Universal Suffrage for Hong Kong - 2012 !

[trueapprentice]

Fighting for Universal Suffrage in 2012 does not simply rely on your feet, it also needs your hands. Please join us on October 7, 2007, at 1 pm at the football field of Victoria Park to form ‘2012’ with umbrellas.

Early registration shall ensure that you can get an umbrella and a numbered certificate indicating your participation on a first come first serve basis.

Details:
Set a world record for democracy
Date: October 7, 2007 (Sunday)
Time: 1pm
Venue: Football grounds, Victoria Park

Early registration guarantees a place for you in the world record event.
Don’t miss the march starting at 3.

More details: http://www.2012us.com/register.php

LINK : http://www.2012us.com

[trueapprentice]

HKers usually don't care about who the leader of HK is, but they should first attain their right to vote for their leader, to voice their concerns. It is important that there is a political mechanism inplace for HKers to transparently choose their own representatives

Where is the Passion, where is the Fire - By Audrey Yu

失去理想的年輕人？ - 余若薇

科技大學理學院副院長吳大琪最近發表文章，提到張超雄到科大演講，與學生討論特首選舉。他說學生「出乎意外」地踴躍發言，表示這題目能引發他們「心中一道火」。學生基本上都支持公民黨要求普選，要求社會更公平的理念，不過支持曾蔭權是「一個向實際政治情低頭的選擇」。吳院長慨嘆青年人的理想太早被扼殺，他說： 「我想令學生失去理想，我們的教育制度必須負上極大責任。過去，學生接受填鴨式教育，學校從不向學生提及課本以外的知識，結果學生高分低能。現在，教育改革強調要讓學生學會實際解難能力，學會與人溝通，學會服務他人，學會有社會責任，但不談理想。他們只被馴練成為社會有效的工具。」現在潮流興講「務實」。本來，務實是好事，不浮誇，要腳踏實地做人。可惜，當「務實」出自精明的香港仔，就變了「現實」、「認命」的同義詞。從功利、效益出發，機會不大的事情便無謂多談，白費氣力。

前捷克總統哈維爾說：「Hope is the ability to work forsomething because it is good, notjust because it stands a chance tosucceed. The more unpropitious the situation in which we demonstrate hope, the deeper that hope is.」我翻譯為：希望是因為事情美好而奮鬥的動力，而不是因為其成功機會。情愈壞時，所展示的希望愈是深厚。

太「現實」的社會難有進步， 沒堅持的人難實現希望。2012 雙普選，焦點是應否早日有普選而有所堅持，但精明的香港人卻在看中央是否屬意香港早日有普選而決定是否堅持。

如果特首選舉這個話題能引發年輕人「心中一道火」，那麼香港的教育制度可否提供燃料，讓丁點的火，繼續燃燒下去？

[Rachmaninov]

I think it's not practical to have it in 2012.

[Mercutio]

Originally Posted by Rachmaninov

I think it's not practical to have it in 2012.

Why?



Do you guys think foreign residents could/should take part in this?

[hkskyline]

I don't think the problem is timing for Hong Kongers, but rather what are the implications for the rest of China looking to Hong Kong's elections as a sign of change for themselves. From a development point of view, China is not ready for mass elections, which may be why Hong Kong has to wait a bit to start.

[EricIsHim]

If only looking at Hong Kong alone, I think we are ready for universal suffrage. We could have had the full democracy election this year and next year, but was turned down by the Central Government three years ago. A survey was done this summer showed that many HKers are hoping for universal suffrage ASAP in 2012, but we all know it's less likely to happen due to the mainland political situation and we are willing to push back for another 5 years.

In the mainland, many villages have already has the election system to choose the leaders. The system in the mainland is changing as well, but there are also problem to go along with it, like corruption is absolutely a serious problem. Cities mayors are still appointed. HK can be a good place to show what universal suffrage can bring to the city itself and then develops elections in the mainland. Plus if universal suffrage is not allowed, it is also an excuse for the Taiwanese say no to "One Country, Two Systems" to reunification on top of other reasons.

It's for sure a long process until the day we can elect the Chinese's President, but we need the first step to do so.

[EricIsHim]

Originally Posted by Mercutio

Do you guys think foreign residents could/should take part in this?

