Hong Kong is getting torn apart right now. I have seen many comments debating whether HK basic law does this or that--which is open to interpretation. Instead, I would like to talk more about my personal approach of the subject, which involves thinking a bit about human nature. This is a rare two-cents view I came out after a debate with my father who, is a supporter for the China gov for the whole time(unfortunately) ... but still i respect his stand. Many people are claiming that this pro-democracy movement is done for the good of the Hong Kong people--they feel so strongly about this way that they may not realize that a lot of others do not feel this way. I am not trying to challenge supporters of this pro-democracy movement; more so I am trying to reason through these hard times myself. Heres why I think that the pro-democracy movement is overrated and in some cases, detrimental. First of all, 1) Occupy central negatively impacts HK economy. -Stocks are falling tremendously although the fall in stocks are temporary effect but most Hong Kong locals [from what I know] who could not dig the gold out from property investment, tend to invest and create wealth through shares and stocks. Local businesses cannot function and tourism from mainlanders (4% of our HK annual gross income) is severely impaired. Numerous tourism boards (including australia) have issued travel warnings. As a businesswoman, I understand that businesses really prefer stability and with the political instability as a result of the movement, this will deter businesses from investing in Hong Kong. Businesses dont actually mind doing business in cities that are controlled by the Chinese government (in fact, there are many forces at play that these Chinese cities have to ensure that capitalism stays booming *contrary to what people believe communist China is all about). Hong Kong has always been known as an International Trade/Finance Center). The Hong Kong way of life is essentially largely affected/sustained by its financial influx and investment. The occupy movement is disrupting the influx thus is disrupting the normal Hong Kong way of life, moreso than the perceived threat of China. Secondly, 2) Democracy does not lessen the chance of corruption and does not equate with civil rights. When we look at countries abroad such as Europe and North America, Democracy can still cater to the extremely rich. this is due to the fact that in a democratic governance system, CAMPAIGN FINANCE is of utmost important. Without proper campaign finance, a candidate cannot hope to win an election. Since the rich obviously have more money than the poor (the top 1% of the wealthiest people own 99% of the wealth of the population), then it is also logical to assume that a democratically elected candidate will also cater to whoever has the financial power to back his/her campaign. Democracy also comes with politicians who just outright lie to their constituents just to get voted in office. Also, democracy does not equate to civil rights, freedom and no corruption. Many countries that have democracy have a tremendous amount of corruption and many countries with democracy spy on their own citizens and wiretap their phones (USA). Many democratic countries throw tear gas and shoot rubber bullets at their own citizens (USA). In reality, some of these democratic countries make it seem like you have freedom of speech --- it is this APPEARANCE of freedom of speech that keeps their citizens content and controlled. Is this really worth fighting for in HK? Thirdly, 3) Democracy resembles communism more than you think. Think of it this way: A vast majority of any population on earth is part of a working class. In a democratic government where the majority rules and elects their representative, such a candidate will be more incentivised to cater his/her policies to such a working class. As a result, taxes on the rich would increase and businesses would be less incentivised to do well because their money is going to the government (working class) anyways. But wait a second: one may ask doesnt this contradict the earlier point that democracy caters to the rich? Not necessarily: the extremely wealthy can still finance campaigns of candidates who are elected by the working class for special favours. A result of this will be that the policies cater both to the extremely rich, and to the working class---> as a result, the middle class will gradually be obliterated, resulting in a wider rich-poor gap. Such is the case in the USA, where Warren Buffet (multibiliionaire) pays less percentage tax than his secretary (middle class), and the working class (extremely poor) are exempted from taxes for the same social security services. If Hong Kong were a democracy (assuming perfectly legitimate), and the majority (working class) elects a candidate to represent them--we may see businesses leave Hong Kong because they are no longer incentivised to do well. (Because successful businesses would pay most of the citys taxes and their money is put into the control of the working classs hands). Ok but if we humor the other side: Lets just say that democracy IS in fact good. China isn’t saying that hk can’t have democracy. It’s saying that these candidates must be nominated by a committee—a representative democracy. So what people are actually fighting for is the right for any one person to nominate a candidate. (This is how it is in western countries, where candidates are nominated by committees and parties). Theoretically, there could be 7 million candidates to choose from—very efficient means of selecting a leader. Is it wrong that China should have a say in Hong Kong’s matters? China supplies Hong Kong’s electricity, water, natural resources, defence etc. and is a major driving force behind Hong Kong’s economy. If China has no say in Hong Kong’s matters, what incentive does it have to provide these things? Finally, I would like to conclude by asking you all to think for yourselves What is the specific reason that I support movement X or movement Y. I realize that there are different viewpoints from my own and I respect this. However, I cant just not say anything when I think that people are fighting for the wrong cause, for the wrong people, in the wrong way. I would also like to point out that in terms of cold war terminology Chinas stance right now is actually anticommunism (protecting capitalism) while the pro-democracy movement is trying to demolish such social/financial structures (communism). The election committee of 1200 currently represents Hong Kong like it should--those who pay more tax should have more say in what to do with the money. The Occupy and Boycott movement believe that the poorer fishermen/farmer communities should be represented more. But, why does it make sense to allow groups who pay less tax to be in charge of the money that is mostly contributed by those who pay more tax? If this is the case, there would also be no incentive to be successful (because if successful, your money will just be given away to the working class). As a last word: My comments are not meant to offend anyone. They are just a line of reasoning. Western countries may have an appearance of free speech, but their countries are massively in debt and financially they are falling. I hope that HK does not reflect this, that it does not become too chaotic and that people are not hurting themselves without realizing it because of other influences.
Posted on: Sat, 04 Oct 2014 09:26:33 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015