• Thu
  • Sep 18, 2014
  • Updated: 2:02am

The Occupy Central debate: for or against?

Occupy Central is a civil disobedience movement which could see Hong Kong's financial district paralysed by protesters demanding democratic elections.

PUBLISHED : Friday, 29 August, 2014, 7:47pm
UPDATED : Thursday, 04 September, 2014, 2:20pm


To help explain the differing opinions and terms being used, we asked several of those involved — either for Occupy Central, or against it — a few questions.

Click here to access the multimedia site

Related topics

Occupy Central

This article is now closed to comments

If this Agnes Chow of Scholarism (?) is a representative of her generation's political views, then heaven help us. We are raising a bunch of naive, silly and self important young folks whose English leaves much to be desired. Let's hope they grow up and mature.
Dai Muff
The Scholarism kids are brighter than most of the adults in Hong Kong politics, on both sides, and not too fearful to call a spade a spade. probably the main reason you do not like them.
If you think Agnes Chow and her Scholarism kids are brighter than most of the adults in HK politics, then HK has an even bigger problem than all this Occupy /no Occupy issue.
Dai Muff
I have no doubt whatsoever which politicians you praise. I cannot share your adulation.
You have obviously misunderstood my reply. Please read again and do your best to understand.
In response to many of the comments below: just because the Brits misruled HK is no excuse for China to do so. In fact, it's a very good reason to show how much better it can do.
There is also a problem about Chiee-na-nese in ruling HK. They wanted to prove themselves so badly, so desperately that emotions and ego overrule reason.
Nobody is against freedom and democracy, but we HKers have to find our own ways which best suitable to us. I do not understand why some people want everything now, and claim that if the Chinese and HK governments do not meet their demands, then they will kidnap Hong Kong and ruin everything we have built in the past decades. Why are they in such hurry? Democracy is a game of negotiation, compromise and moving forward. Nobody expects Hong Kong will have a perfect political system overnight! I also do not trust those politicians who use Democracy and Freedom to advance their own personal interests. We all grow up in the education system which the British built for us, and accept the Western values when we grow up. But when we grow older, we cannot help but thinking if just adapting the Western system wholly into Hong Kong is the best to our interests. Look at Taiwan, Philippine and Ukraine. Lee Kuan Yew also received his British education as a elite and then went to Britain for his advance degree. But when he returned to Singapore and became the head of the government, he decided to take his own path, and did not just adapt the Western system wholly. Yelling Democracy and Freedom everyday do not solve anything. We in Hong Kong have many other problems, economy, housing and many others. Have those politicians sat down and solve any of those problems? No, all they do is fighting among each others everyday.
Dai Muff
If most people didn't think these countries were doing better than the PRC, they would not be emigrating to them. And I include the cadres.
@chau - all those problems (economy, housing, etc) are subsets of a much bigger problem: the lack of accountability and transparency among our political leaders. If their status and salary were dependent upon voters instead of Beijing, you could be sure they'd attend to the problems you mention with a lot more seriousness and urgency than now. No one expects political reform to take place overnight - actually, it's already taken decades. All we ask is to trust the Hong Kong people to choose their own leaders. Is that really to much to ask or in any way extremist?