Everyone in HK that day can participate in the event no matter what's your identity in HK, even tourists who are only stying for a few days.

[Pangu]

Originally Posted by EricIsHim

Plus if universal suffrage is not allowed, it is also an excuse for the Taiwanese say no to "One Country, Two Systems" to reunification on top of other reasons.

I'm afraid those in Taiwan who support TI could care less about whether universal suffrage exists in HK or not. Most TIers want TI, period. It's an ideological movement, not one based on logic IMHO.

[superchan7]

Originally Posted by Pangu

I'm afraid those in Taiwan who support TI could care less about whether universal suffrage exists in HK or not. Most TIers want TI, period. It's an ideological movement, not one based on logic IMHO.

I think he was saying universal suffrage in HK would mean one less thing for the DPP and pro-DPP media to bash, because they want to show HKSAR as a bad example for Taiwan to follow--hence promoting support for TI and feelings against China.

[trueapprentice]

Originally Posted by Mercutio

Why?
Do you guys think foreign residents could/should take part in this?

Yes, Everyone that is passionate about HK should take part, doesn't matter if you are a foreign resident, tourist, a HKer local, what matters is that the demand for universal sufferage is being expressed, and not forgotten or afraid to express

HK is a free & liberal society, we keep saying that HK is unique, it is a SAR, we have our own constitution - The Basic Law - which guarantees Universal Sufferage - So let's start practising what is embedded in the Sino-British JOINT Declaration, let's practise One Country, TWO SYSTEMS.

Let's advance, HK has been a Leader, Let's lead & unit on this one, make a good example for the others to follow, lead the reformation & not follow in the shadow

HKers are always praised of being smart & pragmatic, people living in a great financial centre are more than ready,

Let's not let politicians guess what HK wants, let's vote in the people we think can lead us, can express our wishes, can deliver the promises, rather than the current system relying on second-guessing.

If it keeps getting delayed then HK will always be a follower, and have no thoughts of its own, bring on the passion !

The Power should be in Your own Two Hands, Your Wishes should be Freely Expressed

[trueapprentice]

Time for HK to rethink image, warns author

Una So
Monday, September 10, 2007

Hong Kong is no longer at the center of the universe and it is time to redefine itself, according to American-born TV news veteran Muhammad Cohen.
Speaking ahead of the release of his first novel, Hong Kong On Air, which looks back at the media frenzy during the 1997 handover, Cohen said the city needs to reinvent itself and find out what is unique about itself.

The book, to be launched by Blacksmith Books this Friday, charts the story and daily struggle of morning TV news producer Laura Wellesley in the cutthroat-paced newsroom as the handover fizzled into the Asian economic crisis. Previously a US diplomat in Tanzania, Cohen began working as a scriptwriter for a short-lived sports network in New York City in 1990 when he caught the media bug.

He produced for CNN for five years, before moving to Hong Kong in 1995 to help launch CNBC Asia and fell in love with the city.

He has been an editor with The Standard's Sunday edition and Bloomberg.

Cohen says TV is riskier as news producers and anchors have tremendous power in deciding what goes on air and decisions are made in seconds.

He says machines can break down at crucial moments while missing tapes can cause panic. And news items that are too long have to be cut at short notice to ensure that the news show finishes on time.

One of his worst moments, he says, came when CNN tried to launch an evening news show with anchors in three cities.

"Three seconds into the show, news came the OJ [Simpson] verdict was expected in half an hour. All that was planned had to make way for the live news from Los Angeles," he says.

Cohen says media self-censorship in Hong Kong 10 years ago was more serious since the central government had not formally drawn the line.

Ten years ago people were also worried about their political future; now they are more concerned about issues such as air pollution, the environment and conservation, he says.

As a permanent resident in Hong Kong, Cohen said local people are now actively seeking their own identities.

"It's not that Hong Kong people are not ready, but somebody else is not ready to give up the power of preferential selection in an election," he says.

"I think Hong Kong people are as ready as they ever will be."

He says the government is not responsive to the people's needs since it was not elected.

The SAR will have to seek its own place in the world, he says. Being just a Chinese city is not going to work as Hong Kong will become obsolete soon.

He says the city has to show much more to the world than its ability to make money and build towers.

