Why are Hong Kongers all of a suddenly protesting for democracy when they were never a democracy?

robto

Ad Honorem
Jun 2014
6,207
Lisbon, Portugal
you are supposed to know what you are criticize for, you should present the source for your criticism.

this is the simple rule, you should not have turn the job upon me.

you should not pretend it is about who is not cool-head
Initially I knew what I was criticizing for, and then you provided new information and new insight, which I accepted, and there is no problem at all if me or you failed some basic knowledge on the subject being discussed. This is a public forum and changing opinions and trying to educate or show other people information that they might not have is the entire point of a discussion, so I don't know why you have to react in such a way.

And I don't clearly know what you are talking about me presenting sources...do you remember what we were talking about earlier? I said that one of the demands of the protesters was having universal suffrage. That's one of their demands, and by reading your other posts on this thread you are clearly aware of the demands of the anti-government protesters, so why should I give you sources of something that you already know?

I'm sorry but this was a completely unnecessary point that you have to make and this borderline strawmanning, in my view.

perhaps, it is not even clear to yourself. just like many others in this forum, you have a prejudgment that a chinese is not rightful to support PRC, so it should *always* be the chinese poster to provide sources for debate.
This is strawman fallacy 101. You are not debating with me and my points and I think you don't really want to understand my point, you are using a strawman.

You are making a lot of unfounded judgments.

however, that is not the fact, if one uses the actual academic standards, who raised the criticism, who is responsible for finding sources.
A totally pointless remark.....

you claim PRC did not actually provide the general election, which a severe criticism since the general election is known to be part of the basic laws. then you are supposed to give the sources for your claim.
When did I claim that the PRC did not provide general elections? Another strawman detected. I just politely asked you to give me the source stating that, it was not because I doubted your statement, it's because I wanted to see and read it for myself.

Please, please, don't put words on my mouth.

like many, you turned for me to provide sources, is it possible you think it is always the "common sense" ”PRC does not provide rights to its citizens”?
Strawman again...

" the electors only have the power to elect a portion of the legislative elected officials"

this is not even a proper sentence.
In fact it is a proper sentence. The electors are the voters, the voters elect the elected officials. In the Hong Kong Legislative Council, only 40 of the 70 seats in that branch are elected by the majority population (the common electors) with the rest of 30 elected by 28 traditional functional constituencies. Those traditional functional constituencies are generally designated legal entities such as organisations and corporations which will have a tremendous power in choosing lawmakers and that's a contradiction to the idea of universal suffrage.

link:
Public Consultation on the Methods for Selecting the Chief Executive and for Forming the Legislative Council in 2012, Constitutional & Mainland Affairs Bureau, Government of Hong Kong, 18 November 2009

officials are not elected, just like Secretary of State of US is not elected. the chief of hk is elected. officials are just employees of the hk government.
When I said "legislative elected officials" I really meant "legislator" or "lawmaker" - you can correctly refer that political position by those three names. Maybe you got a little bit confused by the term "official" and maybe I should have used a more commonly referred term in order to not cause misunderstanding. For that I apologize.

HK lawmakers are not just employees of the HK government and the Secretary of State of US is not a lawmaker - although that's besides the point.

you should not make terrible analogy that does not fit the context.

this thread is about hk. not how secondary sources are useful in Holocaust.

any human proposed rule of nature of human society only works under specific context, for example, the newtons law only works under classic mechanics

your claim that secondary is more evident than first hand, and your cheap analogy of Holocaust has its special context.

the background of lack of survivor is not applicable in hk

it does not matter whether i got or miss your memo, if you fail to establish a logics, your analogy is not useful
You are beating a dead horse here, seriously...this is getting trivial, and you are completely missing the point and on the top of that you want to insist on your misunderstanding of my analogy. I'm sorry but this is not making you look good.

