Who lost China's Internet?

[Adam Smith]

What do ther various people here make of the Chinese government of Hong Kong? Apparently there are people there who would very much like to form an opposition political party, but are effectively prevented from doing so by the electoral nomination rules. (I will try to dig up a recent Washington Post op-ed piece on this if I get a chance.)

[Adam Smith]

HERE is a link to the Wasington Post op-ed piece. The author clearly has an zxe to grind, but any comments on the facts as presented. On the basis of this article this appears to be a case of where the formation of political parties or viable alternative candidates is being suppressed.

[DanS]

As I say in most of these kinds of threads, the large majority of Chinese live in rural areas, not urban areas. I'm guessing that these are as wretched places to live as they ever were, both economically and with regard to freedoms.

As for the commies, I doubt they'll be able to ride the bull for much longer. The political system is inherently unstable.

[ranskaldan]

Well don't be too sure. For better or for worse, the Chinese communist party has adapted pretty well.

Political opposition is almost nonexistent. Well dissident groups do exist, but hold a survey among average Chinese citizens, urban and rural, and most would tell you that the commies should stay, at least until China is finished with the current economic growth spurt. A political upheaval would totally end this growth spurt, and this is the last thing most Chinese citizens want, considering the amount of money they are raking in at the moment.

As for rural areas, yes they are wretched, but there have been plenty of improvements. As long as there are improvements, I say it's fine. You can't expect everything to become perfect overnight.

[DanS]

Ranskaldan: I can be sure even though I know very little about China. How can China's government know what its citizens want? There are very few tools at their diposal. This disconnect is fine now, when the bargain of few freedoms in return for economic growth is a way to organize a society. But economic growth is a fickle beast.

Consider a simple economic metric as part of a what-if scenario. Unemployment is at least 10%, even while the growth is at a real 7% per annum. What happens if China were to have a deep recession? It's almost certain to have one in the next 10 or 20 years.

Could China's commies cope? I don't think they even approach the kind of nimbleness required and have no tools to guide them. And it doesn't matter if there is any opposition. The commie party could split in two (or shatter) just as easily.

[Sikander]

Bingo Dan, the change could just as easily come from a divide in the (huge) ruling class as from a previously apolitical segment of society. It will probably come from an alliance of the two. The Communists have so far kept the lid on anything which could turn into an organized opposition, which in turn puts a lot more pressure on them both internally and externally. It's worth noting that a lot of the dissidents who have received so much attention are themselves children of the ruling class, or very well known to those children. The safest mode of change will be a generational changing of the guard, but it is also the slowest. Incremental change seems to be out of the question right now given the hard line attitude of the current government.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by ranskaldan

Sikander has objected to "spending money to prop up an autocratic regime".

But the fact is:
You aren't propping up a regime. The regime will survive, whether or not you spend that money. The regime will be nasty, whether or not you spend that money.

However, the people of China will be richer, leader happier lives, and have brighter futures if you spend that money.

Are you going to, in your futile attempt to save 1.2 billion from human rights abuses (which actually only a fraction of them suffer from anyway), throw these very same 1.2 billion people into poverty and desperation?

Again I ask, how is my not spending my money on Chinese goods going to put China's 1.2 billion people into poverty and desperation? Their economy has been expanding at a fantastic rate without my money, why is this suddenly going to be the telling factor? Even if every American joined my personal boycott China has a huge internal economy and strong trade relations with the other large economies of the world. The U.S. is a large percentage of the world's economy, but we don't have the sort of power you seem to think we do. It's really a question of degree.

I would rather spend my meager resources helping other poor peoples whose governments are doing a better job upholding human dignity and freedom fight poverty and gain a measure of stability. Mexico is an excellent example of such a country. When China starts to make some of the strides Mexico has in the last few years I will be happy to send my dollars there as well. They were moving forward more than a decade ago, but I don't see that sort of movement happening now. There has been a retrenchment in some areas and a freeze in others. Hong Kong has lost a lot of it's powers of self-government, and the Chinese government would love to put Taiwan in an even tighter embrace. Show me some progress, and I will adjust my views accordingly.

[mindseye]

Present actions that are showing no obvious sign of change are of much more concern than actions that might happen in some possible rosy scenario for the future.

Showing no obvious sign of change? Are we talking about the same P.R.C.? I don't know of a more dynamic society on earth! In the area of religious freedom alone, there has been sweeping change in the last 20 years!

