Occupy Central
Occupy Central is a civil disobedience movement which began in Hong Kong on September 28, 2014. It calls on thousands of protesters to block roads and paralyse Hong Kong's financial district if the Beijing and Hong Kong governments do not agree to implement universal suffrage for the chief executive election in 2017 and the Legislative Council elections in 2020 according to "international standards." The movement was initiated by Benny Tai Yiu-ting (戴耀廷), an associate professor of law at the University of Hong Kong, in January 2013.
Umbrella Movement
The Umbrella Movement (Chinese: 雨傘運動; pinyin: yǔsǎn yùndòng) is a loose political movement that was created spontaneously during the Hong Kong protests of 2014. Its name derives from the recognition of the umbrella as a symbol of defiance and resistance against the Hong Kong government, and the united grass-roots objection to the decision of the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress (NPCSC) of 31 August.
The movement consists of individuals numbering in the tens of thousands who participated in the protests that began on 28 September 2014, although Scholarism, the Hong Kong Federation of Students, Occupy Central with Love and Peace, groups are principally driving the demands for the rescission of the NPCSC decision.
The movement consists of individuals numbering in the tens of thousands who participated in the protests that began on 28 September 2014, although Scholarism, the Hong Kong Federation of Students, Occupy Central with Love and Peace, groups are principally driving the demands for the rescission of the NPCSC decision.
POST OCCUPY CENTRAL - DAY 121:
Full coverage of the day’s events on 15-04
A bird in hand 與其百鳥在林 不如一鳥在手
THE ADMINISTRATION is about to put its constitutional reform package before the Legislative Council (Legco). When it does so, the pan-democratic legislators will be faced with a zero-sum choice. It is they that will decide whether the Chief Executive (CE) will be formally elected by universal suffrage in 2017. Based on the August 31 framework, the package will fall short of some people's expectations. However, things being as they are, pan-democratic legislators should no longer just make gestures or yell slogans about the constitutional reform.
The August 31 framework was laid down by the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress (NPCSC). However, at the National People's Congress (NPC) session that took place last March in Beijing, NPCSC chairman Zhang Dejiang delivered his work report, in which he had included the framework. It went through the NPC. That means it is now the will of the highest organ of state power that the framework should stand. Only if another NPC session is held can it be modified. That is an impossibility under the present system. Therefore, the framework is by no means alterable.
As the framework cannot possibly be altered, the administration's package will feature "screening". Pan-democratic legislators will reject it if they look at it just from the moral high ground. However, if they want democratisation, they should look at it from other perspectives. First, the electoral arrangements may be in keeping with the framework, but it is certainly more democratic for over five million eligible voters to elect the CE than for 1,200 Election Committee members to do so. Second, when the CE is elected by universal suffrage, the election of the CE will show it is the voters that rule the roost, and the democratic atmosphere will be different. Quantitative changes lead to qualitative changes, and changes will bring about democratisation.
Furthermore, it is necessary to judge whether and when universal suffrage will be introduced if the administration's package is thrown out. It is the central people's government (CPG) that controls Hong Kong's constitutional reform. If the administration's package is thrown out, the CPG is very unlikely to start another constitutional reform process. Another "pentalogy" may begin a few years afterwards, but who can guarantee the electoral arrangements will then be looser than the August 31 framework? One may say that, if the administration's package is thrown out, Hong Kong's democratisation will be an unknown. A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush. It is more pragmatic to secure a "one man, one vote" mode of electing the CE by universal suffrage and seek to increase democracy on the basis of it.
As CE aspirants will be "screened" under the administration's package, which is based on the framework, the CE will not really be elected by universal suffrage, albeit formally. This is implicit in the fact that the administration has kept urging people to "pocket it first". It is many citizens' concern whether there will be chances of improving the electoral method if the package goes through Legco. Therefore, if it tries harder to give it out that the method of electing the CE by universal suffrage can be modified and improved, the administration will win wider support for its package, which some pan-democratic legislators may think to be what allows them to back down with good grace and switch to supporting it. Politics is the art of compromise. While pan-democratic legislators must not regard the August 31 framework as the sole criterion for judging the administration's constitutional reform package, the CPG must not be absolutely tight-lipped about the possibility of improving the electoral method. The first objective to achieve now is to get the administration's package through. The administration should play "subsequent improvements" up and seek compromise in the hope of pushing the constitutional reform forward.
THE ADMINISTRATION is about to put its constitutional reform package before the Legislative Council (Legco). When it does so, the pan-democratic legislators will be faced with a zero-sum choice. It is they that will decide whether the Chief Executive (CE) will be formally elected by universal suffrage in 2017. Based on the August 31 framework, the package will fall short of some people's expectations. However, things being as they are, pan-democratic legislators should no longer just make gestures or yell slogans about the constitutional reform.
The August 31 framework was laid down by the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress (NPCSC). However, at the National People's Congress (NPC) session that took place last March in Beijing, NPCSC chairman Zhang Dejiang delivered his work report, in which he had included the framework. It went through the NPC. That means it is now the will of the highest organ of state power that the framework should stand. Only if another NPC session is held can it be modified. That is an impossibility under the present system. Therefore, the framework is by no means alterable.
As the framework cannot possibly be altered, the administration's package will feature "screening". Pan-democratic legislators will reject it if they look at it just from the moral high ground. However, if they want democratisation, they should look at it from other perspectives. First, the electoral arrangements may be in keeping with the framework, but it is certainly more democratic for over five million eligible voters to elect the CE than for 1,200 Election Committee members to do so. Second, when the CE is elected by universal suffrage, the election of the CE will show it is the voters that rule the roost, and the democratic atmosphere will be different. Quantitative changes lead to qualitative changes, and changes will bring about democratisation.
Furthermore, it is necessary to judge whether and when universal suffrage will be introduced if the administration's package is thrown out. It is the central people's government (CPG) that controls Hong Kong's constitutional reform. If the administration's package is thrown out, the CPG is very unlikely to start another constitutional reform process. Another "pentalogy" may begin a few years afterwards, but who can guarantee the electoral arrangements will then be looser than the August 31 framework? One may say that, if the administration's package is thrown out, Hong Kong's democratisation will be an unknown. A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush. It is more pragmatic to secure a "one man, one vote" mode of electing the CE by universal suffrage and seek to increase democracy on the basis of it.
As CE aspirants will be "screened" under the administration's package, which is based on the framework, the CE will not really be elected by universal suffrage, albeit formally. This is implicit in the fact that the administration has kept urging people to "pocket it first". It is many citizens' concern whether there will be chances of improving the electoral method if the package goes through Legco. Therefore, if it tries harder to give it out that the method of electing the CE by universal suffrage can be modified and improved, the administration will win wider support for its package, which some pan-democratic legislators may think to be what allows them to back down with good grace and switch to supporting it. Politics is the art of compromise. While pan-democratic legislators must not regard the August 31 framework as the sole criterion for judging the administration's constitutional reform package, the CPG must not be absolutely tight-lipped about the possibility of improving the electoral method. The first objective to achieve now is to get the administration's package through. The administration should play "subsequent improvements" up and seek compromise in the hope of pushing the constitutional reform forward.
沒有留言:
張貼留言