HKG: Communism with Democratic Mandate the way forward???!!!
-
Communism vs Democracy (Unite): the ball is at President Xi JinPing's feet.
I believe that in all forms of politics: communism, autocracy, democracy etc etc, the main focus should be care for poor people and the elimination of corruption. In this essay, I focus on the latter (corruption) and other points too.
Chiefly, WRT corruption, there are 2 main methods of targeting this, perhaps of equal importance: firstly, those against corruption should be people who are honourable themselves and who place charity above their own needs: healing the wounds of society by uplifting the impoverished. The second is transparency and freedom of speech so that whistle blowers cannot be silenced.
China proclaims itself to be a bastion of the elitism/authoritarianism (communist/ central government): i.e. that its leaders are wise and charitable men, above corruption and are able to stem out/suppress corruption as well as promulgate policies to uplift the impoverished. America/West is bastion of freedom (democracy/ transparency) type politics: Unfortunately, each emphasis (or overemphasis, to the exclusion of the other) has its own problems. China's Mandarins say they are not corrupt, but without real transparency, this isn't believed and many times, the corruption is so bad, that even with state censorship, it still shows). Even in relatively more transparent places e.g. Hong Kong, where Chief Executive Leung Chun-ying says "if the government met student demands and allowed candidates to be nominated by the public, Hong Kong’s poor and working class could dominate the elections": which proves that such elitism breeds inequality and thus social discord: to the extent that a permanent social underclass is formed: even the HKG Chief Executive declared the majority of Hong Konger's working class= poor: Chinese communism has failed to uplift the poor and perhaps made the situation worse.
In the USA, there is so much freedom of speech that voices of integrity and charity are drowned out by radical (/greedy) capitalist interest: large corporations and banks pay large sums of $$$ to politicians as lobby fees such that as as I understand, banks have lobbied their way to being granted leverage ratio on savings deposit reserves of 20:1: i.e. meaning a widespread wipe-out of private savings accounts should these bank investments decline by just 5%!: so much of government/ taxpayers funds have been used to bail out rogue bankers that people now call the the USA a lame duck government and even the Chinese Yuan is fast replacing the USD as the reserve currency of the world (welcome communism everybody). Terrorist like ISIS dance circles because USA is now too $$$-poor to fight back.
So the answer lies in-between and Hong-Kong is that in-between. Returned to China in 1997, the Hong-Kongers still have a penchant for the higher ideals in Marslow's hierarchy of needs: i.e. freedom, (their bellies filled by the freedom to trade and prosper as introduced by the British prior): unfortunately, the lack of transparency and audience for citizen's feedback to the government have made many Hong Kong citizens (especially the young) relatively poor as under Chinese rule, Hong Kong has become an exploited colony with its property prices driven stratospherically by rent-seeking investors from China: charity and welfare for the young and the citizenry has since become a scarcity, thus the eagerness for young Hong Kongers to obtain the universal suffrage that they have been promised: true universal suffrage and not one pre-vetted by Beijing: their only hope for a better life being effective political leverage.
Unfortunately, Hong Kong remains still a colony, once British, now Chinese in every way but name: it doesn't even have its own army and depends upon China for territorial sovereignty: it is in this regard that China defends its veto mandate on Hong Kong political leadership candidates moving forward.
Thus, having contrasted the two essentially differing political systems: i.e. elitist (authoritarian) vs freedom (democratic) government systems of East vs West, and alluding the 1997 Hong Kong separation agreement that 2 systems of government should coexist in China ("one country two systems"), I propose that the go between would be for 50% of politicians in Hong Kong to be fully elected by Hong Kong citizens and 50% of politicians be appointed by the Chinese central government. Hong Kong residents being defined by the measure of their citizenship and diluted by double citizenships: e.g. a PR might be considered only a 'half citizen' with 33% electoral choice (e.g. A USA Citizen with HK-PR and Malaysian-PR) has a 25% voting weightage (50% USA, 25%HKG, 25%M'sia): as the case may be. Neither HKG nor China appointed politicians will have final say except through consensus; although greater interest would prevail: Hong Kong being China's pride as the most stable and advanced political system balancing elitism(communism) with transparency(democracy): an opportunity for the restive XinJiang region to flourish in their own culture and an advancement of current political methods spearheaded by the Chinese Central government on behalf of the world.
