Who lost China's Internet?

[ranskaldan]

So far, Sikander has only given 1 argument for why he's boycotting Chinese goods and 1 argument why this won't hurt the Chinese people.

Point: The Chinese government does all sorts of nasty things, like selling arms, threatening Taiwan, etc. Boycotting their goods will end this nastiness.
Rebuttal: Boycotting their goods will obviously not end this nastiness. If anything, it will worsen this nastiness. Therefore this point does not stand.

Point: The Chinese people don't depend so much on MY money to survive.
Rebuttal: Oh yes, but denying your money certainly will make their lives more miserable by a little bit. (You aren't going to argue that denying your money will SPEED UP their economy, are you?) I use "a little bit", but if we compound the little bits, i.e. if every single American, European, Taiwanese and Japanese joined your boycott, the Chinese economy will spiral downwards. You will be destroying lives at a rate comparable to what the commies have achieved at their height.

Therefore boycotting Chinese goods is a questionable decision, both logically and morally.

[mindseye]

"Not only were Hong Kong's people barred from electing their own leader"

This is crap. Large number of members on the Election committee was elected by the public as noted above.

Yes, but the direct ballot of the public accounts for only a small fraction of the vote. The 800 wealthy businessmen (who dare not cross Beijing) hold wildly disproportionate power. So it's not crap after all.

This is crap. Anybody can stand in the election provided that can secure the backing of 100 members.

Yeah sure. Where are you gonna find 100 members who are going to publically back any candidate besides Beijing's? The backing must be made publically. To back an alternate candidate would be a most unwise thing for your business.

"Even the privileged 800 members of the election committee did not get to cast a vote on the sole candidate. Instead they had to submit written nominations, effectively turning the nomination process into a political loyalty test rather than a ballot."

This is crap. How can an election takes place before nominations?

Huh? They have to submit their nominations publically before the election. To submit your nomination is to de facto place your vote, especially when only one candidate is nominated!

It's extremely vague what this "influence of Beijing" is.

Well, when Jiang Zemin invites the group of you to Beijing to tell you in detail how pleased Beijing is with Tung's performance (see news stories from last year), the message is pretty clear.

It's five years away, Mr Lee.

You don't think it's wise to start a process like reforming your legislature five years in advance?

"In poll after poll, Hong Kong's well-educated and economically successful population says it wants full democracy, even over Beijing's objections."

Where are these polls, who conducted them, what questions were asked, and whom were asked these questions? I cannot remember any polls like that.

UR, do you advocate full democracy for Hong Kong?

[DanS]

FYI, in 2001, the United States imported $100 billion worth of goods and services from China, while only selling $20 billion worth of goods and services to China. On an exchange rate basis, China's entire GDP was about $1.1 trillion.

It is clear that without the US consumer, business and governmental support, such as Sikander is threatening to withhold, China would be measurably worse off today. So it really isn't sufficient to slough off American concerns for tolerance of christianity and falun gong, for instance. While Chinese citizens may not be concerned about it, their trade relationships may be affected by it in ways that that the commie government doesn't fully appreciate.

Also consider that growth in this kind of support cannot really be sustained. China has a lot of challenges ahead of it, none of which are really easily dealt with using China's political structure.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by mindseye
Yes, but the direct ballot of the public accounts for only a small fraction of the vote. The 800 wealthy businessmen (who dare not cross Beijing) hold wildly disproportionate power. So it's not crap after all.

There are a total of 800 members on the election committee, and at least 50% - IIRC - of those are elected. Not all 800 members are businessmen, let alone wealthy.

Originally posted by mindseye
Yeah sure. Where are you gonna find 100 members who are going to publically back any candidate besides Beijing's? The backing must be made publically. To back an alternate candidate would be a most unwise thing for your business.

See above.

Originally posted by mindseye
Huh? They have to submit their nominations publically before the election. To submit your nomination is to de facto place your vote, especially when only one candidate is nominated!

No, because voting is by secret, unnamed ballot. Just because there's only one candidate is not an indication of flaws in the process. Perhaps Mr Martin Lee's own popularity has something to do with it.

Originally posted by mindseye
Well, when Jiang Zemin invites the group of you to Beijing to tell you in detail how pleased Beijing is with Tung's performance (see news stories from last year), the message is pretty clear.

Actually that's not what happened. Jiang was asked by reporters how he viewed Tung's performance.

Originally posted by mindseye
You don't think it's wise to start a process like reforming your legislature five years in advance?

It's not reforming the legislature, it is the election of the chief executive. As a matter of fact Mr Martin Lee can propose a bill to start the ball rolling. Why didn't he?

Originally posted by mindseye
UR, do you advocate full democracy for Hong Kong?

I can't answer this question until I know what democracy is meant here.

This is not meant to be a dodge, but as I pointed out elsewhere "democracy" is so vague and formless that it can span a huge spectrum of meanings.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by DanS
It is clear that without the US consumer, business and governmental support, such as Sikander is threatening to withhold, China would be measurably worse off today.

Sure, but so are the US consumers. Consider Cuba for example.

Originally posted by DanS
falun gong

What abput it?

Originally posted by DanS
While Chinese citizens may not be concerned about it, their trade relationships may be affected by it in ways that that the commie government doesn't fully appreciate.

