Occupy Central 佔領中環

[MPhillips]

...

[gato]

In 1988-1989, the problems were more inflation and corruption than unemployment. Major deregulation of the markets was just starting. The focus of corruption then was the so-called 官倒 (as in 官员倒卖), officials and their relatives using their power to import and purchase merchandise outside the official regulated channels and then sell to the public at great profit. Inflation was very high in the few years prior to 1989. Officially reported inflation was around 20% (one wonders what the unofficial actual inflation was). Unemployment wasn't as much of a problem yet. The government was still the predominate employer then. All university students were assigned jobs by the government upon graduation. Open employment came later in the 1990s. The major SOE reforms and privatization also came in the 1990s under Zhu Rongji and Jiang Zemin.

[MPhillips]

...

[roddy]

"While studying at a Chinese U. during the 88-89 school year"

That'd be worth a new topic all in itself, always good to hear stories from the olden days...

[gato]

Regarding "Occupy Central", one needs to think about the end goal and how to get there.   The 1990 Basic Law requires a nomination committee to nominate candidates for the Chief Executive election.   Beijing has said that it is required even when there is supposed universal suffrage starting in 2017 and allowing the public to vote anyone it likes would be against the Basic Law.  There is room to fight it out as to the membership of the nomination committees and how it works.  

 

Occupy Central argues that a nomination committee is unacceptable, that anything short of public nomination is unacceptable.  But maybe it's still possible to square the peg and work with the idea of the "nomination committee".  

 

I don't know if taking radical actions such as taking over and paralyzing Central would get us to the end goal of universal suffrage.  It's likely that the lesson the Party learned from 1989 Tiananmen protests is to crack down harder at the beginning to nip the protests in the bud rather than let them grow, which might then require an even harsher crackdown later.  

 

 

And a follow-up to the somewhat off-topic economics discussion, here is a table with the officially reported inflation rate, one-year fixed savings deposit rate, and GDP growth rate from 1978 to 2012.  The inflation rates were somewhat above 18% for 1988 and 1989.

http://www.chinacfo.net/cjnews/mj.asp?id=a20112201522315535114

中国1978-2012历年通货膨胀率、一年期存款利率、经济增长率统计表

 

There is no official unemployment statistics in the usual sense of the term because the unemployment statistics reported in mainland China includes only people who actively register with the government as unemployed.  But very few unemployed people actually bother to register with the government, largely because unemployment insurance compensation is not widely available.  

[skylee]

Occupy Central argues that a nomination committee is unacceptable, that anything short of public nomination is unacceptable.

 

I wonder if this is true.

[gato]

All the articles I have read, including those by the main organizers of Occupy Central, suggests that's the case. See the summary on Wikipedia, as well, which I just checked. I worry that they won't accept any compromises.

[skylee]

I doubt if it is the case as all the proposals included in the unofficial referendum accept nominations by the nominating committee.

From Wiki -

The proposal tabled by the Alliance for True Democracy, a group comprising 26 of the 27 pan-democratic lawmakers, won the unofficial "referendum" by securing 331,427 votes, or 42.1 per cent of the 787,767 valid ballots. A joint blueprint put forward by Scholarism and the Hong Kong Federation of Students came second with 302,567 votes (38.4 per cent), followed by a People Power's proposal, which clinched 81,588 votes (10.4 per cent). All three call for the public to be allowed to nominate candidates for the 2017 chief executive election, an idea repeatedly dismissed by Beijing as inconsistent with the Basic Law. However, the Alliance's "three track" proposal would allow the public, the nominating committee, as well as political parties, to put forward candidates. Under their plan, candidates can be nominated by 35,000 registered voters or by a party which secured at least five per cent of the vote in the last Legco election. It did not specify on the formation of the nominating committee, only stating that it should be "as democratic as it can be". The two other proposals would only allow the public and a nominating committee to put forward candidates.

[gato]

all the proposals included in the unofficial referendum accept nominations by the nominating committee.

Beijing's position is that accepting the nominating committee is not enough, but that the nominating committee must the only method to determine who can run for the election, that it can't be either nominating committee or public nomination.  Occupy Central's position is that if Beijing insists on that, they will take over Central.

