Total Posts:32|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Should this guy be excluded from running?

Diqiucun_Cunmin
Posts: 2,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2016 4:43:02 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
So while the US is busy with their presidential elections, we're going to hold elections of our own for the legislative council, our mini-parliament. 35 of the 70 seats (called geographical constituencies) are divided up among five districts, each of which has a fixed number of seats depending on the population.

The difference between this election and previous ones is that there are declared separatists running. There have always been pro-democracy politicians in the legislative council, but they do not advocate independence. However, the political landscape has changed in the past few years, and more and more young people want independence from China (note: I do not belong to this camp.)

The government has decided to screen separatist candidates before holding the elections, by asking them to sign an agreement that they will always support Hong Kong as an integral part of China and threatening legal sanctions if they violate this agreement. In addition, a few candidates, including Edward Leung (a philosophy student from my school who's a very outspoken nativist), got a message from the returning officer (the official in charge of elections), asking him if he still advocated independence despite having signed the agreement. He answered 'no', and stated that although the media branded him as separatist, he did not actually support the movement.

The returning officer stated that she did not believe what he had written, and disqualified him anyway. This sparked an outrage, and the pro-democracy candidates, despite opposing the separatist movement, protested the governments' decisions during the candidates' briefing session that took place just now.

So my questions are:
-Do you think it is appropriate for a returning officer to disqualify a candidate based on his views? Although this seems to be wrong on the surface, keep in mind that independence is an *unconstitutional* view, which would be inconsistent with the goals of the seat.
-When a candidate denies having such views, is it appropriate for a returning officer to disqualify the candidate nevertheless, citing dishonesty? On the one hand, the judgement was quite sound, as the candidate has voiced support for independence before. On the other hand, there's no saying a candidate cannot flip-flop on his opinions, and one could argue that the reply is the most up-to-date representation of his views.

Any input is much appreciated :)
The thing is, I hate relativism. I hate relativism more than I hate everything else, excepting, maybe, fibreglass powerboats... What it overlooks, to put it briefly and crudely, is the fixed structure of human nature. - Jerry Fodor

Don't be a stat cynic:
http://www.debate.org...

Response to conservative views on deforestation:
http://www.debate.org...

Topics I'd like to debate (not debating ATM): http://tinyurl.com...
SolonKR
Posts: 4,042
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/3/2016 2:25:18 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
There should be absolutely nothing disqualifying a candidate from running, even including crime. It is not for the state to decide who should and should not become elected officials; it should be the power of the people alone. Now, crime in office is another issue, but that's not relevant here. Allowing the government to curate the field is in effect making a sham out of democracy almost on par with the actions of mainland China.

People can and should be allowed to run while openly expressing views different to the current constitution. After all, Hong Kong's Basic Law has a process for amendment, does it not? There's not really a point to that if the Chinese government is going to keep people out of the running based on different views; it's farcical.
SO to Bailey, the love of my life <3
bsh1
Posts: 27,504
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/3/2016 2:30:51 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
I think it is inappropriate to screen candidates based on their views. Period.
Live Long and Prosper

I'm a Bish.


"Twilight isn't just about obtuse metaphors between cannibalism and premarital sex, it also teaches us the futility of hope." - Raisor

"[Bsh1] is the Guinan of DDO." - ButterCatX

Follow the DDOlympics
: http://www.debate.org...

Open Debate Topics Project: http://www.debate.org...
PetersSmith
Posts: 5,859
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/3/2016 3:05:12 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 8/2/2016 4:43:02 PM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
So my questions are:
-Do you think it is appropriate for a returning officer to disqualify a candidate based on his views? Although this seems to be wrong on the surface, keep in mind that independence is an *unconstitutional* view, which would be inconsistent with the goals of the seat.

No. If Hong Kong wants their independence they should get it, as well as Taiwan.

-When a candidate denies having such views, is it appropriate for a returning officer to disqualify the candidate nevertheless, citing dishonesty? On the one hand, the judgement was quite sound, as the candidate has voiced support for independence before. On the other hand, there's no saying a candidate cannot flip-flop on his opinions, and one could argue that the reply is the most up-to-date representation of his views.

