I'm clicking my heels together over this news. I'm very happy for the people of Hong Kong. It demonstrates that Beijing has some propensity to see outlets for their own democratic development and to take advantage of them.
I hope this trend continues, and that the people of Hong Kong continue to accept nothing short of what they have already enjoyed for years.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, its simultaneously a bit more cool and a bit less cool than your title suggests since your title is IMO a bit misleading. (although, untraditionally, the CNN article is not)
AFAIK, Hong Kong has never elected its leader. Before handover, the governor of Hong Kong was appointed by the British colonials without even a pretence of elections. After handover, the PRC has essentially appointed a leader via an election committee which is 800 people nominated from various groups representing various parts of HK, but in practise is mostly appointed by pro-Beijing elements. This election committee did not really exist before handover.
On the other hand, the whole article is just about adding a specific date to a pledge that was previously given without a date.
So the title should actually be "Hong Kong Gets Some Democracy" or even "Hong Kong Gets a Specific Date Added to a Pledge for Some Democracy" Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Even if it was a committee comprised of the different parts of Hong Kong, (something I am unsure about), it was understood that when Hong Kong was handed back to China that they would be able to elect their own chief executive officer. Soon after July of 1997, Beijing announced that a panel of their choosing would select the CEO. Later still they took about 1/3rd of the parliamentary seats and put them under the control of Beijing, several members of parliament stormed out in protest after both developments.
Hong Kong will be electing its CEO and all of its parliamentary representatives. That means they are getting democracy back.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Beijing giving Hong Kong some autonomy is hard to believe. It makes me wonder about ulterior motives, like, a lot. I just can't think what the benefit to Beijing would be besides improving their PR on the world stage, and that's not something they've historically cared much about in any consistent way.
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Your first paragraph is almost all well and good.
The "almost" is due to the fact that while China said at handover that Hong Kong would be able to elect a chief executive, they never said when. This is made clear in the article.
quote: When Hong Kong returned to Chinese rule in 1997, it was granted a wide degree of autonomy and a pledge that it would ultimately be allowed to directly elect all of its legislators and its leader. However, no date was ever given.
Thus, I just don't see how you're making the connection to "getting democracy back."
You can't get "back" what you never had in the first place. While Hong Kong already elects more members of the government than it ever did under British rule, Hong Kong has never elected their chief executive and all of their parliamentary representatives.
steven: I doubt this is for the sake of foreigners. I have a suspicion that this little tidbit of news will be noted by far less people outside China than inside, particularly in Hong Kong. This is probably for the sake of calming politics inside Hong Kong than anything else.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mucus: Who do you think elected parliament in Hong Kong then before 1997? I could be wrong but I was fairly certain by 1991 the entire parliament was elected by the people. In 1996 an interim legislature stationed in Shen Zhen was setup to facilitate the handover in 1997.
I think you are right about the CEO though, so I stand corrected.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
If that's the direction Beijing is headed, I am encouraged. The move from obsession with power to obsession with money is a good one, IMHO.
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by steven: Beijing giving Hong Kong some autonomy is hard to believe. It makes me wonder about ulterior motives, like, a lot. I just can't think what the benefit to Beijing would be besides improving their PR on the world stage, and that's not something they've historically cared much about in any consistent way.
Except that they're about to host the Olympics. Good PR is pretty important for that.
Posts: 3420 | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
10 years is a long time. This gives time for the regime to execute, jail, exile, silence and/or delegitimize critics and troublemakers. By 2017 (if they honor the pledge) they will have a lock on power in Hong Kong and can either control the elections, or sandbag it in other ways.
I think PR for the 2008 Olympics played a part in this.
This quote is funny to me:
quote: The issue of electoral reform has polarized Hong Kong's political camps, with pro-democracy parties wanting greater political freedoms by 2012 and pro-Beijing parties camp pushing for 2017.
Tsang said parties should put aside their differences.
"We must treasure this hard-earned opportunity," he said.
Put aside their differences, after the government refused to compromise and stuck to 2017. Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
BlackBlade: Honestly, I'm not sure about the various assemblies even after doing research. If you're able to find a definitive source than I would actually be interested.
I was more sure about the chief executive (and the preceding Governor of Hong Kong).
Looking around, I gathered this which seems to be in line which what I thought about the assemblies, which is that the Legislative Council was only elected (and illegally at that) a couple of years before handover in 1995 (and that the more important Executive Council was probably never elected) :
quote: ... By 1984, Britons had governed their little part of China for more than 140 years. To that point, they had shown no inclination to temper their benevolent autocracy by letting Hong Kong Chinese have a role in the politics of the place. The colony's governor appointed the members of Hong Kong's Legislative Council, insisted on his right to approve public gatherings, scrutinized the local press for evidence of lèse-majesté, and sometimes threw editors in jail for objecting to British rule.
As 1997 approached, however, Britain had a change of heart about the merits of democracy in Hong Kong. British negotiators convinced Beijing that, although Britain had not done so, China should institute a significant degree of democracy there. In 1989, Beijing and London solemnly agreed that, within a year of the July 1 transfer, Hong Kong's people would for the first time elect their Legislative Council.
But Chris Patten, the last British Governor, decided to jump the gun by staging elections in Hong Kong in 1995, two years before the July 1, 1997, handover. However poorly the elections squared with Britain's agreement with China, the action was understandable, given the apprehensions raised by China's ruthless suppression of the peaceful uprising in Tiananmen in 1989.
The Chinese insist that, notwithstanding what they regard as British perfidy, they will honor their word and sponsor new elections next year. Most people in Hong Kong clearly believe them. The stock and real estate markets there are booming. Still, Britain's decision to alter the rules unilaterally could be used by Beijing to justify its own deviations from the Sino-British accords after it reasserts its sovereignty over Hong Kong.
Had Governor Patten stuck to the letter and spirit of the accords, legislators appointed by him would have worked with his Hong Kong Chinese successor, Tung Chee-hwa, to set the rules for elections in Hong Kong. Instead, on July 1 China will carry through on its threat to dismiss the "illegally elected" legislature.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Evil Laugh]](graemlins/evillaugh.gif)