That seems to be a highly hypocritical position considering that some of the US's allies are as bad if not worse. Given the fact that the US was slammed by AI (Amnesty International) last year, this whole "human rights" business comes across as a farce.

[DanS]

edit: ah, never mind.

[ranskaldan]

ah whatever....

The actual details of the human rights situation in China is inconsequential.

We all know that it isn't as bad as Stalinist Russia.
That it's probably somewhere between Stalinist Russia and today's America.
Which one it's closer to, it really doesn't matter when this argument is concerned.

What's important is that boycotting won't tip it in the good direction, no matter what.

[mindseye]

Urban Ranger claimed:

There are a total of 800 members on the election committee, and at least 50% - IIRC - of those are elected.

Wait just a minute - when you say "elected" just what do you mean? I thought that these 50% were elected by a group of about 150,000 hand-picked "voters", mostly members of the business elite. Is this not true?

See above.

We shall see indeed! Unless I am mistaken, these delegates are not elected by the people at all! They are elected by a very demographically narrow sliver of the HK population (i.e., mostly top businessmen). If this is so, your arguments are, as you put it, ... crap!

No, because voting is by secret, unnamed ballot.

I said nominating was public, not the voting. The 800 delegates nominate the candidates for the race. You need 100 delegates' backing to be nominated. However, the nominations are public. As I previously said, any member of the business elite who publically nominates a candidate other than Beijing;s choice is simply asking for trouble.

Just because there's only one candidate is not an indication of flaws in the process.

Well, let's put it this way: it's certainly not a very confidence-inspiring sign of a functioning democracy, especially when that sole candidate appears to suffer from a significant degree of public dissatsifaction!

Well, when Jiang Zemin invites the group of you to Beijing to tell you in detail how pleased Beijing is with Tung's performance (see news stories from last year), the message is pretty clear.

Actually that's not what happened. Jiang was asked by reporters how he viewed Tung's performance.

Well, actually that is what happened. The meeting took place last June. As Jiang himself put it afterwards: “I hope the business community will back Tung Chee-hwa's administration. We're satisfied with his performance.” You tell me: how many business leaders are going to openly defy such a public stand by Jiang? Judging by the outcome of the "election", the answer is: not many.

I can't answer this question (concerning UR's support for democracy in HK) until I know what democracy is meant here.

Ok, how about: election of the executive by direct vote of the people. Would you support that?

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by mindseye

There are a total of 800 members on the election committee, and at least 50% - IIRC - of those are elected.

Wait just a minute - when you say "elected" just what do you mean? I thought that these 50% were elected by a group of about 150,000 hand-picked "voters", mostly members of the business elite. Is this not true?

It's a lot more complicated than that. In 2000 there was a public election of Legco (the local legislature) members during which a number of the Election Committee members were also elected. So that part is by direct election.

Now, there are also these "functional constituencies" that are composed of certain groups. There are a total of nine of these functional constituencies which include sectors such as IT industries, doctors, and social workers. They get to elect their own representatives to the Legco, and they also voted on their nominees to the Election Committees. This part is sorta public.

There is also a final component to the Election Committee, which is made up of ex officio persons such as the representatives to the People's Congress from Hong Kong, Legco members, and the like.

Originally posted by mindseye
We shall see indeed! Unless I am mistaken, these delegates are not elected by the people at all! They are elected by a very demographically narrow sliver of the HK population (i.e., mostly top businessmen). If this is so, your arguments are, as you put it, ... crap!

Seems like you have indeed mistaken

Here's the exact composition. Out of the 800 members, 200 are from financial and business sector, 200 are from professional (doctors, lawyers, etc.) sector, 200 from workers, social service groups, and religious groups, and 200 ex offcio members.

Originally posted by mindseye
I said nominating was public, not the voting. The 800 delegates nominate the candidates for the race. You need 100 delegates' backing to be nominated. However, the nominations are public. As I previously said, any member of the business elite who publically nominates a candidate other than Beijing;s choice is simply asking for trouble.

There are much more to the committee than just the local busiess elites.

Originally posted by mindseye
Well, let's put it this way: it's certainly not a very confidence-inspiring sign of a functioning democracy, especially when that sole candidate appears to suffer from a significant degree of public dissatsifaction!

Certainly Tung is not a very strong leader, unlike Lee Kwon-Yew (sp?) of Singapore. He also caters too much to the business sector and Zhu criticised him of being indecisive.

However most social problems we have was not his fault, nor he can singlehanded fix these problems. Don't forget that Anson Chan was said to be obstructing Tung's policies openly by a local leading public figure. If that's no truth in it I think this man would have been hauled into court for slander already.

Besides, the British government gave their blessing to this procedure. *shrug*

Originally posted by mindseye
Well, actually that is what happened. The meeting took place last June. As Jiang himself put it afterwards: “I hope the business community will back Tung Chee-hwa's administration. We're satisfied with his performance.” You tell me: how many business leaders are going to openly defy such a public stand by Jiang? Judging by the outcome of the "election", the answer is: not many.

That seems to have nothing to do with this election.

Originally posted by mindseye
Ok, how about: election of the executive by direct vote of the people. Would you support that?

I think I prefer a parlimentary style of election better.

As long as the election is fair, the people understand the issues and their responsibilities, that the people know more about how things work in the grand scheme, sure.