No, they need actual evidence they didn't actually change their position and can't just go "I don't believe you".
Empress of DDO (also Poll and Forum "Maintenance" Moderator)

"The two most important days in your life is the day you were born, and the day you find out why."
~Mark Twain

"Wow"
-Doge

"Don't believe everything you read on the internet just because there's a picture with a quote next to it."
~Abraham Lincoln

Guide to the Polls Section: http://www.debate.org...
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,078
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/3/2016 3:25:20 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 8/2/2016 4:43:02 PM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
So while the US is busy with their presidential elections, we're going to hold elections of our own for the legislative council, our mini-parliament. 35 of the 70 seats (called geographical constituencies) are divided up among five districts, each of which has a fixed number of seats depending on the population.

The difference between this election and previous ones is that there are declared separatists running. There have always been pro-democracy politicians in the legislative council, but they do not advocate independence. However, the political landscape has changed in the past few years, and more and more young people want independence from China (note: I do not belong to this camp.)

The government has decided to screen separatist candidates before holding the elections, by asking them to sign an agreement that they will always support Hong Kong as an integral part of China and threatening legal sanctions if they violate this agreement. In addition, a few candidates, including Edward Leung (a philosophy student from my school who's a very outspoken nativist), got a message from the returning officer (the official in charge of elections), asking him if he still advocated independence despite having signed the agreement. He answered 'no', and stated that although the media branded him as separatist, he did not actually support the movement.

The returning officer stated that she did not believe what he had written, and disqualified him anyway. This sparked an outrage, and the pro-democracy candidates, despite opposing the separatist movement, protested the governments' decisions during the candidates' briefing session that took place just now.

So my questions are:
-Do you think it is appropriate for a returning officer to disqualify a candidate based on his views? Although this seems to be wrong on the surface, keep in mind that independence is an *unconstitutional* view, which would be inconsistent with the goals of the seat.
-When a candidate denies having such views, is it appropriate for a returning officer to disqualify the candidate nevertheless, citing dishonesty? On the one hand, the judgement was quite sound, as the candidate has voiced support for independence before. On the other hand, there's no saying a candidate cannot flip-flop on his opinions, and one could argue that the reply is the most up-to-date representation of his views.

Any input is much appreciated :)

The political status of Hong Kong should be determined through democratic means. If the denizens of Hong Kong don't want independence, then they won't elect people who threaten the status quo. If they do want independence, then they should be able to select such people, and to vote in favour of independence whenever enough pro-independence politicians are elected, or else it isn't really democracy. To deny Hong Kong independence in the event that the large majority of Hong Kongers were to desire it would be wrong. Even more wrong is to prohibit democratically elected people from taking office who support independence.
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
Diqiucun_Cunmin
Posts: 2,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/3/2016 5:36:01 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 8/3/2016 2:25:18 AM, SolonKR wrote:
There should be absolutely nothing disqualifying a candidate from running, even including crime. It is not for the state to decide who should and should not become elected officials; it should be the power of the people alone. Now, crime in office is another issue, but that's not relevant here. Allowing the government to curate the field is in effect making a sham out of democracy almost on par with the actions of mainland China.
I would say, in the case of crime, a candidate cannot run if he is serving a prison term (although the reasons for that are obvious). :P
People can and should be allowed to run while openly expressing views different to the current constitution. After all, Hong Kong's Basic Law has a process for amendment, does it not? There's not really a point to that if the Chinese government is going to keep people out of the running based on different views; it's farcical.
This point came to mind too, though I looked up changes to the Basic Law and it appears that although there is a mechanism for changing it (probably too bureaucratic to be implemented it practice), certain principles, like one country, two systems cannot be changed, so independence cannot really be achieved through that in reality.
The thing is, I hate relativism. I hate relativism more than I hate everything else, excepting, maybe, fibreglass powerboats... What it overlooks, to put it briefly and crudely, is the fixed structure of human nature. - Jerry Fodor

Don't be a stat cynic:
http://www.debate.org...

