Posted on 06/26/2002 7:18:02 AM PDT by maui_hawaii
HONG KONG, June 26 — A top Chinese official said there's no need for Hong Kong to move toward democracy, prompting opposition figures to charge Wednesday that Beijing was meddling in the territory's affairs.
Vice Premier Qian Qichen told the South China Morning Post he supports Hong Kong's current electoral system — in which pro-Beijing forces and special interest groups recently re-elected Chief Executive Tung Chee-hwa to a second term, without opposition.
''This should be kept intact,'' Qian was quoted as telling the English-language Post in an interview published Wednesday.
''Hong Kong is a commercial city and one of our country's special administrative regions,'' Qian said. ''That determines that it cannot copy the political system of another country.''
Pro-democracy campaigners were outraged. They hope Hong Kong can achieve full democracy after 2007, as its constitution would permit, but they accuse Tung's government of dragging its feet even on debating the matter.
''Most Hong Kong people would like to have democracy,'' opposition lawmaker Emily Lau said. ''They want Hong Kong to move forward. For the Chinese government to interfere so publicly, that's really bad.''
Although Hong Kong is now part of China, it is governed separately under an arrangement dubbed ''one country, two systems'' that preserves Western-style civil liberties and is intended to give the territory considerable autonomy in handling its day-to-day affairs.
''These things should be left to Hong Kong people,'' Lau said. ''They should leave it to us rather than say 'Don't even think about it.' We're supposed to have a great deal of autonomy.''
Qian's remarks came just before Tung begins his second five-year term on Monday, after winning re-election in a process that critics called a farce.
No one else was able to get on the ballot in an unusual arrangement that gives votes to just 800 members of a committee, most of them pro-Beijing figures and representatives of special interest groups, known as ''functional constituencies.''
Critics gripe that ordinary Hong Kong people are excluded, but the government says the functional constituencies represent all sectors of society, including banking, law, medicine, labor, education and other areas.
''The past practices have shown that the model based on functional constituency elections is an effective way to ensure that people in various walks of life can have balanced participation in political life,'' Qian said.
Qian said the system gives Hong Kong people much more say than they had in colonial days, when governors were appointed directly by London.
As Hong Kong people get closer to 2007 and a debate over democracy, Qian said he's confident the ''government and people of Hong Kong will make a wise judgment and choice on this important issue, which is concerned with Hong Kong's prosperity and long-term development.''
Tung is highly unpopular among local citizens who view him as a puppet of Beijing and indifferent to the plight of many who have been hurt by Hong Kong's second economic downturn since the handover.
Ordinary voters chose just 24 of Hong Kong's 60 lawmakers in the 2000 Legislative Council elections, with 30 picked by special interests and six chosen by a committee. The ordinary voters picked mostly pro-democracy candidates.
They did a poll and only around 10% wanted the appointed leader they have been dealt... so in fact it is not up to Hong Kong at all what happens to Hong Kong...
The same rings true with Taiwan. They don't want to be under CCP rule, but they had a doctrine surrounding them by people like the former Ambassador to China Pruer who called Taiwan 'dirty'...
These people tried their best to force Taiwan to submit to the CCP...
They truly believe that the CCP is fully justified and should be the premier power in all of Asia...
When a majority is included in a faction, the form of popular government, on the other hand, enables it to sacrifice to its ruling passion or interest both the public good and the rights of other citizens...Hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths. Theoretic politicians, who have patronized this species of government, have erroneously supposed that by reducing mankind to a perfect equality in their political rights, they would, at the same time, be perfectly equalized and assimilated in their possessions, their opinions, and their passions.-Madison,Fed.#10
Of course,I don't expect that the Chinese look at it from this point of view,in their opposition to popular forms of government.But it makes me sick to hear American politicians use the word democracy to describe our government.This is part of the dumbing down...
If someone does not agree with you 'they are not conservative', and that is stupid.
Your semantics lesson is why too many people don't vote for people who will do the right thing in Congress.
No its because (so I was told on FR) 62% of the people would decrease their own wealth to "soak the rich" more. Democracy leads to socialism as people vote themselves largesse and also to many stupid laws as the sheeple vote for things the media told them to.
The people who think in such errant ways see the nice car and assume that no one worked for the flashy ride...In fact the opposite is true. They worked. They worked through college. They paid their dues. They probably spent 10 or 20 years earning their Benz...
Getting to the point of my disagreement though, which by the way has nothing to do with this or any other issue, I think if people continue to tell people 'you are...' or 'you are not...' whatever...that tends to turn people off to anything else that could be said.
The whole conservative movement should try to be inclusive, not exclusive. The only way to be really inclusive is to directly talk about the issues and why things are the way they are. If we start adding the rhetoric in there (ie, I am right because so and so is soooo stupid...) that is one less vote...
Yep among other things and Democracy inevitably leads to it.
Such a thing can be implemented through 'democracy' but at the same time it can also be fully defeated by 'democracy'.
All in all though, its not the 'democracy' that does anything.
America does not have pure democracy ie, in that on every issue everyone gets a vote to decide how to spend the money or whatever...
We do though have the right to elect whoever we want through the democratic process of open debate and popular vote.
That sums it up.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.