"Hong Kong was at the center of the universe [in 1997] and all eyes were on it, literally a multicultural melting pot bubbling with pure gold," he says.

"But now it has already lost some of its glitter, which has gone to Shanghai and Beijing."

[trueapprentice]

Just treat us like adults

Thursday, September 06, 2007

It's official. The Hong Kong government believes Hong Kongers are less intelligent than Americans. Please don't send e-mails accusing me of racism. Direct them to Chief Executive Donald Tsang Yam-kuen and his sidekick, the Secretary for Mainland Kowtowing and Perpetual Constitutional Confusion and Delay, Stephen Lam Siu-lung.
I am not convinced Hong Kongers are too stupid to handle more than one level of elections at a time.

US voters vote at the same time for candidates at the city, county, state and national level. Americans commonly vote simultaneously also on city-level referenda issues, county-level bond issues and even state-level referenda on issues from recalling an official to banning gay marriage.

True, American officials occasionally have problems counting the ballots, but everyone knows Asians are better at math. However, in Hong Kong we are apparently so easily confused that we dare not put district council candidates on the same ballot papers as candidates for the by-election on Hong Kong Island to fill the seat held by the late Ma Lik.

That would cause confusion, government claims. We better hold a special by-election later, when there's only one thing at a time to do.

I suppose they think we can count but cannot figure. Or is it we don't count? Government is always so considerate in keeping things simple for us dummies too stupid to be civil servants. Government is where the best and brightest work, so obviously the rest of us must be rather slow.

Maybe the government believes that Hong Kong Islanders are too stupid to handle one vote for a district councillor and one vote for a by-elected Legco member at the same time. The rest of us in Kowloon and the New Territories no longer need feel like rubes. Americans normally consider scores of candidates for dozens of posts, all different levels, all on the same day. I regularly wade through a thick booklet of candidate and referenda statements, and even check out websites before filling out my absentee ballot.

That's another thing this government thinks we are too dumb or too dishonest to do in Hong Kong. No absentee voting for some of the most peripatetic people in one of the tiniest places on earth.

If any place needed absentee balloting, this is it. So why don't we do it?

We are apparently too thick-skulled to puzzle out how. Then again, maybe it's the civil servants who cannot figure it out. If South Africans can do it I cannot understand why the leaders of Asia's World City consider it too complex to solve.

Get Nelson Mandela to pop in for a consultation. He'll fix it quickly.

Yet government apparently has great confidence we can handle all kinds of complexity and nuance when it comes to constitutional models and preferences. Promised three options by our chief executive, the green paper on constitutional reform actually offers all kinds of possibilities and potential ways to handle a number of issues.

On the one hand, according to the paper, we need to do this and consider that. On the other hand there is this other thing to keep in mind, and then there is this, and that, and most of all keep the context and course of events in hand because whatever hand you choose it has to be orderly and progressive and dependent on Hong Kong's stage of development and actual circumstances at the time.

And, don't forget, Beijing must have a hand in every stage.

There are so many hands to keep in mind in the document I feel like praying to Kali, the multi-armed Hindu god. Besides all those arms useful for holding all the hands we need to keep everything straight, she tends to lose her temper, something all this contempt from government for our intelligence makes me feel too.

In contrast there were no confusing choices in Tsang's election. Most had no choice at all. Even the 800 Election Committee voters just had the simple choice between sure winner and sure loser. The green paper has no such simplicity, no three clear options.

How nice to be treated like an adult with a brain. Or are we?

We must carefully consider all possible options, Tsang argues. So much could go wrong. Maybe we should just leave it up to them and not trouble our pretty little heads about such terribly complicated things.

Chances are 60 percent opt for just one of so many preferences? Chances this confusion is not deliberate, when two levels of voting are considered too complex for us? Nil.

-The Standard - M. DeGolyer

[EricIsHim]

Originally Posted by trueapprentice

Just treat us like adults

A good one~

[trueapprentice]

New and Exciting Development on the Democratic Front !
The Return of Anson Chan

Anson Chan set to announce Legco candidacy



CarrieChan
Tuesday, September 11, 2007

Former chief secretary Anson Chan Fang On-sang, once dubbed the "Hong Kong's Conscience," is to put her popularity to the test in December by contesting the Legco by-election.
Chan will formally announce today her intention to contest the Hong Kong Island poll scheduled for December 2 to fill the seat vacated by the death of Ma Lik, former chairman of the pro- Beijing Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong.

