Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Hong Kong leader to announce formal withdrawal of extradition bill

scmp.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

311–320 of 348 posts

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

#311

Post by y2kenny »

dbcurtis wrote: post #308
y2kenny wrote: post #306

Earlier quoted context omitted.

* 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.

This shows how little trust is left with the government (if any). Carrie Lam went from, "all works has stopped" to "the bill is dead" while refusing to follow proper process until today. Finally doing what she previously claimed to be unnecessary, after so many pain and damages.

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

#312

Post by andrekandre »

wyuenho wrote: post #241
andrekandre wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

that’s basically true, but it does seem china does have some nominal democracy at local levels, which then in turn elect upper levels and so on [1] so, while indirect, there does seem some nominal way to disagree as you say [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elections_in_China

One thing you do have to realize is, the Chinese are very good at keeping up the appearances. While there are local elections, there's usually no right to stand for elections. These so-called elections, generally has only 1 candidate, or a few that are all communist members, with pretty much the same views. "Elections" where people can't stand to be elected freely are not elections, they are just some elaborate cerem…

thanks for the reply

that is unfortunate, it seems anywhere you go people try to subvert democracy (to different degrees of success)... i guess that’s why they call it “eternal vigilance”

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

#313

Post by 0max »

BurningFrog wrote: post #190
autarch wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Same story everywhere - nothing much changed after the Arab spring protests, for example. Except in Tunisia, which is the one success story from that time period. It's now a functioning democracy. Of course the real test is how it does over the long term, but at least so far it's an example of real change in the region.

Revolutions don't produce democracies.

but is it a bloodless revolution or is bloodshed involved? that matters a lot

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

#314

Post by pimmen »

claudiawerner wrote: post #213
i_am_proteus wrote: post #133

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.

Although it's nothing like China, by what means can the average citizen in the UK, for example, raise an issue if their representative is of another party? Example: I care about issue x, but the people I live around don't. So I create a petition on the parliament petition website. Just like every other petition to date (to my knowledge) no change comes about because of it. How can I, as an individual citizen, disagre…

Lots of things beside petitions.

You can run for office. If you find no parties that share any of your values, form one.

You can raise the issue in the media which would pressure the government. You would probably not get kidnapped while on vacation in Thailand, and then get locked up without a trial and a forced confession through torture, just for criticizing the UK government.

If it's something that affects an entire class of people, such as a certain profession, you could organize something like a labor strike or a protest.

And if all else fails, you could actually just break an existing law you think is unfair. You would get an actual trial administered by an independent justice system where you get to defend your actions, you can then argue that the law is unfair and restricted your life in a cruel way. Sadly, it had to come to measures like this for LGBT rights to improve in the UK.

You also mentioned "but the people I live around don't". In China it wouldn't matter if everyone around you care about the issue, something will only happen if the CCP deems it necessary.

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

#315

Post by pcwalton »

mikeash wrote: post #240
bouncycastle wrote: post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Tiananmen Square still continues to be a major thorn for the CCP today, both internally and diplomatically, it's obvious that ramafications are continuing, and why Beijing just can't march in to Hong Kong. Prague Spring lead to reforms and set the inspiration for the next generation that ended in victory (source https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/commentisfr... ) . Rabaa, the situation is still ongoing,…

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?

It began the process of deterioration of relations between the PRC and the Western democracies, a process that has continued to the present day. People began to realize that China may not liberalize on its own the way Taiwan did—that the government of the PRC is often hostile to liberal democracy. One of the consequences of this realization is in fact these Hong Kong protests. There are numerous other consequences of this cooling in relations too—for example, protectionist tariffs against a country seen as hostile to Western values are easier to sell politically in the West. Tariffs obviously impact China.

Tiananmen didn't achieve what the protestors wanted, but it's clearly a significant historical event.

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

#316

Post by yellowapple »

Kalium wrote: post #309
yellowapple wrote: post #286

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

> It may be worth recalling that colonies had their own governments, many of which included elected legislatures

I mentioned this already in my comment, but to clarify/reiterate:

- Governors (AFAICT) were not democratically elected (they were - if I recall correctly - appointed by the Crown, as was standard for colonial governments)

- The only democratically elected legislators (in the colonies that even had legislatures) were in the Lower House of each colony; the governor typically (if not always) appointed the Upper House's legislators himself (reflecting British Parliament and its House of Commons v. House of Lords, respectively)

Very different from how things operate post-Revolution, what with democratically-elected governors and state senators. If any of the former colonial leadership prevailed as the new state leadership, it was by democratic rather than autocratic means.