My initial point to other historumite that I was discussing with is: the 1967 riot, as violent as it was, made the colonial authorities to change their policy regarding the welfare and civil rights of the Hong Kong subjects. It transformed the relations between the British colonial elite with the Chinese majority. Do you want to comment on that or not?


i am not making assumptions.

you are not chinese, yourself have claimed many times in the forum you are a foreign person lived (lives) in china and other countries.
i just have a good memory about who said what.

i don't have to make the assumptions.
Yes, you are making an assumption. I said that I'm a foreign national living in China. You literally said that my stay in Hong Kong wouldn't be a problem because of my "foreign face". Those were your words. You made an assumption of what I look like without me ever stating to you what I look like or you ever seeing my pictures or portrait. Being a foreign national doesn't at all denotes that I will have a certain look that will make me stick out from the crowd if I am in Hong Kong. You made a racial remark actually, assuming that I at least didn't look Chinese or Asian, and I never disclaim to you my racial or ethnic background whatsoever.

Please, I will politely ask you to retrieve that comment and apologize for it. I'm asking you this in a respectful way.
 

robto

Ad Honorem
Jun 2014
6,207
Lisbon, Portugal
Which system has equal counting of all votes?
Many western democracies eg. Portugal, has a system that counts all the votes.

I know in the US vote aren't the same. I think if you have district base on populations and you run election base on districts, the votes may not be the same.
You are talking about the phenomenon of Gerrymandering? Yes, that's a problem and I totally agree with you.
 

mariusj

Ad Honorem
Aug 2015
2,015
Los Angeles
Only where it doesn't matter. Enough to make sure they know very well what's lacking. This has gone over a tipping point, hence protests.
They are represented in the lego. If they want a broad collection they should make their tents bigger. Basic parliamentary stuff.
 

mariusj

Ad Honorem
Aug 2015
2,015
Los Angeles
Many western democracies eg. Portugal, has a system that counts all the votes.
But not all. And that is the point.

The system was a compromised system. Just like the US election is a compromise. You can complain about how you don't get all you want, but never forget what you actually receive.
 

heylouis

Ad Honorem
Apr 2013
6,626
China
When did I claim that the PRC did not provide general elections? Another strawman detected. I just politely asked you to give me the source stating that, it was not because I doubted your statement, it's because I wanted to see and read it for myself.

.....
Initially I knew what I was criticizing for, and then you provided new information and new insight, which I accepted, and there is no problem at all if me or you failed some basic knowledge on the subject being discussed. This is a public forum and changing opinions and trying to educate or show other people information that they might not have is the entire point of a discussion, so I don't know why you have to react in such a way.
...
I said that one of the demands of the protesters was having universal suffrage. That's one of their demands, and by reading your other posts on this thread you are clearly aware of the demands of the anti-government protesters, so why should I give you sources of something that you already know?
(your comments were re-ordered to provide a more clear context)

in #241, i argued that
you fail to show what is the critical rights the "protesters" currently are unfairly not-been-given to
in #244, you replied and asserted that
No, I didn't fail to show that, because the other historumite in which I was responding to already knew of what I was talking about, it's more like you that couldn't get the point, not me that failed to explain myself clearly, but since you wanted to know I will explain now - the most important political right that this group of protesters are demanding is universal suffrage.
as you asserted, you and the poster you replied earlier both *knew* a thing that "the most important political right that this group of protesters are demanding is universal suffrage"

later on, we both described the "universal suffrage" as "general election"

apparently, you did not just ask a question and wish to get answer from who knows the chinese affairs better---the chinese ourselves.
instead, you already made assertions. and in #244, even in more earlier posts which you claim other poster also knew "what I(robto) was talking about", (in those posts) you did not provide any sources.

and further, it is NOT about *what the protesters want* that i argued against. it is about the *wrong assertion* that you consider china did not provide the "general election" or "universal suffrage", as it has become very clear from what you said:
Anyway, if that's true, it's not quite relevant because currently in Hong Kong there's no universal suffrage, with or without approval of the PRC, so the protesters demands still are legitimate in the sense that Hong Kong does not have universal suffrage.
the center of the debate is NOT what kind of slogans the violence committers have, it is about whether the slogans are legitimate.
apparently, you commented those are legitimate, WITHOUT a source.

till your unfounded claims were formally challenged by me in #245 , you started to ask me to provided sources starting from #249 , rather than back up your own previously made assertions.

the thing is clear:
you *did claim* china did not provide "general election", which forms a legitimacy of the protest, and you believe other poster also knew "what I(robto) was talking about", and you had considered your "explained clearly"

and all my concern is that you should back up your own claims, that job should not have been done by me. for your convenience, i gave some info, that does not form a debt of me on providing the original sources.

large part of your currents comments is based on false context that "you did not make the claim" (china did not provide "general election"). for that, i won't reply to each of the sentences of your comments.

