• Thu
  • Jul 31, 2014
  • Updated: 7:39am
NewsHong Kong

Anson Chan hopes Beijing will judge merits of HK2020’s electoral reform proposal

Fellow Democrat Martin Lee says Beijing holds 2017 power, amid criticism of pair’s trip to US

PUBLISHED : Tuesday, 22 April, 2014, 11:43am
UPDATED : Wednesday, 23 April, 2014, 7:47am

Under fire from mainland interests for a trip to the US and Canada, former chief secretary Anson Chan Fang On-sang yesterday appealed to Beijing to consider the electoral reform plan put forward by her group on its merits.

"I hope [Beijing] would look at the merits of the proposal ... but not target the individuals," Chan said when asked about the potential impact of her trip, with Democratic Party founding chairman Martin Lee Chu-ming, on Hong Kong 2020's proposal.

"It is not the Anson Chan proposal, but a proposal put together by a group of people," Chan said.

Anson Chan: 'We don't want Hong Kong to turn into another Chinese city’

Hong Kong 2020, the group convened by the former chief secretary, has suggested a city-wide ballot to elect part of the nominating committee which will officially put forward candidates for the public vote on the next chief executive.

Chan said the international community was looking at the city's political direction.

But a core figure in the pan-democratic camp, who asked for anonymity to avoid any repercussions of speaking out against heavyweights Chan and Lee, said the duo's US visit would not help negotiations with Beijing on the chief executive election and could hinder them.

"At the end of the day, Hongkongers will have to rely on themselves in fighting for universal suffrage, and not any foreign countries," the source said. "Hong Kong is just part of the chess game between the US and China. The US would not forsake its tremendous interest in China for Hong Kong's democracy."

The pair's meetings with US Vice-President Joe Biden and other senior US officials drew fierce criticism from state media outlets Xinhua, Global Times and People's Daily for "attracting foreign intervention". One editorial accused them of having "a fetish for Western authority".

Chan said it was natural for the international community to be concerned with the city.

"Various countries have citizens living or working in Hong Kong ... some of the activities are premised on values including 'one country, two systems' and the high autonomy of the city," she told RTHK. "If those values are gone the foreign businesses have to plan for themselves."

Speaking with Chan, Lee said he believed that acceptance of her group's proposal would be down to the will of President Xi Jinping . "If he thinks [Hong Kong 2020's] proposal is acceptable, it would be still okay if Anson was travelling around the world," he said, referring to the state media criticism.

The veteran pan-democrat said the "cold fact" is that the final say on suffrage lies with Beijing. "The Hong Kong government dare not have its say on electoral reform. It is a cold fact that Hongkongers cannot determine for themselves."



For unlimited access to:

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



This article is now closed to comments

Ahh Pierce m'boy, your lack of logic lives on.
A jurisdiction clause in any given contract has no bearing on the existence of contract law. Contract law "exists" independent of any individual contract, and whether an individual contract has a jurisdiction clause or not is completely irrelevant. You've moved on from your stupid argument of when contract law "applies"; but you've arrived at another that has no impact on the "existence" of contract law. I enjoy your continuous moving-of-the-goalposts. It's fun watching a CCP apologist obfuscate. You're very good at it.
You never clarified what you meant by IL, even though you insisted that it exists. In fact, you had absolutely nothing meaningful to say on the subject until I looked it up for you. That's pretty pathetic, but again par for the course for you guys.
Substituting words? Is this what 3 year-olds do these days when they're not fixated with bodily functions. It's pretty juvenile, and more sad than funny. C'mon, Pierce m'boy. You can do better.
WIihout treaties, your "intl'l law" exists only to prohibit certain things. But how can you compare the limits of your "int'l law" to the entire body of "criminal law"? Of course criminal law is geared towards prohibition...that's the entire point of its existence. But with treaties, international law prescribes and delineates parameters of state behaviour, rather than merely prohibiting certain things. It's apples and oranges.
C'mon, m'boy. Ring ring.
Jurisdiction clause is a common provision of big ticket agreements
between parties regardless of where the agreements are signed
I referred to private IL as a rejoinder to 321’s ignorant assertion
“English contract law is a body of law regulating contracts in England …”
I doubt if 321 can yet apprehend his own ignorance
321 refused the chance to clarify what he meant by IL
insisting instead that there is no such thing
thus illustrating his foolhardiness
Let’s substitute “nothing” for “international law” in 321’s lapsapvation
“States that object to customary NOTHING ...may not be bound by them”
Jus cogens is a "fundamental principle of NOTHING
which is accepted by the international community of states as a norm"
" there is a minority of scope of NOTHING
that governs what states CAN'T do"
Be honest 321
without surfing the net
whether or not you’ve watched Prof Kingsfield
can you say something about carbolic smoke ball?
“Int'l law "exists" … only to prohibit certain things”?
So 321 is telling us there is no such thing as criminal law
as it “exists only to prohibit certain things”
321’s credibility is totally bankrupted
Con onor muore
Pierce m'boy, you do read! Too bad you didn't come up with it yourself, even though it was just Wiki.
"private IL" only "addresses the question of which jurisdiction may hear a case". It doesn't allow for ruling on the outcome of a case; only for where that case is heard. It doesn't govern how nation-states behave.
"Customary IL" is determined by "the general practice of states and what states have accepted as law." Individual states themselves establish their own "custom"; there is no international norm that applies to all. "States that object to customary international law ...may not be bound by them unless these laws are deemed to be jus cogens".
Jus cogens is a "fundamental principle of international law which is accepted by the international community of states as a norm". It renders "any laws conflicting with it (to) be considered null and void"...so it is only an exclusionary principle.
So basically, there is a minority of scope of "int'l law" that governs what states CAN'T do. They're silent on what states actually CAN do. It's too bad you spent all this time without actually clarifying what you meant by "int'l law"...until I helped you do it. You're welcome once again.
Of course contract law only "applies" when there is an agreement. But it exists independent of it, which was my point. Int'l law "exists" without treaties only to prohibit certain things; permission to act requires explicit consent of treaties.
Now bring me some more, m'boy. Ring ring
This latest feet-in-mouth performance of 321 reeks of dishonesty
Wiki: Treaties are but one of the three main sources of IL
Public international law can be non consent-based
“such as customary international law and peremptory norms”
Most private IL involves no treaty at all.
Contract law only applies where there is a relevant agreement
But international law can be applied in the absence of treaties
Not interested in 321’s self demonstration
of how to become ever more foolish
I flush 321 to where it belongs
Recognizing that Pierce m'boy is genetically incapable of acknowledging mistakes, and intellectually incapable of answering straight-forward question EVER, I've had a change of heart and will do the work for him. This has dragged on long enough.
Now, i don't stoop to Urban Dictionary levels. But he's at least tried wiki, so let's go there.
"National law may become international law when treaties delegate national jurisdiction to supranational tribunals such as the European Court of Human Rights or the International Criminal Court." Pierce m'boy might even recognize the ICJ he's referenced before.
"Much of international law is consent-based governance. This means that a state member of the international community is not obliged to abide by this type of international law, unless it has expressly consented to a particular course of conduct."
But for treaties, there's no int'l law. Like I said.
Now for contracts.
"United States contract law regulates the obligations established by agreement (express or implied) between private parties in US law"
"English contract law is a body of law regulating contracts in England and Wales".