 

See here:

 

http://thediplomat.com/2014/06/occupy-central-opens-referendum-on-reforming-hong-kongs-democracy/

A Hong Kong government spokesperson quoted by SCMP explained that all of the proposals would allow for public nomination of candidates for chief executive, while the Basic Law reserves the right of nominations to a committee. The spokesperson called the idea of direct nominations “legally highly controversial” and unlikely to be politically feasible.

[gato]

The HK Chief Executive Office just came out with a report on the result of the 2017 election rules public comment process.  

 

http://online.wsj.com/articles/hong-kong-offers-electoral-reform-report-to-beijing-1405413135

Hong Kong Government Rejects Activists' Demands for Electoral Reforms

Announcement Exposes Rift in Pro-Democracy Movement

 

By ISABELLA STEGER, EDWARD NGAI and CHESTER YUNG 

Updated July 15, 2014 9:20 a.m. ET

 

Kicking off a new phase in negotiations over the city's democratic development, the Hong Kong government sent a report to Beijing summarizing a five-month public consultation process on political change, which made clear that a nominating committee, rather than voters, should choose candidates for chief executive in 2017.

 

A faction of students is demanding civil nomination, a system that allows voters to directly nominate candidates for chief executive—and is threatening action if that demand isn't met.

 

"Politicians are using civil nomination for bargaining power, but for students, it's a mission," Mr. Cheung said.

 

According to polling done by Michael DeGolyer, professor of government at Hong Kong Baptist University, young people are "pretty all or nothing" on being able to directly nominate candidates for chief executive. He said by getting the group started, Mr. Tai "might have unleashed a runaway Frankenstein-ian kind of monster here."

[skylee]

I have taken up a crazy new job which somehow has to do with this, and every morning I receive a set of all newspaper clippings on this subject. And already it seems quite boring ... yet I was quite surprised by how brief CY Leung's report was when I read it yesterday.

I tend to agree that there is still room to maneuver. Have you read the HK BAR Association's recent statement (dated 11 July 2014)? I think it makes a lot of sense. http://hkba.org/whatsnew/press-release/index.html

However, it really depends on how Beijing wants to deal with this. If it does not budge, it wouldn't look good. It would go on to be 官逼民反、民不畏捕, etc.

[gato]

Let's hope that the cooler heads prevail on both sides.

[skylee]

Here is an article on today’s newspaper which I think summarises the current situation pretty well -> 欠缺信任 政改如何袋住先

 

As explained in the article, “「袋住先」的意思是：普選原則能夠落實多少就多少，不求一步到位。”

 

Personally I find this quite hard to swallow.  As mentioned in this ten-year old thread, our hope for earlier universal suffrage for the election of the Chief Executive of Hong Kong was crushed back in 2007.  Now we will be allowed to vote in the 2017 election, but most probably only for candidates who have been pre-screened by a mechanism controlled by the central government.

[skylee]

I think this picture summarises the current situation pretty well, and it is funny. It is written in Cantonese.

https://fbcdn-sphotos-c-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xpa1/t1.0-9/10425489_10154435469585570_2026110018795214960_n.png

[skylee]

To recap, there is a promise that there can be universal suffrage in HK for the election of the SAR's Chief Executive in 2017. The method of nomination is however not detailed. Last year an HKU associate law professor wrote in a newspaper article about the idea of civil disobedience by occupying Central in HK to fight for a fair and true election. The article unexpectedly got much attention and the idea has evolved into a movement. On the other hand, the Central government, disapproving of the whole Occupy idea and their guts of fighting, has taken a very firm stance against the movement. The movement is now regarded as 動亂 (think the 1989 incident) by the central government, and the election arrangements have become a national security issue (!).