What is freedom without freedom of conscience?

??? I think most Chinese would disagree with the notion that they are not free to believe as they wish. I certainly agree with you that a small minority of Chinese are not free to act on some of their religious beliefs. Fortunately, that situation is rapidly improving, but there is no doubt a long way to go in this and other areas.

I can imagine that people living in Nazi-era Berlin or Stalinist Moscow saying very much the samething. (concerning a relative lack of crime)Would that have made thier contemporaries cries about an opressive regime wrong as well?

No, because there is little similarity between those environments and life in contemporary China. Maybe you missed my recent posting (in another thread, I believe) in which I explained this. When I first arrived here, I shared the common western misconception that the low levels of violent crime, graffiti, vandalism, etc. were all due to the prevalence of large numbers of police who harshly enforced strict laws. Soon I discovered that this is just plain wrong! There are actually very few policemen here, and they seldom carry even a club, much less a firearm. It would be laughably easy to pull off all sorts of crime here, but it just doesn't happen. One of my co-workers (an American) recently commented on the frequency with which western media photos of China include a soldier or a policeman, even though neither soldiers nor policemen are common sights here. We were laughing that in this regard, living in the US, with it's large numbers of heavily armed constabulary, feels more like living in a "police state"!

Most people in big cities simply don't give a hoot about the things westerners obsess about. For instance few city dwellers could care less about Christian religion or organizing a new political party. It's simply not important to them or anyone they know.

Since when is a de minimis arguement sufficent basis to deny people freedom? I'd very much like to hear the answer to this question.

Sorry, I think you have misunderstood my argument. I certainly would not argue that practice of Christianity should be suppressed simply because few here have any interest in it. Rather, my point was that westerners are often mistaken in what they believe to be important issues in China. This is an excellent example. Many Americans are greatly concerned over what they perceive to be harsh religious oppression, when in fact most Chinese simply don't give a hoot. They are not interested in practicing Christianity, so the issue is a non-starter. Does that justify laws prohibiting open practice of religion? No. Is it an important issue to many Chinese? Also no.

But I don't want to talk about Tibet at all. I wish to speak about the persecution of Christians in China. What would I have to be prepared to talk about in that instance?

Just guessing, but maybe discrimination against Catholics in the US in the early 20th century, or perhaps the racist anti-Chinese laws enacted in the late 19th century. In either case, a snapshot of the situation would provide only a distorted view of the lives of Catholics or Chinese in the US, as each was part of an evolving socio-political environment. That is the mistake you are repeatedly making when focusing on present levels of religious oppression in the PRC while failing to take into account the rapid changes going on.

Show me the bias.

You are joking, right? For an unbiased, objective view of the situation of Christians in China you point me to a web sight authored by a Christian organization called www.persecution.com? Yeah, I'm certain they have no axe to grind!

There are two differences that I know of according to my sources:

1) To qualify for the clergy, one must demonstrate "political reliability" and pass an examination of their political knowledge.

2) The State-run version does not acknowlege the authority of the Vatican which seems to jive with the State's concerted attempts to eradicate the underground Catholic Church.

Wow, the two churches are even more similar that I thought! I don't thinik either of these differences amount to much. Regarding the first difference, this is simply irrelevant, as it does not apply solely to the clergy. This is something that anyone in any position of authority undergoes. If you work in a large company here, your boss or your boss' boss is probably a Party member and had to demonstrate a similar degree of "political reliability". Lest any Orwellian images of banner-waving cadres cross anyone's mind, let me point out that Party membership for most is largely a formality, something akin to joining the local labor union in order to get ahead at your job.

As for the second difference, don't half the Christians in the world fail to acknowledge the Vatican's authority? What I'm really wondering, is: if the rituals, sacraments, and doctrine are all the same, is it really that much of a difference if your priest's bishop's archbishop answers to some ultimate authority in Rome, or in Beijing? After all, it is not difficult to find out the Pope's opinions - if that is important to someone, they can just read them on the web! Again, I'm not saying religious oppression is justified, but if Papal authority is the only significant distinction, is the actual practice of Christianity really that different at the church-goer level?

