• Wed
  • Sep 24, 2014
  • Updated: 7:15am
My Take
PUBLISHED : Monday, 25 November, 2013, 4:32am
UPDATED : Monday, 25 November, 2013, 4:53am

Public nomination stance could hurt drive for democracy

Is Hong Kong not ready for democracy? This is a rhetorical question frequently asked by democrats. We all know the answer, so let's not get struck on it. A more realistic question is, "Is Beijing ready for Hong Kong to become a democracy?" I know the typical unthinking answer from our usual hate-China suspects would be a resounding, "NO!"

But let's pause for a moment. The answer to Beijing's readiness or not is actually far from clear. I am not sure our top leaders have a clear answer at this moment. Basic Law Committee head Li Fei has only presented a framework, not a fixed position.

It has been Beijing's strategy to slow, but not to halt, democratic development in Hong Kong. It has insisted, until now, on controlling the composition and numbers of the election committee which alone has the voting right to choose the chief executive. Beijing is now ready to transfer that voting right to every eligible voter in Hong Kong. Think about what that means for an authoritarian dictatorship to do that.

That is universal suffrage by any definition. It is, however, not fair or "real" suffrage, in the rhetoric of many pan-democrats, because of the screening of candidates. That Beijing will still influence the background, numbers and composition - indeed the very existence of a nominating committee - means that such a full suffrage will fall short of international practices. It is, however, right out of the Basic Law. I don't deny the pan-democrats may win out yet. Bear in mind that sovereignty-obsessed Beijing was willing to grant considerable sovereignty-like powers to the two SARs, a subject I discussed previously. That could mean it could go all the way on democracy too. However, it is a no less valid position, held by many Hong Kong people but demonised by most pan-dems, that it is ok to accept a "broadly representative" nominating committee for 2017, with the proviso that it is not the endpoint, but a stepping stone, to full and FAIR democracy.

That would get the ball rolling on negotiations by focusing on the composition of the committee.

The all-or-nothing demand of many, but not all, pan-dems on public nomination is becoming a distraction; it may get us everything - or, more likely, nothing.


For unlimited access to:

SCMP.com SCMP Tablet Edition SCMP Mobile Edition 10-year news archive



This article is now closed to comments

To all readers:
A Jesus freak says: "God exists. God is Almighty. If you cannot prove that God doesn't exist, then what I say must be true."
A moron says: "Hong Kong has nothing to do with China. Democracy non-defined and free-all-nominations and elections are the ONLY CHOICE for Hong Kong. If you cannot prove this false, then what I say must be absolutely true."
Would other morons with an 80 IQ be condescending enough to answer this moron?
Even shameless morons have more sense of dignity than this one.
Here whymak, let me give you a 20th chance, and don't say I didn't take pity on you. I strongly subscribe to the spirit of being a Good Samaritan.
On what basis do you suggest that the sky will fall and HK's economic future will be doomed in the event of further democratization?
Based on the preachings of the good Book of Meritocracy and your experience in Mao/CCP worship, what do you suggest would be the benefits of meritocracy for HK in the absence of democratic oversight?
There. No big words. Basic sentence structure. Even a neanderthal like you should be capable of comprehending them. It remains to be seen whether neanderthal like you will be capable of answering them.
I am afraid our conversation couched in Confucian terms is now beyond the depth of this airhead. Contrary to what’s often done in the mainland, using force to silence infantile adults is not our cup of tea. There are other ways.
Your persuasion effort may work on adults with children’s intransigent temper tantrums – those not yet totally brainwashed. It will isolate them from charlatans and suicidal attackers of Chinese culture 佔中示威死士.
What Confucius was concerned with during Spring-Autumn era applies today as well. He objected 子不語 to speeches pandering to groundless fantasies 怪, violence 力, rebellion 亂, superstition 神. HK Democracy cultists behavior satisfies every aspect of this description.
Your untiring effort would win kudos from Confucius too. "If you don't attack these extremists (verbally), you will endanger our society." 攻乎異端, 斯害也已。
How prophetic! From his numerous quotes, we know Confucius also warned us not to be dogmatic, including his own thoughts. Learning and thinking must form a closed loop, they are entirely complementary: 學而不思則罔, 思而不學則殆。
Science guy’s mindless regurgitation of 洋大人's democracy and his enthusiasm for protests shows the "cool" of his ilk was the result of frontal lobotomy performed by white colonial surgeons.
To swear allegiance to Democracy, I suggest before check in at a demonstration, every banana should micturate into a urinal to check the reflection of his countenance – white, not yellow.
You were just a dumb CCP apologist. But what's with the racial anger? It seems you, like Pierce boy below, have far deeper psychological issues that require professional help. You know what? Pray less to your Mao's; worship the CCP less frequently; forego your good Books on meritocracy every once in a while. Instead, try some independent thought, and maybe engage in some exercises of free will. Terms like "brainwash" are really too stupid for words, and is really a relic that should be reserved for the dumbest of the dumb.,,hey, I notice you use that word often. Coincidence? Nah.
It's amazing that CCP apologists are so interested in bodily functions. What's with that? Others of your cohort often resort to the same stuff when they have nothing better to offer. Is it some primal reflex? Is that the fetal position equivalent for CCP apologist DNA expression? Most adults matured beyond that phase of fixation long ago...do CCP apologists mature more slowly?
Anyway, it looks like Pierce boy wants to be your friend, since he seems to associate "putting a word in for you" with friendship. And you've reciprocated for him. So you guys should really get together and hug it out. Crazy stupid CCP apologists are people too. And people need friends. So much the better that you two hail from the same low intellect level.
It seems you've jumped the shark on any attempt to sustain your position. But random musings are entertaining too, and more within your grasp.
You contradict yourself alleging
“whymak has hardly provided any analysis whatsoever”
You posted your analytic attempts (25Nov 11am)
in reply to whymak’s analysis of (25 Nov 6am)
Your analytic endeavor was full of holes partly because
you asked questions already addressed by whymak
in his many comments posted in this forum
Ignorance may be cured
if one listens or reads humbly and carefully
But your blindness seems incurable
such blindness aggravated by unusual and seemingly
uncontrollable antagonism so manifest in your comments
You can’t learn on your own
so I’d help you and clarify my observation of you being stuck
“in the operative’s level of procedural analyses “
You need idiot-friendly analyses
with someone holding your hand to lead you along in baby steps
and idiot-friendly analyses are what you expect from others
Have you found out why you’re Borelli?
Oh Pierce. You're so cute. Does one (1) supposed "analysis" contradict "hardly provided any"? Furthermore, his feeble attempt you referred to is hardly analysis. That was him putting up his lame 'the sky will fall on HK if it attempts democratic evolution' fiasco. That's not analysis; that was his attempt at an argument, perhaps. That was also where the lack of substantiation begins. In the past 7 days, he has still failed to produce any evidence (and not even a specific model/theory/hypothesis) to support his assertion. In fact, thanks for reminding me. I'll rephrase to "whymak HAS NOT provided any analysis whatsoever" unless you can come up with something better.
Listen, of all people, whymak's opinions are not something I commit to memory. I have too much respect for my gray matter to soil it with such nonsense. I ask questions on this thread. If he can't answer them here, I'm certainly not looking elsewhere.
I'm happy to listen and read, if given substrate of adequate quality. Such, as is obvious by now, is sorely lacking from you 2 geniuses. Perhaps some introspection is in order for you 2: say more, but talk less. Seriously, as I said earlier, brevity is a sign of intelligence. I long ago concluded that you two have none, but that need not be a permanent disability. Put in some time, learn some logic, acquire some capacity for critical appraisal and analysis, and some day in the distant future, you two might be capable of an intelligent conversation.
But obviously, today is not that day. I'm not holding out much hope for tomorrow either. And you know what? You really do amuse me. "no one put in a word for (me)" and that means I have no friends? LOL. You consider random anonymous internet readers your "friends"? You ascribe value to the positive reinforcement coming from such sources? Holy smokes, you're dumber and more pathetic than I had initially imagined (and I already had you pegged at pretty high levels). I thought you were just a stupid CCP apologist, but you might actually be deranged as well.
Anyway, it seems you've been kissing whymak's butt for a little while now. I'm happy you found a "friend". Thankfully, you keep your comments light on the content side of things, cuz based on your "appreciation" of critical appraisal, I'm sure any "argument" you might attempt would be a gong show. But please, do keep responding. I come to these pages looking for entertainment, and you never disappoint. Everyone needs a purpose in life, and I've found your calling. I enjoy a good laugh, and you habitually provide it. Gosh, will you be my "friend"?
- 2/2 -
That’s why you are a hollow man
full of holes which you fill with all sorts of antagonism
lack of friends (see, no one put in a word for you)
lack of interesting hobbies (dull taste and intelligence)
lack of vision (seeing the world thru 19th century political ideologies)
Now you may see why I keep responding to your rubbish
though there are all other interesting things I need or want to do
Go play ball
or if you still intend to develop your analytic skills
submit further analytic attempts on non-personal matters
no more rubbish please
and see if whymak still has the patience to correct your papers
Well well. Tweedle-dee and tweedle-dumb are back. They are birds of a feather, and it's not surprising that their like-minded stupidity has drawn them towards each other. All they need is a third, and they'd be all set for a circle-jerk extravaganza. But I suspect few even among the CCP apologist crowd scrape the bottom of the barrel quite like these two specimens, so even in a cohort of drooling imbeciles they'll be hard-pressed to find a peer.
Whymak, if you have an argument (which I truly doubt at this point), feel free to make it at any time. Sounds like you're a teacher and perhaps a writer, and there's no shame for an artsy dude to not grasp the finer points of logic and critical appraisal. However, the inability to accept your limitations points to a deeper pathology, no doubt attributable to your CCP apologist DNA. BTW, how are you doing with your CCP/Mao/meritocracy-worship prayer beads? For such a devout follower of the CCP word from the Book of Meritocracy, I'm surprised you couldn't even conjure up some pathetic response. You're failing to even meet expectations, and those weren't lofty to begin with.
And Pierce m'boy, another paragraph wasted on loose associations. Where are your meds, dude? You're now hallucinating, cuz whymak has hardly provided any analysis whatsoever. It's nice he writes flowery prose. As noted before, critical appraisal is certainly not for everyone. And it seems those least competent in it appreciate it the least.
I think you make a great shrink with this comment:
"he has failed to argue for his opinions
because he has no opinion other than
that people with opposite opinions should show him reasons."
By George! You got another one 100% right:
"unthinking regurgitation of tiresome homilies
and his poor taste in offensive characterizations
he has failed to develop any real and meaningful argument."
May I also add that this tour de force trash talk 潑婦罵街 reaching now 100 decibel above the foul mouth school teacher's has never been recorded from the worst case sociopath known among us Chinese.
But then self-hate bananas are really not Chinese. They are the chimps in an experiment I described in my earlier comment in this column.




SCMP.com Account