for the first time since pro-democracy protests erupted in late September.

But on Thursday the government said it would be be "impossible to have a constructive dialogue".

Protester numbers have fallen dramatically in recent days.

Last week thousands of demonstrators from both student groups and the wider pro-democracy Occupy Central movement paralysed parts of the city.

But by Monday only a few hundred protesters, mostly students, remained on the streets around the financial and government district of Admiralty and in Mong Kok north of the harbour. Barricades remain in place, blocking off major roads.

The protesters are demanding a fully free vote in elections due to be held in 2017 for the post of chief executive, Hong Kong's leader.

China has said that, under Hong Kong law, voters will be able to vote freely but from a list approved by a nominating committee.

The BBC's Juliana Liu in Hong Kong says the activists are hoping a new show of strength will be enough to sustain the movement.

On Thursday evening, the student leaders had asked for an escalation of their protests and occupation if the government did not make concessions.

Hours later, the government official involved in the talks, Chief Secretary Carrie Lam, accused them of "undermining trust" in the proposed talks.

"The dialogue cannot be deployed as an excuse to incite more people to join the protest," she said. "The illegal occupation activists must stop."

Pro-democracy student leaders later accused the government of insincerity and urged them to return to the negotiating table.

"The chaos was caused by the government. They are responsible for cleaning up the mess," Alex Chow, the president of the Hong Kong Federation of Students (HKFS), was quoted as saying by the AFP news agency.

A message posted on the HKFS Twitter account on Thursday night said: "Govt refuses to talk. Let's show them what we've got."

Democracy 'a right'
In a separate development, Taiwan's President Ma Ying-jeou used his National Day speech to urge Beijing to move towards democracy, voicing support for Hong Kong's protesters.

Mr Ma said that as China became more prosperous, its people would want more democracy and the rule of law.

"Such a desire has never been a monopoly of the West, but it is the right of all humankind," he said.

Taiwan - which Beijing views as a breakaway province but which has been governed separately since 1949 - has been watching developments in Hong Kong closely.

BBC News - Hong Kong students call for protests as talks cancelled
Can the students resist the brute power of the Communist Mainland Govt?

Even Taiwan is now chipping in.

From here, where does the movement go?
 

Compersion

Senior Member
Joined
May 6, 2013
Messages
2,183
Likes
778
Country flag
Who advised to the hong kong government to cancel the talks. :frusty:

it would have been better to have done the talks and record it by transcript and video to show. after that people would judge if government if students are mature and reasonable. everything has to be done according to hong kong constitution. and my feeling is the government would have had a good chance to show the students to be unreasonable and demanding unreasonable since expressing such issues requires expertise and advanced knowledge about the hong kong constitution. sometimes the opportunity not taken when right in front of the face. now students will say government is unreasonable.

if hong kong government is worried it would set a bad precedent and link to Tienanmen square (where student leaders also demanded talks) this is whole different ball game. and hong kong has set too many different precedents that have never been done in PRC. and also in future.
 

Ray

The Chairman
Professional
Joined
Apr 17, 2009
Messages
43,133
Likes
23,722
Threat of new protests as Hong Kong government scraps talks
Pro-democracy protest leaders warn that major demonstrations could resume after government cancels talks planned for Friday


Hong Kong's government has called off planned talks with the pro-democracy protest leaders who led tens of thousands of demonstrators onto the streets of the former British colony in the biggest challenge to the Chinese Communist Party rule in decades.

Talks between government officials and protestors were scheduled for Friday but those talks were now "impossible", Hong Kong's Chief Secretary Carrie Lam announced on Thursday.

The cancellation came just hours after the protest groups behind the so-called "Umbrella Revolution" threatened to launch a "new wave of civil disobedience" on Friday.

Protest leaders urged supporters to gather at an area outside the headquarters of Hong Kong's government dubbed "Umbrella Square" in a show of force ahead of the talks.

The threat of renewed protests triggered an almost immediate reaction from Hong Kong's embattled leaders.

Carrie Lam, who is Hong Kong's second most powerful official and had been set to head the talks, said statements made by student leaders had "undermined the basis for a constructive dialogue".

She blamed the protestors' "uncooperative tone" and said students had rejected two key conditions involved in the government's "rational proposal" for talks, the South China Morning Post reported.
"This is sacrificing public good for their political demand and is against public interests and political ethics," Ms Lam added.

"We regret to make such announcement as we know the public's expectations for dialogue remains high."

Hong Kong, which returned to Beijing's control in 1997 and is ruled under China's "one country, two systems" model, has been the stage for unprecedented protests since late September when demonstrators took to the streets to demand a greater say in the election of their leader.

One of the key demands of many members of the Umbrella Movement has been the resignation of Hong Kong's chief executive CY Leung, something they have yet to achieve.

Protests had thinned in recent days as exhaustion set in although small groups had remained camped out on the streets in some neighbourhoods.

The cancellation of talks now threatens to reignite mass demonstrations, protest leaders and pro-democracy lawmakers warned on Thursday night.

"If no progress is made, a lot of people would be disappointed and rejoin the occupation," Tommy Cheung, president of the Chinese University of Hong Kong's students' union, predicted in an interview with the South China Morning Post.

Claudia Mo, a pro-democracy lawmaker, told The Telegraph she believed the scrapping of talks meant new protests were "likely - but only amongst the young, and mainly the students".
Threat of new protests as Hong Kong government scraps talks - Telegraph
There is the good possibility that the protests can start again.

But this time the Communist Chinese Govt will hit hard, more so since they don't care about international condemnation when it comes to any challenge to the Communist way of governance and a threat to the very existence of the Communist Party.
 

Srinivas_K

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 17, 2009
Messages
5,952
Likes
6,932
Country flag
There is the good possibility that the protests can start again.

But this time the Communist Chinese Govt will hit hard, more so since they don't care about international condemnation when it comes to any challenge to the Communist way of governance and a threat to the very existence of the Communist Party.
People are planning a big rally in Hongkong and protesters numbers are increasing !!
 

Ray

The Chairman
Professional
Joined
Apr 17, 2009
Messages
43,133
Likes
23,722
nukes are prepared for thugs like India.

Sent from my HUAWEI P7-L07 using Tapatalk 2
First have a Tienanmen Square in Hong Kong and then come back.

The HK chaps have given you shivers in your pants.

Control them, first or perish.


Give them democracy as promised when you bent down and kowtowed to the British to get HK.

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Global Defence

Articles

Top