[ranskaldan]

Originally posted by Sikander


Again I ask, how is my not spending my money on Chinese goods going to put China's 1.2 billion people into poverty and desperation? Their economy has been expanding at a fantastic rate without my money, why is this suddenly going to be the telling factor? Even if every American joined my personal boycott China has a huge internal economy and strong trade relations with the other large economies of the world. The U.S. is a large percentage of the world's economy, but we don't have the sort of power you seem to think we do. It's really a question of degree.

I would rather spend my meager resources helping other poor peoples whose governments are doing a better job upholding human dignity and freedom fight poverty and gain a measure of stability. Mexico is an excellent example of such a country. When China starts to make some of the strides Mexico has in the last few years I will be happy to send my dollars there as well. They were moving forward more than a decade ago, but I don't see that sort of movement happening now. There has been a retrenchment in some areas and a freeze in others. Hong Kong has lost a lot of it's powers of self-government, and the Chinese government would love to put Taiwan in an even tighter embrace. Show me some progress, and I will adjust my views accordingly.

You're saying, "Oh.... a boycott won't hurt that much, China will still survive. They still have Europe and Japan to trade with."
Well by that logic, we should randomly amputate people's legs then. It won't be too bad, those people will still have arms and eyes and so on, they'll survive.
A boycott by America would still do more harm than good, thus it should not happen.

Secondly, are you going to judge a people's worthiness of your support, by their government?

"Some progress"? I suggest you reread the entire thread. What we're talking about is not "some progress". It's "leaps and bounds".
(Note: Progress is defined as comparing China's Past and China's Now, not China's Now and America's Now.)

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by mindseye
Showing no obvious sign of change? Are we talking about the same P.R.C.?

I don't believe so. I am talking about the PRC as it exists today. You appear to be wanting to shift the discussion to how it might look in ten years and asking me why I feel the need to criticize your idealized version.

I think most Chinese would disagree with the notion that they are not free to believe as they wish.

You still appear to be slipping into de minimis arguements in your defense of the PRC. The reasonable exercise of minority rights, which you agree are being suppressed, are not trumped by the wishes of the majority. I don't see how anyone, especially a member of a minority group, can rationally argue against such a position.

Fortunately, that situation is rapidly improving,

In what ways have the PRC government relaxed thier actions against religious groups that don't want to be affiliated with the government?

You are joking, right?

No it was a serious question. I'm interested in finding out about the inaccurate information on the site about the situation. Just because the site happens to belong to a Christian group doesn't automatically impugn the validity of the info provided.

Wow, the two churches are even more similar that I thought!

Why have a State church, and try to stamp out the more conventional variants of your church, at all if you don't want to control its theology?

[Sikander]

Originally posted by ranskaldan

You're saying, "Oh.... a boycott won't hurt that much, China will still survive. They still have Europe and Japan to trade with."
Well by that logic, we should randomly amputate people's legs then. It won't be too bad, those people will still have arms and eyes and so on, they'll survive.

The main reason your analogy is inept is because my money is mine, while someone else's legs are not. You are the bane of strawmen everywhere.

Simply, I would rather give my trade to almost any of China's competitors than to China. Even if I accept your high opinions of Chinese progress I would still have to be persuaded that Chinas competitors are worse than I think they are, because they still seem better than China to me, and as a double bonus they aren't spreading nuclear and missle technology around, aren't upgrading Iraqi air defense capabilities, smashing their fighters into our surveilance planes and blaming us for it, trying to threaten democratic countries into an anschluss etc.

[mindseye]

You appear to be wanting to shift the discussion to how it might look in ten years and asking me why I feel the need to criticize your idealized version.

No, I'm just trying to get you to consider a larger picture than the narrow single-issue point-in-time snapshot you seem to be basing your entire opinion on. Forget the future. How about considering the present in light of the recent past, say twenty years. Is that possible?

You still appear to be slipping into de minimis arguements in your defense of the PRC. The reasonable exercise of minority rights, which you agree are being suppressed, are not trumped by the wishes of the majority. I don't see how anyone, especially a member of a minority group, can rationally argue against such a position.

Regarding minority rights, I in fact agree, and certainly would not argue against that position. I think you missed my point. I'll try to clarify: my point was that, if you are trying to measure the amount of oppression average Chinese people experience on a day-to-day basis (the topic of this discussion) by using religious suppression as a yardstick, you will reach a mistaken conclusion. It will be mistaken because few Chinese care about practicing Christianity. This argument says nothing at all about a majority trumping minority rights. The point is that it is not a very relevent metric for use in measuring the relative freedom of the lives of most Chinese.