My initial point to other historumite that I was discussing with is: the 1967 riot, as violent as it was, made the colonial authorities to change their policy regarding the welfare and civil rights of the Hong Kong subjects. It transformed the relations between the British colonial elite with the Chinese majority. Do you want to comment on that or not?
your have made more points than what you claim here as "initial point".

the part i have challenged is that is that you claim that (#244 )
Yes, I have way to paint the current riot and violence as less severe as the 1967
to back up your claims, you claim later that
Secondary sources many times are more valuable than primary sources, that's why we have something called "academia". A scholar who studies the Holocaust (just giving an example) will explain more the event in depth with all its details, scenes and will provide you a larger picture about the event than someone who actually was a victim of the holocaust and lived that tragic moment first-hand.
which is in contradictory from what directly spoke out by an elder hk woman that hk is in worst days of her life, as i have been provided as a *first hand* sources.

i have argued that holocaust does not have enough survivor to provide first hand sources, not because secondary sources are more valuable than first hand sources.

you have failed to further provide any refute against that.


In fact it is a proper sentence. The electors are the voters, the voters elect the elected officials. In the Hong Kong Legislative Council, only 40 of the 70 seats in that branch are elected by the majority population (the common electors) with the rest of 30 elected by 28 traditional functional constituencies. Those traditional functional constituencies are generally designated legal entities such as organisations and corporations which will have a tremendous power in choosing lawmakers and that's a contradiction to the idea of universal suffrage.
according to basic laws and the decision of the national people's congress (the only one who has the right to interpret the constitution and the basic laws), the general election of legislative council should prevail *AFTER* successful general election of the chief, for that hk people must collect experience about how to carry out general elections, step by step

the laws must prevail. it does not matter what you have in your mind, according to your own likes about designs of general elections.


...
You literally said that my stay in Hong Kong wouldn't be a problem because of my "foreign face".
......
Being a foreign national doesn't at all denotes that I will have a certain look that will make me stick out from the crowd if I am in Hong Kong. You made a racial remark actually, assuming that I at least didn't look Chinese or Asian, and I never disclaim to you my racial or ethnic background whatsoever.
...
Please, I will politely ask you to retrieve that comment and apologize for it. I'm asking you this in a respectful way.
the initial point have been made is that
you attempt to argue that the *first hand* source that the hk elder woman's speech (that hk is in worst days) is less important that so called raw data of yours, and you claim
I've lived in a war-zone before, so I don't think that Hong Kong is specially dangerous for me, and I'm 100% sure that only a few areas in the city are dangerous (such as university campuses and major intersection areas), not the entire territory.
that is rather an irrelevant speak, as it is not about how relevantly hk is dangerous compared with a *war-zone*. it is about whether hk is in a severe condition, where violence spreading out and whether hk person consider that a severe condition.

you claimed you have friends in hk, however that is only secondary. no person directly speaking out as observed from the hk elder woman.

it is a common observation that foreign people generally are less harassed by the violence committers in hk. previously, this phenomenon has also been mentioned by other posters.
the violence committers generally "decide" who is foreign, who is hker, and/or who is mainlander by face, tongue, cloth..........

indeed, i should not have used a narrow term of "face", more generally, it should be called "features"

i should not specifically use "you" as an example, i apologize on using "you" as the example. the observation in fact generally applies to all those who have foreign features.