A relevant article on China Daily showing the viewpoint of the central government -> http://usa.chinadaily.com.cn/epaper/2014-08/25/content_18482064.htm

Currently, the Standing Commitee of the National People's Congress is considering how the HK Chief Executive is to be elected in 2017. It is widely expected that the nomination mechanism would be so harsh (eg requiring a prospective candidate to get the endorsement of at least half of a 1200-person nominating committee formed mainly by pro-establishment members) that no one that Beijing doesn't like would be able to join the race. The pre-screening is important to the Central Government. The official promotion campaign now focuses on "one man one vote = true election" and "don't cast your vote away" etc to persuade people to accept a not-so-perfect arrangement which could be improved in the future (but who would believe it, I wonder). On the other hand, any proposal to amend / make the HK laws for the Chief Executive election would have to be approved by two-thirds of the HK Legislative Council, and there just aren't that many votes that would support such an election method. So it is very likely that the whole thing would fall through. Nothing would be changed, no universal suffrage, no Chief Executive elected by the HK people, no trust for the HK government, no policies could be implemented because nothing the government proposes could get pass the Legislature. In short: 拉倒、原地踏步, which would be just fine with the Central Government, I guess.

Recently, the attached photoshopped picture has caused some discussion / attention here. The contents are highlights from the editorial of Xinhua Daily dated 2 February 1944. That editorial is about people's electoral rights.

[skylee]

An update. Something written by Chris Patten, former governor of HK, on the Financial Times.
 
Chinese translation - 彭定康談英國對港道義責任（全文）「英政府就政改置評不是挑釁」

Britain is honour bound to speak up for Hong Kong.pdf

[gato]

Currently, the Standing Commitee of the National People's Congress is considering how the HK Chief Executive is to be elected in 2017. It is widely expected that the nomination mechanism would be so harsh (eg requiring a prospective candidate to get the endorsement of at least half of a 1200-person nominating committee formed mainly by pro-establishment members) that no one that Beijing doesn't like would be able to join the race. The pre-screening is important to the Central Government.

What you predicted has become reality. The new proposal from Beijing requires any candidate for Chief Executive to receive 50% majority approval of the 1200-person nominating committee (made up mostly of wealthy HKers with business interest in mainland China). Under current rules, one needs only 1/8 of the votes in the 1200-person nominating committee to run in the election. Thus, those affiliated with the Democratic Party have been able to run in past elections. They would not have been able to run under a majority approval requirement, Now the best choice available to the Democrats is to vote down the new Beijing proposal and stick with the current rules (the new rule requires 2/3 vote in the HK legislature to take effect).

[skylee]

An article on the 6 Sep 2014 issue of the Economist -> http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21615583-territorys-citizens-must-not-give-up-demanding-full-democracyfor-their-sake-and

The struggle for Hong Kong

The territory’s citizens must not give up demanding full democracy—for their sake and for China’s

Sep 6th 2014 | From the print edition

CHINESE officials have called it a “leap forward” for democracy in Hong Kong. Yet their announcement on August 31st of plans to allow, for the first time, every Hong Kong citizen to vote for the territory’s leader has met only anger and indifference. Joy was conspicuously absent. This is not because Hong Kong’s citizens care little for the right to vote, but because China has made it abundantly clear that the next election for Hong Kong’s chief executive, due in 2017, will be rigged. The only candidates allowed to stand will be those approved by the Communist Party in Beijing, half a continent away.

At its worst, this risks provoking a disaster which even China cannot want. Democrats are planning protests. It is unclear how many people will join in, but the fear is that the territory’s long history of peaceful campaigning for political reform will give way to skirmishes with police, mass arrests and possibly even intervention by the People’s Liberation Army. That would disrupt one of Asia’s wealthiest and most orderly economies, and set China against the West. But even if, as is likely, such a calamity is avoided, this leap sideways is a huge missed opportunity not just for Hong Kong but also for the mainland. A chance to experiment with the sort of local democracy that might have benefited all of China has been missed.

One country, one-and-a-half systems

China’s announcement marks the end of an era. No longer is it possible to argue that the development of democracy in Hong Kong can forge ahead even in the absence of political reform in Beijing (see article). The arrangements, set out by China’s party-controlled parliament, the National People’s Congress, were needed because of a pledge to grant the territory a “high degree of autonomy” and eventually “universal suffrage” when it took over from Britain in 1997. To most people, that meant having the right to choose their leader themselves.