Chan, 67, had previously said she did not intend to run in the by-election, but would reconsider if she was asked to by various political parties.

The change of mind by the popular political heavyweight - regarded by many Hong Kongers as a champion in the fight for democracy - follows an abrupt decision by democrat Kam Nai-wai yesterday not to run in the December by- election.

Chan, once seen as the most formidable challenger to Chief Executive Donald Tsang Yam-kuen, disappointed her supporters in September last year when she ruled herself out of the race for Hong Kong's top job.

A confidante of Chan told The Standard that she should not miss out on her second chance to fight for democracy, as she did last year.

A fierce contest is forecast in the by- election, with Chan expected to be pitted against the pro-Beijing camp's likely candidate, former security chief Regina Ip Lau Suk-yee, who now heads the Savantas Policy Institute, a think- tank.

Ip has already indicated her interest in contesting the election, but has yet to formally declare her candidacy.

Chan called a meeting yesterday morning at the office of barrister and senior counsel Denis Chang Kin-lee following two weeks of consultations with her associates and supporters.

The meeting was attended by lawmaker and Democratic Party chairman Albert Ho Chun-yan as well as Kam. At a press conference five hours later, Ho told reporters Chan had revealed her inclination to take part in the election, which would be the first for the former career civil servant.

Kam, a Central and Western district councillor who had earlier been endorsed as the Democratic Party's candidate in the by-election, said he had decided to withdraw and scrap his electioneering work, for which the party had already allocated HK$100,000.

"After a candid and sincere exchange of views with Chan, I'm fully convinced of her goals and commitment to democracy. So, I would recommend that the Democratic Party shift its endorsement and backing to Chan to enable her to take a more confident step towards the by-election," Kam said.

Kam denied he was making a sacrifice to make way for Chan. "I've not come under any party pressure nor Mrs Chan's strong dissuasion. This is my personal decision as I'm really convinced Mrs Chan would be a more appropriate candidate," he said.

Ho said: "This is indeed welcome news. She [Chan] is a charismatic leader with a greater chance of winning. More importantly, her joining the by- election symbolizes greater unity of the pro- democracy camp, which will induce more people to join the battle - a battle between those for democracy and those who are undemocratic."

Lo Wing-lok, another aspirant candidate from the League of Social Democrats and a former legislator for the medical sector, said he was disappointed with Kam's withdrawal.

"Kam should stay on for the election. It's humiliating to Hong Kong Island electors who have the brains to choose the best candidate to serve out the lawmaker's remaining term."

An aide to Ip said yesterday: "We welcome her [Chan's] participation as this will spur greater concerted efforts by the pro-Beijing camp which will benefit our campaigning," the aide said.

[trueapprentice]

The Road to Democracy is to lead the campaign & raise awareness !

Leong on US lecture tour

Wednesday, September 12, 2007

Former chief executive candidate Alan Leong Kah-kit is to give a series of talks to North American audiences about Hong Kong's latest democratic developments and the Beijing-Hong Kong relationship.
Over the next two weeks, starting on Monday, Leong will visit several think- tanks and institutions in the United States and Canada to talk about his experience in running for Hong Kong's top post. Among the organizations he will visit between September 17 and 28 are Columbia University, the Asia Society and the University of California, Berkeley.

He said the talks will mainly cover three aspects - the development of civil society in Hong Kong, the Beijing- Hong Kong relationship and political development in the region.

Leong said he would be speaking purely as a candidate for the chief executive election and would not be representing the Civic Party.

When asked whether the trip would affect his relationship with China, Leong said the talks are open to all and were not intended to harm anyone.

"I have no intention of saying anything to embarrass China," Leong said.

He said he might use the recall of China-made toys by Mattel as an example of possible misunderstanding and why the use of penalties is not the way to solve trading problems between countries.

SCARLETT CHIANG

[superchan7]

It seems Hong Kong political figures are seeing quite a lot of international publicity. CE Tsang is routinely offered state-level (or nearly as prestigious) visits.