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

#317

Post by Kalium »

yellowapple wrote: post #316
Kalium wrote: post #309

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> It may be worth recalling that colonies had their own governments, many of which included elected legislatures I mentioned this already in my comment, but to clarify/reiterate: - Governors (AFAICT) were not democratically elected (they were - if I recall correctly - appointed by the Crown, as was standard for colonial governments) - The only democratically elected legislators (in the colonies that even had legislat…

This is perhaps nothing but my own opinion, but what you're describing sounds a great deal like removing a higher polity while preserving most of the political structures. I understand that some opinions may reasonably differ on the subject.

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

#318

Post by nickik »

bouncycastle wrote: post #249
nickik wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your reading history backwards. You assume that while 1970 protest, leads to 1980 protest and that lead to the fall of the Soviet Union. However that is wrong way to look at it, the right way is that in 1970 the Soviet Union had the will do stop the protesters, but not later. Those things mostly have to do with the discussions and political institutions the elites were working in. The protesters in late 1980 might ha…

Nope. Totally wrong. Those early protests, even though seemingly unsuccessful at the time, gave the people one important thing: hope. Of course, the other motivating factor was that the economy went to shit. People were hungry and tired of waiting in long queues with shelves at the stores almost empty. Nothing to do with "discussions and political institutions the elites were working in" though.

You are totally fundamentally wrong. You are disagreeing with most scholarship on how revolutions happen in political science.

Hope doesn't work if there are tanks who shoot at you. The people in Poland were not braver then those in China or those in Hungary. The difference is that in those cases the political system had the will to oppose them with the force required.

Unarmed protestors simple can not win against an army. Its pure idealism to believe that.

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

#319

Post by yellowapple »

Kalium wrote: post #317
yellowapple wrote: post #316

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It may be worth recalling that colonies had their own governments, many of which included elected legislatures I mentioned this already in my comment, but to clarify/reiterate: - Governors (AFAICT) were not democratically elected (they were - if I recall correctly - appointed by the Crown, as was standard for colonial governments) - The only democratically elected legislators (in the colonies that even had legislat…

This is perhaps nothing but my own opinion, but what you're describing sounds a great deal like removing a higher polity while preserving most of the political structures. I understand that some opinions may reasonably differ on the subject.

Just because the political structures are similar doesn't mean their composition is similar, which is more what I'm getting at.

Definitely fair to draw comparisons, though; you're right that there are structural similarities on a state and federal level to the old colonial and imperial governments (respectively). My argument is that how the legislators and executives of those governments are appointed (i.e. democratically v. autocratically) is the big change, and one that would make the American Independence movement more of a revolution; the polities themselves were outright replaced, at least nominally, as the existing polities were rooted in the Crown's authority.

Contrast this with Canada or Australia, where (last I checked) the British monarch is still formally the head of state despite them being sovereign nations with independent governments and separate heads of government. I suspect that's closer to what you're envisioning (i.e. colonial governments continuing to exist as-is after gaining political sovereignty).

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

#320

Post by cthalupa »

coldtea wrote: post #258
pimmen wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you cannot vote for a different party that doesn’t share the values of the CCP, and can’t form one yourself, elections are meaningless rubber stamps.

You don't need parties to have elections, just like how elections within a single community or organization don't have political parties, just candidates and fractions (voters/executives with different opinions). As for the values of the CCP, consider them like the Constitution in the US or the values of the "founding fathers". People don't get to change those either in any direct democratic way (but through a slow,…

There's some major differences here, though.

1) In America, I can just decide to run for office. Especially at the local to state level, independent candidates can be totally viable. Random everyday people cannot run for office in China. The party selects candidates to stand for election, and they generally run unopposed, or opposed by someone who is nearly a perfect mirror on policy.

2) In America, I can run on values that are against the Constitution or the founding fathers. How many people run on platforms of curtailing or amending the second amendment? You see that all the way up to candidates running for the Presidency. You will not see candidates run on policies that are opposite of the CCP in China.

One party that controls which candidates can run means they are effectively just appointing people to positions, while giving the illusion of choice or citizen impact on elections. There's a lot about the US system of representative democracy that could be justly criticized and would be improved by reform, but acting like it is even remotely similar to China is absurd.

Post reply on HN