i don't think i should apologize to make an implication that people from different nations, no matter who is their ancestors, have different features, including face, tongue, cloth, habits.....etc............
that is a fact. for example, i believe i remember correctly, you once spoke you do not have idea about junior knowledge about what dongyi is.
i do not think you are expected to behave indistinguishably from a mainland-chinese or a hk-chinese
 
Last edited:

robto

Ad Honorem
Jun 2014
6,207
Lisbon, Portugal
(your comments were re-ordered to provide a more clear context)

in #241, i argued that
in #244, you replied and asserted that

as you asserted, you and the poster you replied earlier both *knew* a thing that "the most important political right that this group of protesters are demanding is universal suffrage"
Yes, I did asserted, and I continue to assert that. One of the most important demands of the protesters and this entire movement, is the immediate implementation of universal suffrage in Hong Kong elections, which they don't have - I will repeat, there is no universal suffrage in Hong Kong as by now.

later on, we both described the "universal suffrage" as "general election"
No, we didn't both described "universal suffrage" as "general elections" - those are not even the same...those are different terms explaining different processes, maybe I failed to explain myself clearly since you grossly misunderstood the entire conversation that we are having, but those two terms are distinguishable:

Universal Suffrage: a system in which all adult citizens not only have the right to vote, in which there are no distinctions between voters over a certain age in any part of its territories due to gender, literacy, wealth, social status, religion, race, or ethnicity.

General Elections: Those are elections in which all or most members of a given political body are chosen. These are usually held for a nation's primary legislative body, as distinguished from by-elections and local elections.

You see? Those are completely different things. Having General elections doesn't mean that those elections will be carried out under Universal Suffrage, and in the case of Hong Kong Legislative elections - aka. General Elections - there is no universal suffrage.

Why so? Because of the reasons that I explained in my previous post, in which you were unwilling to comment to (maybe purposefully?) And I will re-post to give you more context:

" [...] In the Hong Kong Legislative Council, only 40 of the 70 seats in that branch are elected by the majority population (the common electors) with the rest of 30 elected by 28 traditional functional constituencies. Those traditional functional constituencies are generally designated legal entities such as organisations and corporations which will have a tremendous power in choosing lawmakers and that's a contradiction to the idea of universal suffrage.

link:
Public Consultation on the Methods for Selecting the Chief Executive and for Forming the Legislative Council in 2012, Constitutional & Mainland Affairs Bureau, Government of Hong Kong, 18 November 2009 "


Succinctly speaking, the existence of the traditional functional constituencies in the election of 30 seats in Hong Kong's general elections by itself denies the existence of universal suffrage in the city. There is the proof and there is the source that you so much wanted me to show - which I assume you really don't care since you are incessantly using a strawman.


and further, it is NOT about *what the protesters want* that i argued against. it is about the *wrong assertion* that you consider china did not provide the "general election" or "universal suffrage", as it has become very clear from what you said:
Putting words in my mouth again. I didn't say China did not provide universal suffrage - I won't even mention the general elections since I already explained to you what a general election is, and it's not the same thing as universal suffrage - what I did imply is that the Hong Kong Government and the authorities of that City-State did not provide universal suffrage to the Hong Kong residents, which is actually true, even although the Legislative Council, Article 68 of the Basic Law stipulates that:

"[...] (2) The method for forming the Legislative Council shall be specified in the light of the actual situation in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region and in accordance with the principle of gradual and orderly progress. The ultimate aim is the election of all the members of the Legislative Council by universal suffrage."

Hong Kong authorities didn't actually made concrete and practical steps to apply universal suffrage, even despite many people and social groups advocated introduction of universal suffrage as early as 2007 or 2012, and also with the so-called "Umbrella movement" back in 2014. This struggle have been going for many years, it didn't begun now in 2019...