In what ways have the PRC government relaxed thier actions against religious groups that don't want to be affiliated with the government?

While their have been great gains in religious freedom here, of course, churches in direct conflict with the gov't have unsurprisingly not made much headway. But to allow the latter to eclipse the former is to reach a distorted understanding of contemporary China. Again, I think it would be useful for you to consider the larger picture, including perhaps the history of the Christian church in China, and the role Christian churches played in the enactment of anti-Chinese laws in the US. It will not excuse the govt's actions, but it may help explain matters such as Beijing's profound distrust of the Vatican.

No it was a serious question. I'm interested in finding out about the inaccurate information on the site about the situation. Just because the site happens to belong to a Christian group doesn't automatically impugn the validity of the info provided.

That fact alone does not, but combined with the fact that the domain name is persecution.org leads me to suspect that anything I find there will be a foregone conclusion. To be honest, I am so busy I am not able to keep up even with everything going on in this thread. However if you can assure me that this site takes an even-handed approach, including an appreciation of the recent improvements in religious freedom here, I will take a look. I'm not sure of what use it will be, I do not dispute that Catholics practicing underground can get in very serious trouble here.

Why have a State church, and try to stamp out the more conventional variants of your church, at all if you don't want to control its theology?

I don't think Beijing cares so much about the practicing of religion or theology per se. I think it's clear they care much more about are the formation of organizations answering to foreign authorities, organizations which may threaten in any way to undermine Communist rule. This explains anamolies such as the fact that you can get in big trouble for smuggling quantities of bibles into the country, even though you can easily buy a bible at local bookstore.

[mindseye]

What do ther various people here make of the Chinese government of Hong Kong?

In my opinion, Hong Kong really got the short end of the stick! "One Country, Two Systems" has been steadily undermined by Beijing. The entire electoral system is contrived to allow Beijing to select HK's leader, Hong Kong voters appear to have been completely marginalized. There has also been the alarming precedent of Hong Kong's highest court reversing their decision on immigration to match the will of Beijing. There have been some issues realted to freedom of the press as well.

The effect of this erosion of HK's democracy on Taiwanese opinion has apparently not been lost on Beijing. It looks like Beijing is now offering Taiwan something a little different from the HK version of "One Coutnry, Two Systems".

As I say in most of these kinds of threads, the large majority of Chinese live in rural areas, not urban areas. I'm guessing that these are as wretched places to live as they ever were, both economically and with regard to freedoms.

From what I can gather, the situation is at last improving, although the rural areas still definitely lag far behind the urban centers. It's really like two different countries. At least now most rural people have electricity, if not color televisions. Appliances like washers and air conditioners are becoming more common. On a recent Shanghai-Hong Kong round trip rail journey I took, I saw a surprising number of modern dwellings going up in small towns. The wealth is starting to ripple out there, but it's gonna take a while.

Consider a simple economic metric as part of a what-if scenario. Unemployment is at least 10%, even while the growth is at a real 7% per annum. What happens if China were to have a deep recession?

So true. It's been said that China needs to maintain 7% growth per year in order to generate enough wealth to take care of the economincally displaced (and WTO membership is going to increase that burden). What the fate of the Party would be in a serious, prolonged economic downturn would be, is anybody's guess.

The commie party could split in two (or shatter) just as easily.

That's where I'm placing my bet. The Party splitting seems far more likely than some other organized opposition gaining a toehold. The Party is already fractured in many directions. There are splits along lines of geographical alliances (a lot of the present leadership are Shanghai cronies). There are splits along function or ministry (e.g. the military seems problematical for Beijing to control, a factor I think played a central role in the EP-3 collision debacle). There are horizontal splits along heirarchical level, e.g. provincial, city and local officials sometimes ignore or even defy Beijing edicts. Western-oriented reformers are pitted against paranoid hard-liners. The Party is still plenty powerful enough to eliminate perceived threats to its power (e.g. Falun Gong), however when pressure reaches a critical point, I bet one of these fissures gives way and the party splits.

The safest mode of change will be a generational changing of the guard, but it is also the slowest.

So true. With the leadership change at the end of this year, we will get a chance to see how the "reformers" are doing. They've been pretty successful recently (APEC, WTO entry, etc).