You're welcome, Pierce m'boy. I wonder if that lonely candle that serves as the light within that tiny brain of yours will finally ignite now. Ring ring, Pierce m'boy. Do talk more. LOL.
Ahh Pierce m'boy, of course you afraid to read about the HK Transition Project survey. After all, you CCP apologist types have never been big on facts. And when a rigorous scientific survey demonstrates facts opposite to your pre-ordained/pre-programmed ideology, I have no doubt you guys will simply ignore it. No surprise there. But it'll be extra funny the next time whymak refers to "silent majority"...and that's the reason you guys are here.
My mistake was to refer to Clinton's opinion as regarding D of I, when it was about US Constitution. And yes, I have the quality of upbringing and depth of character to admit my mistakes. You CCP apologists obviously don't, but that's also to be expected.
Feel free anytime to start showing us where the D of I obligates the US to protect anyone other than Americans. It's yet another burden of proof you've failed to meet.
And the obfuscation continues. Show us evidence of "int'l law". THere's no shame that you can't. But there is shame in not admitting to it.
This discussion has nothing to do with contract law. That you keep changing the subject is yet another example of your crappy character and abysmal upbringing. I guess genetics are just that cruel. How about this. You show me where "int'l law" exists, then I'll show you where "contract law" exists. After all, you made your affirmative assertion first. LOL.
I accuse you of obfuscation, then you parrot it back. That's weak, but expected, Pierce m'boy. Ring ring.
321 obviously failed to learn
what was taught in kindergarten
the moniker is a confession of mental degeneration
from three years old to one
Cut out the silly attempts to obfuscate by complaining obfuscation
I stopped before finishing the paragraph about whymak and …
I’d doubt if anybody would care to read the rubbish of 321
A kind reminder to 321:
To earn some minimal credibility
you must try to prove your understanding of your own words:
“contract law exists”
“The law governing contracts is there”
by showing yourself what and where is your contract law
then you might begin to realize
the “existence” of “international law”
Did we laugh at you the first time you admitted error
about RLC, common law, DoI and US Consititution?
We'd be equally kind and won't make the seond time
any more difficult for you
No escape
Don’t obfuscate
Face the music
Whymak and other CCP apologists like to reference "the silent majority". Their unfounded presumption is that this "silent majority" might agree with them. Sadly, they're terribly mistaken. And there is science and data to demonstrate this.
That article is awfully interesting. For the source material, go here ****www.hktp.org/list/ and download the "Constitutional Reform Full Report" pdf. Now, it is a scientifically rigorous survey, so for those in the know (not whymak and Pierce m'boy of course), the main thing is the methods. Go to page 204, where full methods are disclosed, including the entirety of the phone survey questions itself.
Once you satisfy yourself that the survey is done in such a way as to make the results valid and believable, the fun really begins.
"Support for directly electing the Chief Executive is at the highest level ever recorded, with 89% supporting, 6% opposed."
"For the first time a majority oppose simply converting the current 1200 member Chief Executive Election Committee unchanged into the Chief Executive Nomination Committee."
"For the first time since 2004 a majority are dissatisfied with the PRC government’s handling of SAR affairs."
There is lots more where that came from. Indeed, we should heed the "silent majority". Too bad for whymak and his fellow stooges that they've misconstrued said majority's opinion.
Ahh, Pierce m'boy. The stuff you're capable of "teaching", I learned in kindergarten many moons ago. No need to re-learn them, especially from someone with the intellectual age of 3 as you've previously demonstrated.
Are you now trying to obfuscate AGAIN? This is not about contract law. Do you even know what your position is? Are you suggesting that contract law DOES exist independently of "agreements", or that it DOESN'T?
Regardless, that's still irrelevant to "int'l law". Listen, if there was "int'l law", I would assume even someone as colossally stupid and retarded as you would have been able to show some evidence thereof by now. But all we get is more obfuscation, more red herrings, and ridiculous links to ICJ that actually disprove your point and affirm my position that it's treaties we're talking about.
But like I say, this is whack-a-mole, and if you don't mind popping your hollow head out of the hole, i will happily whack it each and every time. All part of the fun and games that you so willingly provide.
Anyway, let me help you out. How does contract law come to be? Do inter-nation relations come about in the same way? I admit this is a conundrum for you...if you were smart enough to answer these 2 questions, you wouldn't have been so transcendentally stupid as to assert the existence of "int'l law". But all in good fun, right?
Keep them coming, Pierce m'boy. Well done. Ring ring.
You “always have time” to “read every word” I proffer
but you don’t have the intelligence to understand
so you’d never have enough time to learn to understand
what you’ve been taught
I’ve neither the time nor the patience to lecture someone like you
But here is a study guide whereby you might learn by yourself
Try to prove your understanding of your own words:
“contract law exists”
“The law governing contracts is there”
by showing yourself what and where is your contract law
then you might begin to realize
the “existence” of “international law”




SCMP.com Account