Even though, as you explained earlier and correctly, on 29 December 2007, the Standing Committee of the Tenth National People’s Congress (NPCSC) made a landmark Decision about Hong Kong’s constitutional development, practicals steps have not been made and general elections in Hong Kong are still not being carried out on universal suffrage.

the center of the debate is NOT what kind of slogans the violence committers have, it is about whether the slogans are legitimate.
apparently, you commented those are legitimate, WITHOUT a source.
Yes, they are legitimate, as I explained in my earlier paragraph, and I will re-send you - for the third time - the source that makes clear that the election for the Legislative Branch in the city does not proceed under universal suffrage:

Public Consultation on the Methods for Selecting the Chief Executive and for Forming the Legislative Council in 2012, Constitutional & Mainland Affairs Bureau, Government of Hong Kong, 18 November 2009

The Hong Kong authorities keep mentioning that they will implement universal suffrage in the "near future", which is a very vague promise that is not having any fruition for the last years.

till your unfounded claims were formally challenged by me in #245 , you started to ask me to provided sources starting from #249 , rather than back up your own previously made assertions.
I didn't ask you to provide sources because I didn't believe you, I asked because I was genuinely curious about the assertion that you made. I wanted to learn. Why are you taking this in such a confrontational manner? It's completely unnecessary, so is your very trivial defensive posts.

the thing is clear:
you *did claim* china did not provide "general election", which forms a legitimacy of the protest, and you believe other poster also knew "what I(robto) was talking about", and you had considered your "explained clearly"

and all my concern is that you should back up your own claims, that job should not have been done by me. for your convenience, i gave some info, that does not form a debt of me on providing the original sources.
Again and again, I did not claim that China did not provide "general elections" once and for all, recognize that you totally misunderstood my point., and I'm at fault to not being clearer before.

large part of your currents comments is based on false context that "you did not make the claim" (china did not provide "general election"). for that, i won't reply to each of the sentences of your comments.
That's not a false context...and I will be clearer - Hong Kong is not providing universal suffrage to its citizens, and universal suffrage is a mechanism of election and "general elections" does not equate "universal suffrage".

I really hope that you understood this point and I really don't want to make myself repeat over and over again, and I specially don't want you to make petty fights out of this etymological issue, because this is getting rather boring by now...

your have made more points than what you claim here as "initial point".

the part i have challenged is that is that you claim that (#244 )

to back up your claims, you claim later that
.....boring and pointless...
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Tulius

robto

Ad Honorem
Jun 2014
6,207
Lisbon, Portugal
which is in contradictory from what directly spoke out by an elder hk woman that hk is in worst days of her life, as i have been provided as a *first hand* sources.

i have argued that holocaust does not have enough survivor to provide first hand sources, not because secondary sources are more valuable than first hand sources.

you have failed to further provide any refute against that.
....Do you really want to engage in petty fighting?

according to basic laws and the decision of the national people's congress (the only one who has the right to interpret the constitution and the basic laws), the general election of legislative council should prevail *AFTER* successful general election of the chief, for that hk people must collect experience about how to carry out general elections, step by step

the laws must prevail. it does not matter what you have in your mind, according to your own likes about designs of general elections.
Who's saying that is all about me and what I have in mind? This entire protest/riot movement that has been taking place since April and the turnout and results of the latest by-elections completely asserts that, at least, a very considerable portion of Hong Kong's adult population is completely dissatisfied with the current political organisation of Hong Kong and they want the laws to be changed in a radical way. This is actually happening in front of your eyes.

And by the way: Do you know what Civil Society is and their important role in a democratic society?

the initial point have been made is that
you attempt to argue that the *first hand* source that the hk elder woman's speech (that hk is in worst days) is less important that so called raw data of yours, and you claim

that is rather an irrelevant speak, as it is not about how relevantly hk is dangerous compared with a *war-zone*. it is about whether hk is in a severe condition, where violence spreading out and whether hk person consider that a severe condition.

you claimed you have friends in hk, however that is only secondary. no person directly speaking out as observed from the hk elder woman.
Ok, I will say this: you are 100% wrong on this, you are as wrong as you can get.

If you want to objectively analyse a big social and historical event - one that involves and affects multiple people and impacts society at large and its institutions - you need to provide collective data to formulate an opinion. Using one single testimony is not only grossly incomplete, but you will be a victim of confirmation bias - do you know what confirmation bias means? It is exactly what you are doing, and that's why you are wrong and your argument is invalid.