Incremental change seems to be out of the question right now given the hard line attitude of the current government.

I'm not so sure of that. In the central political sphere there have been some small-scale but important changes, e.g. elections of the lowest government leaders, as well as open debate in the Peoples Congress. On the other hand, there have been widespread changes in laws less central to governance, but more related to daily life, such as the types of jobs you can hold, travel and education abroad, ease with which foreigners can live and work in China, and so on.

Show me some progress, and I will adjust my views accordingly

I made a whole list in the last thread on this topic! Weren't you participating in that one?

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Adam Smith
HERE is a link to the Wasington Post op-ed piece. The author clearly has an zxe to grind, but any comments on the facts as presented. On the basis of this article this appears to be a case of where the formation of political parties or viable alternative candidates is being suppressed.

First let me give you some background of the handover.

In 1989 the British and Chinese government had an understanding of what will happen in the last 5 years of colonial rule. They had letters and memos clearly starting all sorts of understandings and intentions.

All hell broke lose once Christopher Patten, a petty conservative politician who had lost his seat in Bath, arrived in Hong Kong as the Last Governer.

He threw all this understanding out the window and installed measurements that would surely anger the Chinese government. It seems to me that it is not plausible that he did that out of his own accord because the British government could always recall him if they didn't like what he was doing.

Now, there was supposedly a step-by-step easing in of elections, but Patten said "screw it" and launched his own system.

Needless to say the Chinese government was not at all pleased to see this breaching of agreement, and determined to go at it alone - since that was what the Brits were doing.

This Election Committee was a product of that political situation. It was introduced to impose the PRC's vision of democracy for Hong Kong.

The author, Martin Lee, is the head of the so called Democratic Party, who raised quickly under Patten. It's a party that's found on slogans and empty polital rhetoric, hence it has lost most of the popular support in the past two years.

[Comments on some of The Washington Post's editorial]

"the quip of a former British chief secretary in Hong Kong: "The Chinese have no objection to elections -- provided they know the results beforehand."

That's propbably from Anson Chan, a diehard supporter of Patten and the first Chief Secretary after the handover. She was accused of "obstructing Tung's rule" by the leader of a local political party, the Liberal Party.

"Tung obtained 714 written nominations from an election committee of 800 people, most of whom are under the influence of Beijing."

It's extremely vague what this "influence of Beijing" is. Many of the members of the Election Committee was elected in a public elelection in 2000.

"Not only were Hong Kong's people barred from electing their own leader"

This is crap. Large number of members on the Election committee was elected by the public as noted above.

"they were also deprived of their chance to even stand in the election."

This is crap. Anybody can stand in the election provided that can secure the backing of 100 members.

"Even the privileged 800 members of the election committee did not get to cast a vote on the sole candidate. Instead they had to submit written nominations, effectively turning the nomination process into a political loyalty test rather than a ballot."

This is crap. How can an election takes place before nominations?

"A recent public opinion poll showed that only 16.2 percent of the Hong Kong public supports Tung for a second term."

Polls conducted by parties wanting to show support of their agenda. Party such as the Democratic Party, no doubt.

"The changes in Hong Kong have been a slow and steady erosion rather than a single explosion. Our rule of law, press freedom, elected institutions, level economic playing field and free association have all been battered since 1997. And in every case, the prime mover in eroding Hong Kong's bedrock institutions has been Tung Chee-hwa. Whether taking direction from Beijing or anticipating his mentors' preferences, Tung has quashed calls for more democracy and more transparent government policies."

A sample of Martin Lee's empty rhetoric.

"Legislators cannot propose bills on government policies without the chief executive's written consent."

Will lies ever end? The restriction is bills cannot be proposed if they increase public spending.

"During his first five years in office, Tung presented many corrosive initiatives, including the abolition of elected civic councils and the invitation to Beijing to overturn the interpretation of the Basic Law, Hong Kong's constitution, by the highest court."

Possibly because such elections were done unilaterally by Patten? Possibly beacause the final interpretation of the Basic Law lies with the People's Congress and not with the Court of Final Appeal, as stipulate in the Basic Law itself (clause 158)?

"In poll after poll, Hong Kong's well-educated and economically successful population says it wants full democracy, even over Beijing's objections."

