[ohchk2001]

I had a detailed post about this issue almost done but I freaking closed my geoexpat.com tab and now have to redo my entire post. Here it is redone.

Well the first half of the proposal detailing the election of the Chief Executive in 2007 failed to pass, and there's no doubt the second half will fail to as well. Assuming that the pan-democrats refuse to budge during consultations, do you think Mr. Tsang will dissolve the Legco as some mainland legal experts speculate?

I support the political reforms and also support the consitutional authority for the Chief Executive to dissolve the legislature. In Australia, the entire government got dissolved once in 1975 so why not? Tsang can either take executive action or look like a lame duck much like his predecessor.

The Chief Executive has been very friendly with the democrats and didn't shun them like Tung did. He gave them an inch and they wanted a mile. I personally feel that if Tsang could, he would offer the democrats a timetable. However, in the light of the actual situation, there is no way this is possible. In other words, Beijing holds veto power and the Chief Executive hands are tied as a result.

I'm honestly not sure what the democrats are trying to accomplish by not passing the reforms. Although it was modest, it would have given them some nice advantages such the fact that the business sector will have no margin for its veto on bill amendments (Something I'm not thrilled about, but it does help the democrats) and the fact that now it can easily nominate its own candidate for Chief Executive due to the expanded Election Committee.

With the gradual elimination of appointed district councillors, the public will be able to indirectly elect five functional constituency seats on top of directly election 35 seats.

No matter how you slice it, the numbers add up to a more democratic Hong Kong. The democrats are shooting themselves in the foot by voting down the reforms. They also do not offer anything new to the table, aside from their usual "full democracy NOW" rhetoric and blind opposition to the government.

[KnowItAll]

First of all, today was the first day I bought the newspaper .... in a LONG time. Infact I don't recall the last time I saw an interesting headline and wanted to sit down and read the SCMP with a cup of cofee... yes, that is how dull the news in this city has been.

Second, congrats to the Democrats who swung the vote, despite Mr Tsang's last minute pressure lobbying.

I think the crux of the matter is in this statement.

That if Tsang could, he would offer the democrats a timetable

Here is where Tsang has the chance to create his own legacy. I think it is his first and perhaps last chance to show that he has grown up from the knight in shining armour who saved Hong Kong's index from the evil market raiders... to a statesman and a leader.

I'm honestly not sure what the democrats are trying to accomplish by not passing the reforms.

From my perspective, every system needs a challenge from within, to evolve. If nothing, it has set the tone for an evolutionary change....

I personally don't think Martin Lee and the gang are shooting themselves in the foot. Martin will never be an elected head in Hong Kong.

Let us wait and watch what happens out of the next round of talks Mr Tsang has with Beijing.

[cerberus]

tsang's a pawn, and not a very good one at that. of course he needs to be challenged for him to get a clue and start really working for the people who count on him for support, i.e the HK citizenry. yes, in int'l affairs and politics agreements and honor mean nothing, but if we could only have the basic law and UK-China pact respected and carrid out, that'd be great. it's Tsang's job to see to it that happens.

[ohchk2001]

Originally Posted by cerberus

tsang's a pawn, and not a very good one at that. of course he needs to be challenged for him to get a clue and start really working for the people who count on him for support, i.e the HK citizenry. yes, in int'l affairs and politics agreements and honor mean nothing, but if we could only have the basic law and UK-China pact respected and carrid out, that'd be great. it's Tsang's job to see to it that happens.

The basic law is being respected. It clearly says that democratic reforms should be gradual.

Also I don't think he's that bad of a "pawn". He has a lot of experience in working in the government.

I think KIA made some very good points though, and made me rethink my shooting in the foot statement. Just being submissive to whatever Beijing wants isn't really a winning strategy for the democrats either. At least now Beijing nows that AT THE VERY LEAST they need to present a timetable in whatever proposed future reforms they'll be offering.

Honestly I think a timetable is a reasonable request, as long as it lays out gradual and orderly progress.

[Laughing_Monkey]

Surely whatever happens in HK is going to be a fair guide to what direction the political philosophy of the mainland is going to go, so its kind of understandable that beijing are reluctant for HK to embrace full democracy...

[JaredHK]

IMO its pointless pissing off the mainland crew. They will get what they want eventually.

[ohchk2001]

Does anyone seriously think Hong Kong will ever have universal suffrage?

I've read the basic law front and back and there is only a passing mention in article 45 and 68 that the "ultimate aim" is election of all Legco members and the Chief Executive by universal suffrage.

WhatＩkeep wondering though, can the "ultimate aim" in the basic law be considered a constitutional mandate like so many think, or is it just an idealized fantasy that Beijing can find an excuse to ignore?

Do you guys think there will be actual true universal suffrage in Hong Kong before 2047?

What will happen after 2047?

[Laughing_Monkey]

Who knows what will happen by 2047. China itself could be democratic - or maybe adopted a whole new style of governance. There have been big changes recently so its possible - it probably depends on the economy...

[ohchk2001]

Originally Posted by Laughing_Monkey

Who knows what will happen by 2047. China itself could be democratic - or maybe adopted a whole new style of governance. There have been big changes recently so its possible - it probably depends on the economy...

Personally I think China will be "democratic" in the same manner that Singapore is....but who knows.

[KnowItAll]

A thought occured to me based on the reference to Singapore...

We only need democracy when the leadership starts failing.

Imagine if the CEO of IBM was democratically elected by the employees... or even worse .. but their customers.