finds it amusing that there are people calling the current protest in Hong Kong a western conspiracy thats funded by various European and US governments. Of course it is, but not in the conspiratorial manner that people are alluding to. The right to autonomy was part of the Sino-British declaration for Hong Kong prior to the handover from the United Kingdom to China in 1997. Along with the rights to autonomy, there were a large number of rights that Hong Kong citizens retained under the declaration. This situation was envisaged as part of a gradual evolution of Hong Kong towards having a democratic election of its governance. Then June 4, 1989 occurred. The process of democratic reform was thus accelerated by the colonial governors (Wilson and finally Patten), culminating in the 1994 Hong Kong legislative elections, the effects of which were ultimately reversed following the handover in 1997. In the last 17 years, the passion for the individuality of Hong Kong has not diminished. It was further reinforced by the Standing Committee of the National Peoples Congress in December 2007 with the affirmation of Hong Kong’s right to select their Chief Executive via universal suffrage. The problem is the concept of universal suffrage as defined by China versus the definition of Hong Kong, and whether a candidate for the Chief Executive should have been reviewed by a committee with its “…members, composition and formation method … made in accordance with the number of members, composition and formation method of the Election Committee for the Fourth Chief Executive.” (Statement from the August 2014 Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress on Hong Kong’s elections). The above statement is the one that is probably one of the core protest issues. What is the point of having a choice between candidates for the Chief Executive of Hong Kong and the councils that are responsible for running Hong Kong if they have been screened as suitable candidates by a previous committee? Tied in with the above disenfranchisement is a growing unrest and cynicism at how Hong Kong is being run. Distrust and negative view of the administration of Hong Kong has increased since the handover, with a feeling that the higher echelons of Hong Kong have access to far too much economic and political power, a sense of increasing inequality as the wealthy continue to gain while the poor and middle class in Hong Kong continue to lose out. My thoughts are as accurate as I can guess from a vague viewpoint, but certain things stand out: It’s a “western conspiracy” in that the seed for democratisation was planted in Hong Kong before 1997, and encouraged by the actions of China in 1989. The protest has remained peaceful, in line with other protests that have occurred in Hong Kong. The only aggression has so far been initiated by the police forces. To call it a radicalisation of the political process in Hong Kong on account of foreign interference is correct, but it’s been happening in Hong Kong since 1843. If you’re talking about current, direct, interference, you’re kidding yourselves.
Posted on: Mon, 29 Sep 2014 23:55:00 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015