Response to conservative views on deforestation:
http://www.debate.org...

Topics I'd like to debate (not debating ATM): http://tinyurl.com...
Diqiucun_Cunmin
Posts: 2,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/3/2016 5:36:49 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 8/3/2016 3:05:12 AM, PetersSmith wrote:
At 8/2/2016 4:43:02 PM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
So my questions are:
-Do you think it is appropriate for a returning officer to disqualify a candidate based on his views? Although this seems to be wrong on the surface, keep in mind that independence is an *unconstitutional* view, which would be inconsistent with the goals of the seat.

No. If Hong Kong wants their independence they should get it, as well as Taiwan.

-When a candidate denies having such views, is it appropriate for a returning officer to disqualify the candidate nevertheless, citing dishonesty? On the one hand, the judgement was quite sound, as the candidate has voiced support for independence before. On the other hand, there's no saying a candidate cannot flip-flop on his opinions, and one could argue that the reply is the most up-to-date representation of his views.

No, they need actual evidence they didn't actually change their position and can't just go "I don't believe you".
Yeah, that's what I thought too. There was too much personal judgement and not enough due process in that decision, from the looks of it.
The thing is, I hate relativism. I hate relativism more than I hate everything else, excepting, maybe, fibreglass powerboats... What it overlooks, to put it briefly and crudely, is the fixed structure of human nature. - Jerry Fodor

Don't be a stat cynic:
http://www.debate.org...

Response to conservative views on deforestation:
http://www.debate.org...

Topics I'd like to debate (not debating ATM): http://tinyurl.com...
triangle.128k
Posts: 3,675
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/3/2016 5:44:22 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 8/2/2016 4:43:02 PM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
So while the US is busy with their presidential elections, we're going to hold elections of our own for the legislative council, our mini-parliament. 35 of the 70 seats (called geographical constituencies) are divided up among five districts, each of which has a fixed number of seats depending on the population.

The difference between this election and previous ones is that there are declared separatists running. There have always been pro-democracy politicians in the legislative council, but they do not advocate independence. However, the political landscape has changed in the past few years, and more and more young people want independence from China (note: I do not belong to this camp.)

The government has decided to screen separatist candidates before holding the elections, by asking them to sign an agreement that they will always support Hong Kong as an integral part of China and threatening legal sanctions if they violate this agreement. In addition, a few candidates, including Edward Leung (a philosophy student from my school who's a very outspoken nativist), got a message from the returning officer (the official in charge of elections), asking him if he still advocated independence despite having signed the agreement. He answered 'no', and stated that although the media branded him as separatist, he did not actually support the movement.

The returning officer stated that she did not believe what he had written, and disqualified him anyway. This sparked an outrage, and the pro-democracy candidates, despite opposing the separatist movement, protested the governments' decisions during the candidates' briefing session that took place just now.

So my questions are:
-Do you think it is appropriate for a returning officer to disqualify a candidate based on his views? Although this seems to be wrong on the surface, keep in mind that independence is an *unconstitutional* view, which would be inconsistent with the goals of the seat.
-When a candidate denies having such views, is it appropriate for a returning officer to disqualify the candidate nevertheless, citing dishonesty? On the one hand, the judgement was quite sound, as the candidate has voiced support for independence before. On the other hand, there's no saying a candidate cannot flip-flop on his opinions, and one could argue that the reply is the most up-to-date representation of his views.

Any input is much appreciated :)

No, he shouldn't be excluded from running at all, that's pretty much an attack on freedom of speech/expression.

I personally don't support the secession of Hong Kong, Macau, Tibet, or Xinjiang, or whatever autonomous region/city has a separatist movement. Though I feel the best solution in Hong Kong would be less interference with their politics, essentially leaving them more autonomous, or for the CCP to become less autocratic.

I can understand why Hong Kong wants independence. If the mainland wants to prevent it, maybe they really should improve their record on human rights, mainly with the regard of censorship. From what I've seen, the CCP hasn't made too much progress in improving their reputation.
triangle.128k
Posts: 3,675
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/3/2016 5:45:26 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 8/3/2016 3:05:12 AM, PetersSmith wrote:
No. If Hong Kong wants their independence they should get it, as well as Taiwan.