[trueapprentice]

How to make leaders listen

Tuesday, September 18, 2007



The American people want out. Hong Kong people want in. Neither government appears interested in listening.
But Hong Kongers have figured out how to make their government heed them. Meanwhile, Americans appear unable to figure out how to make their government hear what they want.

Only 26 percent of Americans in the latest New York Times poll approve of President George W Bush's handling of the Iraq war. Only a third think the war was worth it. Nearly two-thirds want to start bringing troops home.

In the November 2006 elections, Democrats ran on a platform of bringing the troops back. If they won a majority, they promised they would hold the president accountable.

Democrats took both the House of Representatives and Senate for the first time since 1994. But instead of coming home, if the recommendations delivered by General David Petraeus prevail, US troop levels will, in July 2008, be about where they were in January 2007, before the supposed "change in direction" took place.

That direction, instead of out, like the majority of Americans voted for in November 2006, was in with more troops in an escalation justified as buying time for the Iraqis to make up their minds.

Well, Iraqis have. And like the Americans, their government is not listening either.

According to a poll sponsored by the American, British and Japanese media groups ABC, BBC and NHK, nearly two-thirds of Iraqis now say the invasion was wrong while 57 percent consider attacks on US forces accepta
ble. Nearly half, 47 percent, want coalition forces to leave now, up from 25 percent in November 2005.

Instead of leaving now, Bush administration officials talk of an American presence in Iraq like the one in South Korea. US troops arrived there in 1945. They have yet to leave.

But South Koreans may have had enough. At the recent APEC summit in Australia, South Korean President Roh Moo Hyun challenged Bush to formally end the Korean War. Roh wanted Bush to specify what it would take for the Americans to make peace and leave.

Bush testily told him if North Korea dismantled its nuclear program the US would open talks on normalization and explore removing its labeling of North Korea as a state sponsor of terrorism.

Roh felt that language was not specific enough. He kept pressing Bush to make his conditions for leaving clearer.

The Americans called it a translation problem. Actually, it was a political problem.

Roh's party faces a presidential election in December. He believes a majority of voters want Americans to go home and let Koreans settle things among themselves. The likely conservative candidate, the former mayor of Seoul, wants US troops to stay.

The election will decide the issue.

The Hong Kong political system, unlike the American, makes no pretense of being fully democratic. Our voters do not choose representatives in one- person, one-vote elections. Our elections usually do not result in mandates based on competing promises and policies put forward by candidates.

Everyone knows a few have vastly disproportionate influence. Our system reserves half the Legco seats to a favored few. Only 800 select voters choose the chief executive. This deliberately unfair system has made many Hong Kongers fear the current consultation on constitutional reform will end up denying Hong Kongers direct election of their chief executive in 2012, despite many independent polls showing 60 percent or more support the proposal.

So how can a government so insulated from direct electoral accountability be made to listen to the people? Democrats have decided to make the election for the seat vacated by Ma Lik's death into a referendum on directly electing the chief executive in 2012. They have persuaded former chief secretary for administration Anson Chan Fang On-sang to stand for the seat based on that promise. Her likely opponent, former secretary for security Regina Ip Lau Suk-yee, wants election of the chief executive postponed to 2017.

A Chan versus Ip contest will produce a clear signal of what the people want. Ip's defeat will be an unmistakable indicator that Hong Kongers want to be in control of their government as soon as possible.

What might Hong Kongers advise Americans do to make their government listen? In 2003 more than 10 percent of our voting-age population demonstrated against the government of Tung Chee-hwa. He ended up resigning early. If 10 percent of the American electorate, some 23 million people, marched on the White House, Bush might listen too.

If not, do like the Koreans and make it a presidential election issue.

[_00_deathscar]

The problem with universal suffrage is, every democratic nation ultimately elects a complete and utter imbecile to run it.

[trueapprentice]

Originally Posted by _00_deathscar

The problem with universal suffrage is, every democratic nation ultimately elects a complete and utter imbecile to run it.

But at least you hav the choice into which imbecile u elect, rather than having a bunch of them deciding on which other imbecile to govern you

[_00_deathscar]

Originally Posted by trueapprentice

But at least you hav the choice into which imbecile u elect, rather than having a bunch of them deciding on which other imbecile to govern you

True, but in the end, it's still an imbecile at the top.