China has stuck to the letter of its promise, but not the spirit. In 2012 the chief executive was appointed by a 1,200-strong committee stacked with the party’s yes-men from among Hong Kong’s business and political elite. The proposal for 2017 is that a similar committee will select candidates who will then be presented to all Hong Kong’s voters for election. In theory the committee could allow through candidates of many political stripes. In practice, pessimism is more than justified. Only two or three candidates will be allowed, and each must win the support of at least half of the committee. Under this arrangement, democracy will mean little more in Hong Kong than it does elsewhere in China, where every adult citizen can vote for local legislators—as long as the party approves.

This is bad for Hong Kong. The territory’s four leaders since the handover in 1997 were all chosen in Beijing and rubber-stamped into office. All of them, including the incumbent Leung Chun-ying, proved highly unpopular. Under a government in thrall to Beijing, the press has been subdued by intimidation and by pressure from advertisers. The judiciary fears that it may face a test of loyalty to the mainland. Some Hong Kongers complain that even the postal service is compromised—it refused to deliver leaflets urging civil disobedience.

The story may not be over. Activists in Hong Kong have vowed to launch a campaign of civil disobedience which they call, disarmingly, “Occupy Central with Love and Peace”, but whose declared mission is to paralyse the territory’s main financial district with sit-ins. This would be the first large-scale flouting of the law by the pro-democracy camp.

The activists’ aim is correct and their courage impressive, but their tactics may be mistaken. If the unrest gets out of control and troops are deployed, it would be a calamity for Hong Kong—and would probably set back the activists’ cause. Better to stick to what the democrats have always done best: staging the kind of peaceful protests that have made the territory a model of rational political discourse in a part of the world where it is often sorely lacking. And there is another form of peaceful protest available: Hong Kong’s legislators can reject China’s proposals, even though that would mean reverting to the equally undemocratic system used in 2012. Only a few dozen democrats now sit in the electoral college. They should, in future, boycott it. There is no point in propagating a falsehood.

If Hong Kong’s people keep marching without damaging the territory’s economy, China may well simply shrug. But not necessarily. It was thanks in part to a huge and orderly protest in 2003 that Hong Kong’s puppet government shelved plans to introduce an anti-subversion bill and that the hapless chief executive, Tung Chee-hwa, stepped down. Rather than break the law, Hong Kong’s democrats would do better to wield the weapon of embarrassment.

He’s blown it

But it is not only in Hong Kong that China’s decision to strangle the territory’s democratic aspirations will be felt. China’s government has alienated opinion in Taiwan, which it dreams of bringing under its umbrella in the same way. The party appears to have concluded that the damage done to the prospects of union with Taiwan is less important than the threat that one of its opponents might win an election in Hong Kong and stoke demands across China for political reform. The territory would also become independent in all but name. That, the government worries, would encourage separatists around China’s periphery, from Tibet to Xinjiang.

But discontent is growing all over China, and Beijing cannot just sit on it. The huge new middle class is becoming increasingly frustrated with its powerlessness over issues such as education, health care, the environment and property rights. In terms of their day-to-day worries, mainlanders have a lot in common with Hong Kong’s citizens. China’s government is going to have to work out a way of satisfying their aspirations for more control over their lives. Hong Kong would have been a good place to start.

Xi Jinping, the party chief and president, had the opportunity to use Hong Kong as a test-bed for political change in China. Had he taken this opportunity, he might have gone down in history as a true reformer. Instead, he has squandered it.

[gato]

Yes, vetoing the change and staying with the status quo is probably the best they can do right now. I have a feeling that the threat of Occupy Central probably made Beijing take a harder line, the hardest line possible probably. Xi really has revealed himself to be a nationalistic, militaristic, big-government throwback.

[skylee]

The invitation has been issued.

They didn't announce that they are going to occupy Central as they could be arrested for organising a law breaching activity even before it takes place. So they invite everyone「去飲」 (attend a banquet).

The pastor is applying to the Police for a licence for the gathering. The law professor and sociology professor each published an article yesterday. The former's article is called「擺酒有時　去飲有時」. The latter's is called 「圍觀的力量」.

http://www.chinainperspective.com/ArtShow.aspx?AID=28018

http://news1.mingpao.com/20140923/faa1.htm

So people can choose to either attend the banquet or watch it on the spot when the time of celebration comes.

Oh BTW a one-week class boycott is going on in the universities in Hong Kong.