The chance to try out this novel (best of both worlds) system is now at the foot of China and China is fortunate to be given this opportunity to shine as a true world political power (a chance that America abused and has since ransomed to corrupt $$$-bankers).
Will the young have a future/ a voice? Will peace prevail in Hong Kong as a microcosm of the world? The outcome of the umbrella movement and how China handles it will tell.
And I hope that there is more wisdom in Chinese president Xi JinPing than to just stab at the fire button (eliminate the students) because his legacy will be the future of this world.__________________
-
Fine materials.
-
Not all revolutions are bad, good examples are 'dime a dozen' too.
Hello, I am from Singapore, NOT Hong Kong although both are Chinese majority countries (or part thereof). Fact is, humans are all part of societies and how society is ruled/ organised is promised much on the particulars of such political control/ governance: e.g. democracy, communism, colony, federation etc: each title highlighting a unique system/ relationship, itself highlighting that unique relationship between rulers and the ruled.Quote:Originally Posted by XanaduSource (PF): Communism vs Democracy (Unite): the ball is at President Xi JinPing's feet.
From a few thousand years of history we know that (resistance, or in this time political) movements do not lead to a better future... have often led to an empire, slavery or war.
Communism and democracy are not the solutions, neither a unification or combination of both.
The solution is non-political independence from the system (especially on energy, because it's a fundament of nature), as individual or as family or with some friends, never in mass (but many people can work on the same idea as individuals)
People are part of nature, so the answer can be found in nature.
Politics or a revolution or a revolutionary movement are going to hurt your future and that of Hong Kong (some older Hong Kong people said that you must stop the Umbrella revolt and go back to work, which is half the solution. The solution is stop any revolution or political struggle, and work for yourself (try to become independent and self sustained on the fundamental things a family needs, you can keep your current job until you have a small buisness running)
Politics is not the language of the people (people are influenced by politics for a long time), it is used by persons that are seeking control and power over people.
Integrity of rulers or the electorate (democracy) is essential for a country to operate optimally and peaceful revolutions e.g. Ghandi, Nelson Mandela etc have achieved improvements in citizen's lives by eradicating colonialism or apartheid rule respectively. The people's power movement in the Philippines toppled the corrupt Marcos administration and has perhaps installed progressively more honest leaders ever since: it remains work in progress however.
So I conclude that it is integrity, wisdom and steadfast commitment to the good of fellow men that drives such peaceful and productive revolutions towards the creation of a more robust, peaceful and happy societies that give all a fair/ good chance at a happy/ productive life.
HKG students want real universal suffrage because that will give poor Hong Kong some leverage in obtaining the social benefits that they have been deprived of and now badly need to survive. Already, a sizeable number of Hong Kong citizens, for lack of public housing, are victims of rent-seeking rich landlords: have to settle for subhuman existance living in cage-homes (Pict as appended): when a large % of the population views communist China as aggravating if not fueling wealth divides, one cannot fault them for associating the Xi JinPing administration with inhumanity if not greed and bias. Thus the people's insistence on universal suffrage: I.e. the real right to vote for the majority interest.
"Where home is a metal cage: How tens of thousands of Hong Kong's poorest are forced to live in 6ft by 2ft rabbit hutches"
The selfish current China endorsed HKG leadership has treated the HKG poor like 'nature': I.e. wild animals who deserve to stay in cramped and dirty cages: I thus do not totally blame them for occupying (camping enmasse@) the CBD and other main HKG streets in protest to obtain the universal sufferage (fresh air): that they had originally been promised of to begin with.__________________ -
Will univeral suffrage brings fresh air to the Hong Kong people? It is too simplistic, and fringing on niave.
The high prices for roof over Hong Kongers heads have always been there, back to the days where the brits ruled HK. The 5 big land lords in HK have evolved under the brits rule, taking control of all the lands in HK. when 董建å�Ž took over from the colonial government, he came to Singapore and wanted to duplicate what Singapore did with HDB, he was strongly objected, and the project died. He couldn't get land near the existing residential areas to build cheap housing for citizens. in rural areas like 粉å²ï¼Œthe environmentalists wanted to preserve 山和水。
How do the students who occuplied the streets, propose to solve the problem? blame æ�Žå˜‰è¯šï¼Œã€‚。。think twice before you throw the balls at ä¹ è¿‘å¹³'s feet，HK people already show how they dislike the mainlanders, you really want the mainland government to be involved?