Taiwan IS independent...
Diqiucun_Cunmin
Posts: 2,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/3/2016 5:58:53 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 8/3/2016 3:25:20 AM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
The political status of Hong Kong should be determined through democratic means. If the denizens of Hong Kong don't want independence, then they won't elect people who threaten the status quo. If they do want independence, then they should be able to select such people, and to vote in favour of independence whenever enough pro-independence politicians are elected, or else it isn't really democracy. To deny Hong Kong independence in the event that the large majority of Hong Kongers were to desire it would be wrong. Even more wrong is to prohibit democratically elected people from taking office who support independence.

Actually there will be no way of attaining independence, even if the geographical constituencies are filled with secessionists to the brim. The government's Executive Council, not the Legislative Council, has the right of initiative in legislation, so only laws approved by the government can be discussed; and in any case, there are still the functional constituencies, whose elections ensure that the majority of the seats are gained by pro-government politicians. So there isn't a real risk of independence. Tthe government, apparently, just wants to suppress the movement further, which they have to do to avoid looking bad in front of Beijing...

I don't think the day will ever come that the majority demands independence, tbh. It's just a fad that arose because of the incompetence and moral bankruptcy of the current leader, but it's likely Beijing will learn its lesson and choose a more capable guy next time.
The thing is, I hate relativism. I hate relativism more than I hate everything else, excepting, maybe, fibreglass powerboats... What it overlooks, to put it briefly and crudely, is the fixed structure of human nature. - Jerry Fodor

Don't be a stat cynic:
http://www.debate.org...

Response to conservative views on deforestation:
http://www.debate.org...

Topics I'd like to debate (not debating ATM): http://tinyurl.com...
Diqiucun_Cunmin
Posts: 2,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/3/2016 6:02:36 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 8/3/2016 5:45:26 PM, triangle.128k wrote:
At 8/3/2016 3:05:12 AM, PetersSmith wrote:
No. If Hong Kong wants their independence they should get it, as well as Taiwan.

Taiwan IS independent...

Actually, Taiwan is still very much a part of China, called the ROC. The Taiwan independence movement is about whether Taiwan should move out of the ROC.
The thing is, I hate relativism. I hate relativism more than I hate everything else, excepting, maybe, fibreglass powerboats... What it overlooks, to put it briefly and crudely, is the fixed structure of human nature. - Jerry Fodor

Don't be a stat cynic:
http://www.debate.org...

Response to conservative views on deforestation:
http://www.debate.org...

Topics I'd like to debate (not debating ATM): http://tinyurl.com...
Diqiucun_Cunmin
Posts: 2,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/3/2016 6:10:47 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 8/3/2016 5:44:22 PM, triangle.128k wrote:

No, he shouldn't be excluded from running at all, that's pretty much an attack on freedom of speech/expression.

I personally don't support the secession of Hong Kong, Macau, Tibet, or Xinjiang, or whatever autonomous region/city has a separatist movement. Though I feel the best solution in Hong Kong would be less interference with their politics, essentially leaving them more autonomous, or for the CCP to become less autocratic.
Yeah, basically. Beijing has been 'testing the waters' by intervening more in recent years, but they've probably realised the reaction that resulted was not worth it, so I think it's likely they'll refrain from overly heavy-handed interference, at least for a while.
I can understand why Hong Kong wants independence. If the mainland wants to prevent it, maybe they really should improve their record on human rights, mainly with the regard of censorship. From what I've seen, the CCP hasn't made too much progress in improving their reputation.
Censorship isn't really the main concern (at least before the booksellers' incident) - the biggest worry amongst people, which also triggered the recent tide of nativist and anti-China sentiment, is cultural: it is the worry that the local way of life will be 'dyed red', such as increasing corruption, nepotism and cronyism, the decline of Cantonese and traditional Chinese characters, etc.
The thing is, I hate relativism. I hate relativism more than I hate everything else, excepting, maybe, fibreglass powerboats... What it overlooks, to put it briefly and crudely, is the fixed structure of human nature. - Jerry Fodor

Don't be a stat cynic:
http://www.debate.org...