Just agree to disagree and let's stop with this petty fighting, because you know pretty well that we are going nowhere with this. Move on.

And one last point: I also know very well that the testimony of my friends in HK are also entirely subjective, and that was the point I was making to you. I see HK has not that dangerous - despite going through an abnormal violent phase - simply because when it comes to the total population, only a very tiny small percentage is being directly affected by the violence, therefore I will still have low probability of being a victim of violence if I go there.

it is a common observation that foreign people generally are less harassed by the violence committers in hk. previously, this phenomenon has also been mentioned by other posters.
the violence committers generally "decide" who is foreign, who is hker, and/or who is mainlander by face, tongue, cloth..........

indeed, i should not have used a narrow term of "face", more generally, it should be called "features"

i should not specifically use "you" as an example, i apologize on using "you" as the example. the observation in fact generally applies to all those who have foreign features.
Next time if you are debating with me, don't use a strawman, please.

i don't think i should apologize to make an implication that people from different nations, no matter who is their ancestors, have different features, including face, tongue, cloth, habits.....etc............
that is a fact. for example, i believe i remember correctly, you once spoke you do not have idea about junior knowledge about what dongyi is.
i do not think you are expected to behave indistinguishably from a mainland-chinese or a hk-chinese
You are again wrong. In not all cases a person from different nations, no matter who is their ancestors, have different features, including face, tongue, clothes or habits - it happens on a general sense, but not every time.

And I don't remember telling you that I know nothing about the dongyi...
 

heylouis

Ad Honorem
Apr 2013
6,626
China
first, i carefully read your #357 #358 post.

i believe now the core debate is center on "Public Consultation on the Methods for Selecting the Chief Executive and for Forming the Legislative Council in 2012 "
you think that means no "Universal Suffrage ".
your point appears to be due to the above decision that hk government made according the decisions of national people's congress, in hk "Universal Suffrage " differs from "general elections"


however, on that specific topic, i have answered previous, to more than just you.
the hk people are given possibilities to fill the blanks on how to carry out a general election, which in the constitution and basic laws equals to universal suffrage.

the very center problem of the problem is actually make a plan.
i have previously mentioned and i now mention it again, one DO NOT Automatically have any general elections.

protests won't give one a general election.
violence cannot give a general election.

only making proposals and negotiation on how to carry out the general election can give its birth.

AND that is what lack due to the protesters, aka violence committers.

your claim "Hong Kong is not providing universal suffrage to its citizens " is false.
in fact the whole sentence is in error.
the general election is a thing all hk people need to obtain using their own efforts, with plans, with options, on paper.
what the national people's congress given the right to perform the general election.

can you differ the two things:
A. general election
B. the right of performing general election

think about it, what happens if the national people's congress draft a plan and insert it into hands of hk people, what would now be criticized by west?
the western world would still make condemns, that china is being totalitarian, not even allowing hk to draft the plan.


what happened to Public Consultation on the Methods for Selecting the Chief Executive and for Forming the Legislative Council in 2012 ?

nobody from the so called pan-democracy parties proposed a plan of carrying out general elections
and they voted down all proposals by others.

that means:
according to laws: no proposal passed, so no general elections.

you ask me "Do you know what Civil Society is and their important role in a democratic society? "

i ask you: do you know what a mature adult should do to make proposals and carry out the proposed plans?


you claim "Hong Kong's adult population is completely dissatisfied"

have you even asked the hk posters in this forum?

i did not see you do that. is that because of your consideration on confirmation bias?

btw, through a one-minute search, i found in thread "Rape of Hakka women, Taiwanese massacres by Japanese. Why Lee Tung Hui support Japan?" you asked "Just to satisfy my curiosity: what "Dong Yi" exactly means? "
which means you did not have that junior knowledge until someone teach you on that chinese history related junior knowledge

not with 100% certainty people from nations are differed by features, but that possibility is very high. you are one example cannot be expected to behave indistinguishably from a mainland-chinese or a hk-chinese due to lack of certain knowledge.
 
Last edited: