Live data from Hacker News

Hong Kong leader to announce formal withdrawal of extradition bill

scmp.com

301–310 of 348 posts

Re: Hong Kong leader to announce formal withdrawal of extradition bill

#301
post #260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It was probably more so then now rather than less.

When only white land owning men could vote?

The status quo. You’re condemning men for maintaining the status quo in order to agree on something going forward on a handful of issues when every other word was essentially revolutionary.

This is prior to the Article I branch of government, Congress, abdicating much of its power and creating this myth of coequal branches of government, and when House districts were a lot smaller, and you and your neighbors has to decide between yourselves who was in charge of certain functions of keeping society going. You know, who was going to be the local Sheriff, who was going to run the local court, who was going to deliver the mail and so on. Many of these jobs were boring and without glory, but someone had to do them.

Had Madison’s Virginia Plan been implemented in full and the Connecticut Compromise wasn’t implemented, it would likely have been more democratic still.

Structurally, the United States constitution is overwhelmingly democratic, and especially for the time it was written and ratified. If it has grown less democratic at all, it is due to factors the signers and ratifiers of the Constitution could never have predicted that occurred in the 230 years since. No one could have foreseen Congress would abdicate much of it’s power and responsibilities in the 20th Century, or that the Industrial Revolution would lead to the single greatest explosion of the human population in history, or that we would choose to let in so many foreigners. Nobody thought each House member would be representing a district in the hundreds of thousands at a time when they thought one House member per 50K might be too few.

Is it democratic? Oh yes. It is the most democratic document of its time, and few legal documents written since then could plausibly claim to be more so.

Re: Hong Kong leader to announce formal withdrawal of extradition bill

#302

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What practical consequences did Tiananmen Square have? You say it’s why they can’t just march into Hong Kong, but I don’t believe that. They can’t just march into Hong Kong because of the international condemnation that would ensue, and because it would wreck an economically valuable city. Both of those would remain true if Tiananmen Square had never happened. You say it’s a “major thorn” for them today; how? Domesti…

> What practical consequences did Tiananmen Square have? CCP is still grappling with it. Quote "As foundational as the crackdown at Tiananmen may have been to the CCP’s current strength, it remains largely invisible to the people. Despite claiming the moral high ground against what it calls a “counter-revolutionary” rebellion, the Party is still sensitive to the fact that its slaughter of students and laborers put a…

> it remains largely invisible to the people

No, it's certainly not visible to the people. If you are talking about Chinese people, not HK people.

Re: Hong Kong leader to announce formal withdrawal of extradition bill

#303
post #297

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Forbidding VISA and Mastercard doesn’t sound like a good idea. Wouldn’t that lead to people using WeChat/AliPay which is controlled by the Chinese government?

It’s been an effective method of sanctioning individuals and organizations so far. WeChat and Alipay isn’t worth a damn outside of PRC, and sanctioning a handful of pro-Beijing individuals isn’t likely to change that. Truth is, the United States still dominates the global financial infrastructure and being cut off from that is a difficult pill for most to swallow.

I guess. But what would the average citizen use? Cash? Seems likely that somebody would step in to be the de facto online transaction provider. And the government probably would want some way to financially tie HK to the mainland.

Re: Hong Kong leader to announce formal withdrawal of extradition bill

#304
Carrie Lam has not withdrawn the law proposal. She has begun a motion that will look into IF the proposal is going to be withdrawn. This is a world of difference.

Additionally, from what can be read in various updates from the protesters, the person who will be tasked with the "looking-into" will be a Hong Kong government official, and the public will not be invited for enquiry.

Re: Hong Kong leader to announce formal withdrawal of extradition bill

#305
post #255

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then what does produce democracies? There are a bunch of those about at the moment and, while some of them are faux democracies installed by freedom-loving-america there are several legitimate democracies - were they all voluntary transitions initiated by the former monarchs?

Canada is one example of a country that did not need a revolution to gain its independence.

Well we just stood around until the UK imploded, and they told us we were off on our own haha. Canada rode the wave of deconialization that, it could be argued, began when the UK lost Hong Kong to Japan in WWII. Losing HK to Japan showed the empire could no longer defend its colonies and the bubble popped. It’ll be a while before we find out if such a strategy is effective in the PRC.

I mean, we still celebrate July 1st as Canada Day. I like to joke that it’s “Dependence Day” since it celebrates the signing of the British North America Act, which, and I’m paraphrasing here, says “this whole Queen thing is working for us let’s keep it going.” As compared to the Declaration of Independence, which, well, you know the rest.

Re: Hong Kong leader to announce formal withdrawal of extradition bill

#306

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is another fake move by Carrie Lam. A withdraw only requires a simple declaration and not a motion that require a vote. https://thestandnews.com/politics/林鄭連扮讓步都要違反程序-仲有面講法治/

Link is Chinese. Just FYI to other non-Chinese readers. What are the LegCo rules of procedure around this? Is there something we can read in English translation? Whether or not a motion is required seems a major point.

* Updated: Office of the Chief Executive just responded to media inquiry [4] and clarified that the withdraw will be an announcement not involving vote or debate per rule 64. (I haven't found an English copy yet.)

Before update:

Today's press release [1]: "The Secretary for Security will move a motion according to the Rules of Procedure when the Legislative Council resumes."

The relevant official text of the above chinese link: Rule of Procedure of the Legislative Council (LegCo) 64(2) and (3)[2]: "(2) The Member or public officer in charge of a bill may, by an announcement made in Council at the beginning of proceedings for the resumption of the second reading debate on the bill, withdraw the bill if -

(a) the purpose of the resumption is for making such an announcement; and

(b) such purpose has been so stated in the notice of the resumption of debate given under Rule 54(5) (Second Reading). (L.N. 74 of 2005)

(3) The Member or public officer in charge of a bill may, in making an announcement for the withdrawal of the bill under subrule (2), address the Council on matters relevant to the withdrawal but no debate may arise on such an address. (L.N. 74 of 2005)"

So no motion/debate/vote is needed. People are saying the Article 23/national security bill in 2003 was withdrawn by simple gazetting, without any motion or debate. This is the equivalent press back then [3].

[1] https://www.info.gov.hk/gia/general/201909/04/P2019090400666...

[2] https://www.legco.gov.hk/general/english/procedur/content/pa...

[3] https://www.info.gov.hk/gia/general/200309/05/0905155.htm

[4] https://news.rthk.hk/rthk/ch/component/k2/1478843-20190905.h...

Re: Hong Kong leader to announce formal withdrawal of extradition bill

#307

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The First Amendment is worthless without the Second Amendment. The 2nd Amendment was never (and still isn't) meant to ensure the right of people to violently resist or overthrow the government. The way to influence the US government is to become involved in the process, not (threaten to) shoot people. If that's ever not the case, you don't have a country, you have a failed state.

It is simply a fact that the Second Amendment was meant to preserve the people's right to overthrow the government (or, at least, to defend themselves against the government). Madison famously wrote that state militias would keep a federal army in check. It's a persistent myth that this is not the case. The US was born in revolution and the founders were very concerned about the possibility of a tyrannical government…

Even if it wasn't explicitly stated, the Second Amendment was written by people who had just used militias as a big part of their force to overthrow the government. They weren't senile. They hadn't forgotten. They knew what they were saying.

Re: Hong Kong leader to announce formal withdrawal of extradition bill

#308

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Link is Chinese. Just FYI to other non-Chinese readers. What are the LegCo rules of procedure around this? Is there something we can read in English translation? Whether or not a motion is required seems a major point.

* Updated: Office of the Chief Executive just responded to media inquiry [4] and clarified that the withdraw will be an announcement not involving vote or debate per rule 64. (I haven't found an English copy yet.) Before update: Today's press release [1]: "The Secretary for Security will move a motion according to the Rules of Procedure when the Legislative Council resumes." The relevant official text of the above ch…

Thanks. Informative. I agree, it seems that simply gazetting a withdrawal without debate is consistent with the rules.

Re: Hong Kong leader to announce formal withdrawal of extradition bill

#309
post #268

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The American Revolution shouldn't be considered as a revolution. It was a bunch of organized polities that broke their political ties, but largely preserved their political, economic, and social structures and organized leadership. It was successful in no small part because it was a rebellion rather than a revolution.

> but largely preserved their political, economic, and social structures and organized leadership TIL we coronated King George Washington I and established yet another divine monarchy. I mean sure, the colonies ended up directly translating to states, and (some of) those colonies happened to have bicameral legislatures with a lower house consisting of elected representatives, but that's about where the similarities b…

The colonies weren't day-to-day governed from London or directly by Parliament. It may be worth recalling that colonies had their own governments, many of which included elected legislatures. In fact, how these legislative bodies were treated was a rather specific point of complaint in the Declaration of Independence.

Re: Hong Kong leader to announce formal withdrawal of extradition bill

#310

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is this sarcasm? While no authoritarian government can exist with no consent of the government, the PRC has no legal vehicle for citizens to disagree with the state.

Every party member can petition the state to make changes.

Can I join the party if I fundamentally do not agree with its values? Such as, I think the party should have absolutely no control over the army, the judicial process, the selection of ministers, influence over state controlled media and many, many other presumably big points of contention?

Because in the West you can form a party even if you fundamentally disagree with the parties already in power. If you go back a few decades the green parties and the nationalistic parties as we know them today didn't exist in most of Europe and were formed as reactions to feeling of the government not sharing the same fundamental values.

Post reply on HN