Where are these polls, who conducted them, what questions were asked, and whom were asked these questions? I cannot remember any polls like that.

The funny thing about Martin Lee is how elections will be conducted is clearly spelled out in the Basic Law. When it suits him, he calls on the rule of law. If the rule of law doesn't please him, he simply ignores it. Speaking of hypocracy here.

"Indeed, the Basic Law sets out a schedule through 2007 for making the legislature more democratic. After that, there is the possibility of electing the chief executive by universal suffrage."

Oh wait, he did acknowledge this. But what's is call of more democracy again?

"But Tung refuses even to start the process of public consultation and debate on this vital topic."

It's five years away, Mr Lee. I think he's eager to be elected. Unfortunately for Mr Lee, his popular support has reached new lows.

"That may be why President Bush's remarks to the Chinese people last month resonated so strongly in Hong Kong."

Probably in Mr Lee's own brain cavity, but not among the general population here.

"The world community should have an ongoing interest in preserving Hong Kong's example to China."

Hong Kong has more freedom than it ever had under British rule. There are all these demostrations every day, even by illegal aliens! Figure that, illegal aliens showing their faces and not thrown out of the city right away.

"There is only one solution that will stop Hong Kong's regression"

What regression? The British government report issued last year on the state of Hong Kong flies in the face of Lee's assertion.

Don't take my word for it. Those Brits though, they like democracy don't they?

[ranskaldan]

Originally posted by Sikander


The main reason your analogy is inept is because my money is mine, while someone else's legs are not. You are the bane of strawmen everywhere.

So? Explain why this difference in ownership will result in the analogy breaking down.

Simply, I would rather give my trade to almost any of China's competitors than to China. Even if I accept your high opinions of Chinese progress I would still have to be persuaded that Chinas competitors are worse than I think they are, because they still seem better than China to me, and as a double bonus they aren't spreading nuclear and missle technology around, aren't upgrading Iraqi air defense capabilities, smashing their fighters into our surveilance planes and blaming us for it, trying to threaten democratic countries into an anschluss etc.

Firstly, you are treating China as a whole unit again. Most of the products you buy, by the way, come from private enterprises. Even those that come from government-owned factories will go a long way to feeding and embettering the lives of millions of Chinese.

Secondly, so far your arguments have all been - what would happen if I buy Chinese goods? You never seem to consider - what would happen if I don't buy Chinese goods? No, it's not as simplistic as, "all the nastiness will end".

[ranskaldan]

So far, Sikander has only given 1 argument for why he's boycotting Chinese goods and 1 argument why this won't hurt the Chinese people.

Point: The Chinese government does all sorts of nasty things, like selling arms, threatening Taiwan, etc. Boycotting their goods will end this nastiness.
Rebuttal: Boycotting their goods will obviously not end this nastiness. If anything, it will worsen this nastiness. Therefore this point does not stand.

Point: The Chinese people don't depend so much on MY money to survive.
Rebuttal: Oh yes, but denying your money certainly will make their lives more miserable by a little bit. (You aren't going to argue that denying your money will SPEED UP their economy, are you?) I use "a little bit", but if we compound the little bits, i.e. if every single American, European, Taiwanese and Japanese joined your boycott, the Chinese economy will spiral downwards. You will be destroying lives at a rate comparable to what the commies have achieved at their height.

Therefore boycotting Chinese goods is a questionable decision, both logically and morally.

[mindseye]

"Not only were Hong Kong's people barred from electing their own leader"

This is crap. Large number of members on the Election committee was elected by the public as noted above.

Yes, but the direct ballot of the public accounts for only a small fraction of the vote. The 800 wealthy businessmen (who dare not cross Beijing) hold wildly disproportionate power. So it's not crap after all.

This is crap. Anybody can stand in the election provided that can secure the backing of 100 members.

Yeah sure. Where are you gonna find 100 members who are going to publically back any candidate besides Beijing's? The backing must be made publically. To back an alternate candidate would be a most unwise thing for your business.

"Even the privileged 800 members of the election committee did not get to cast a vote on the sole candidate. Instead they had to submit written nominations, effectively turning the nomination process into a political loyalty test rather than a ballot."

This is crap. How can an election takes place before nominations?

Huh? They have to submit their nominations publically before the election. To submit your nomination is to de facto place your vote, especially when only one candidate is nominated!

It's extremely vague what this "influence of Beijing" is.

Well, when Jiang Zemin invites the group of you to Beijing to tell you in detail how pleased Beijing is with Tung's performance (see news stories from last year), the message is pretty clear.

It's five years away, Mr Lee.

You don't think it's wise to start a process like reforming your legislature five years in advance?

"In poll after poll, Hong Kong's well-educated and economically successful population says it wants full democracy, even over Beijing's objections."

Where are these polls, who conducted them, what questions were asked, and whom were asked these questions? I cannot remember any polls like that.

UR, do you advocate full democracy for Hong Kong?

[DanS]

FYI, in 2001, the United States imported $100 billion worth of goods and services from China, while only selling $20 billion worth of goods and services to China. On an exchange rate basis, China's entire GDP was about $1.1 trillion.

It is clear that without the US consumer, business and governmental support, such as Sikander is threatening to withhold, China would be measurably worse off today. So it really isn't sufficient to slough off American concerns for tolerance of christianity and falun gong, for instance. While Chinese citizens may not be concerned about it, their trade relationships may be affected by it in ways that that the commie government doesn't fully appreciate.

Also consider that growth in this kind of support cannot really be sustained. China has a lot of challenges ahead of it, none of which are really easily dealt with using China's political structure.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by mindseye
Yes, but the direct ballot of the public accounts for only a small fraction of the vote. The 800 wealthy businessmen (who dare not cross Beijing) hold wildly disproportionate power. So it's not crap after all.

There are a total of 800 members on the election committee, and at least 50% - IIRC - of those are elected. Not all 800 members are businessmen, let alone wealthy.

Originally posted by mindseye
Yeah sure. Where are you gonna find 100 members who are going to publically back any candidate besides Beijing's? The backing must be made publically. To back an alternate candidate would be a most unwise thing for your business.

See above.

Originally posted by mindseye
Huh? They have to submit their nominations publically before the election. To submit your nomination is to de facto place your vote, especially when only one candidate is nominated!

No, because voting is by secret, unnamed ballot. Just because there's only one candidate is not an indication of flaws in the process. Perhaps Mr Martin Lee's own popularity has something to do with it.

Originally posted by mindseye
Well, when Jiang Zemin invites the group of you to Beijing to tell you in detail how pleased Beijing is with Tung's performance (see news stories from last year), the message is pretty clear.

Actually that's not what happened. Jiang was asked by reporters how he viewed Tung's performance.

Originally posted by mindseye
You don't think it's wise to start a process like reforming your legislature five years in advance?

It's not reforming the legislature, it is the election of the chief executive. As a matter of fact Mr Martin Lee can propose a bill to start the ball rolling. Why didn't he?

Originally posted by mindseye
UR, do you advocate full democracy for Hong Kong?

I can't answer this question until I know what democracy is meant here.

This is not meant to be a dodge, but as I pointed out elsewhere "democracy" is so vague and formless that it can span a huge spectrum of meanings.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by DanS
It is clear that without the US consumer, business and governmental support, such as Sikander is threatening to withhold, China would be measurably worse off today.

Sure, but so are the US consumers. Consider Cuba for example.

Originally posted by DanS
falun gong

What abput it?

Originally posted by DanS
While Chinese citizens may not be concerned about it, their trade relationships may be affected by it in ways that that the commie government doesn't fully appreciate.

That seems to be a highly hypocritical position considering that some of the US's allies are as bad if not worse. Given the fact that the US was slammed by AI (Amnesty International) last year, this whole "human rights" business comes across as a farce.

[DanS]

edit: ah, never mind.

[ranskaldan]

ah whatever....

The actual details of the human rights situation in China is inconsequential.

We all know that it isn't as bad as Stalinist Russia.
That it's probably somewhere between Stalinist Russia and today's America.
Which one it's closer to, it really doesn't matter when this argument is concerned.

What's important is that boycotting won't tip it in the good direction, no matter what.

[mindseye]

Urban Ranger claimed:

There are a total of 800 members on the election committee, and at least 50% - IIRC - of those are elected.

Wait just a minute - when you say "elected" just what do you mean? I thought that these 50% were elected by a group of about 150,000 hand-picked "voters", mostly members of the business elite. Is this not true?

See above.

We shall see indeed! Unless I am mistaken, these delegates are not elected by the people at all! They are elected by a very demographically narrow sliver of the HK population (i.e., mostly top businessmen). If this is so, your arguments are, as you put it, ... crap!

No, because voting is by secret, unnamed ballot.

I said nominating was public, not the voting. The 800 delegates nominate the candidates for the race. You need 100 delegates' backing to be nominated. However, the nominations are public. As I previously said, any member of the business elite who publically nominates a candidate other than Beijing;s choice is simply asking for trouble.

Just because there's only one candidate is not an indication of flaws in the process.

Well, let's put it this way: it's certainly not a very confidence-inspiring sign of a functioning democracy, especially when that sole candidate appears to suffer from a significant degree of public dissatsifaction!

Well, when Jiang Zemin invites the group of you to Beijing to tell you in detail how pleased Beijing is with Tung's performance (see news stories from last year), the message is pretty clear.

Actually that's not what happened. Jiang was asked by reporters how he viewed Tung's performance.

Well, actually that is what happened. The meeting took place last June. As Jiang himself put it afterwards: “I hope the business community will back Tung Chee-hwa's administration. We're satisfied with his performance.” You tell me: how many business leaders are going to openly defy such a public stand by Jiang? Judging by the outcome of the "election", the answer is: not many.

I can't answer this question (concerning UR's support for democracy in HK) until I know what democracy is meant here.

Ok, how about: election of the executive by direct vote of the people. Would you support that?

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by mindseye

Quote:

There are a total of 800 members on the election committee, and at least 50% - IIRC - of those are elected.

Wait just a minute - when you say "elected" just what do you mean? I thought that these 50% were elected by a group of about 150,000 hand-picked "voters", mostly members of the business elite. Is this not true?

It's a lot more complicated than that. In 2000 there was a public election of Legco (the local legislature) members during which a number of the Election Committee members were also elected. So that part is by direct election.

Now, there are also these "functional constituencies" that are composed of certain groups. There are a total of nine of these functional constituencies which include sectors such as IT industries, doctors, and social workers. They get to elect their own representatives to the Legco, and they also voted on their nominees to the Election Committees. This part is sorta public.

There is also a final component to the Election Committee, which is made up of ex officio persons such as the representatives to the People's Congress from Hong Kong, Legco members, and the like.

Originally posted by mindseye
We shall see indeed! Unless I am mistaken, these delegates are not elected by the people at all! They are elected by a very demographically narrow sliver of the HK population (i.e., mostly top businessmen). If this is so, your arguments are, as you put it, ... crap!

Seems like you have indeed mistaken

Here's the exact composition. Out of the 800 members, 200 are from financial and business sector, 200 are from professional (doctors, lawyers, etc.) sector, 200 from workers, social service groups, and religious groups, and 200 ex offcio members.

Originally posted by mindseye
I said nominating was public, not the voting. The 800 delegates nominate the candidates for the race. You need 100 delegates' backing to be nominated. However, the nominations are public. As I previously said, any member of the business elite who publically nominates a candidate other than Beijing;s choice is simply asking for trouble.

There are much more to the committee than just the local busiess elites.

Originally posted by mindseye
Well, let's put it this way: it's certainly not a very confidence-inspiring sign of a functioning democracy, especially when that sole candidate appears to suffer from a significant degree of public dissatsifaction!

Certainly Tung is not a very strong leader, unlike Lee Kwon-Yew (sp?) of Singapore. He also caters too much to the business sector and Zhu criticised him of being indecisive.

However most social problems we have was not his fault, nor he can singlehanded fix these problems. Don't forget that Anson Chan was said to be obstructing Tung's policies openly by a local leading public figure. If that's no truth in it I think this man would have been hauled into court for slander already.

Besides, the British government gave their blessing to this procedure. *shrug*

Originally posted by mindseye
Well, actually that is what happened. The meeting took place last June. As Jiang himself put it afterwards: “I hope the business community will back Tung Chee-hwa's administration. We're satisfied with his performance.” You tell me: how many business leaders are going to openly defy such a public stand by Jiang? Judging by the outcome of the "election", the answer is: not many.

That seems to have nothing to do with this election.

Originally posted by mindseye
Ok, how about: election of the executive by direct vote of the people. Would you support that?

I think I prefer a parlimentary style of election better.

As long as the election is fair, the people understand the issues and their responsibilities, that the people know more about how things work in the grand scheme, sure.