Response to conservative views on deforestation:
http://www.debate.org...

Topics I'd like to debate (not debating ATM): http://tinyurl.com...
Diqiucun_Cunmin
Posts: 2,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/3/2016 6:12:22 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
Thank you to everyone for the input!
The thing is, I hate relativism. I hate relativism more than I hate everything else, excepting, maybe, fibreglass powerboats... What it overlooks, to put it briefly and crudely, is the fixed structure of human nature. - Jerry Fodor

Don't be a stat cynic:
http://www.debate.org...

Response to conservative views on deforestation:
http://www.debate.org...

Topics I'd like to debate (not debating ATM): http://tinyurl.com...
Diqiucun_Cunmin
Posts: 2,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/3/2016 6:13:28 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 8/3/2016 6:10:47 PM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
At 8/3/2016 5:44:22 PM, triangle.128k wrote:

No, he shouldn't be excluded from running at all, that's pretty much an attack on freedom of speech/expression.

I personally don't support the secession of Hong Kong, Macau, Tibet, or Xinjiang, or whatever autonomous region/city has a separatist movement. Though I feel the best solution in Hong Kong would be less interference with their politics, essentially leaving them more autonomous, or for the CCP to become less autocratic.
Yeah, basically. Beijing has been 'testing the waters' by intervening more in recent years, but they've probably realised the reaction that resulted was not worth it, so I think it's likely they'll refrain from overly heavy-handed interference, at least for a while.
I mean, I was just talking about us. I can't speak for Macau or the autonomous regions. :P
I can understand why Hong Kong wants independence. If the mainland wants to prevent it, maybe they really should improve their record on human rights, mainly with the regard of censorship. From what I've seen, the CCP hasn't made too much progress in improving their reputation.
Censorship isn't really the main concern (at least before the booksellers' incident) - the biggest worry amongst people, which also triggered the recent tide of nativist and anti-China sentiment, is cultural: it is the worry that the local way of life will be 'dyed red', such as increasing corruption, nepotism and cronyism, the decline of Cantonese and traditional Chinese characters, etc.
The thing is, I hate relativism. I hate relativism more than I hate everything else, excepting, maybe, fibreglass powerboats... What it overlooks, to put it briefly and crudely, is the fixed structure of human nature. - Jerry Fodor

Don't be a stat cynic:
http://www.debate.org...

Response to conservative views on deforestation:
http://www.debate.org...

Topics I'd like to debate (not debating ATM): http://tinyurl.com...
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,254
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/3/2016 6:19:06 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 8/2/2016 4:43:02 PM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
Are there legal steps in place for amending the constitution in this case? If so, then I don't see how it's at all justified to keep someone from running just because they have views that conflict with the constitution at the present time, just so long as the person promises not to push through such laws before the constitution is changed to allow them.
PetersSmith
Posts: 5,859
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/3/2016 6:23:09 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 8/3/2016 5:45:26 PM, triangle.128k wrote:
At 8/3/2016 3:05:12 AM, PetersSmith wrote:
No. If Hong Kong wants their independence they should get it, as well as Taiwan.

Taiwan IS independent...

As in declaring it's sovereignty. If Taiwan called itself independent right now China would destroy it.
Empress of DDO (also Poll and Forum "Maintenance" Moderator)

"The two most important days in your life is the day you were born, and the day you find out why."
~Mark Twain

"Wow"
-Doge

"Don't believe everything you read on the internet just because there's a picture with a quote next to it."
~Abraham Lincoln

Guide to the Polls Section: http://www.debate.org...
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,078
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/3/2016 6:23:44 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 8/3/2016 6:02:36 PM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
At 8/3/2016 5:45:26 PM, triangle.128k wrote:
At 8/3/2016 3:05:12 AM, PetersSmith wrote:
No. If Hong Kong wants their independence they should get it, as well as Taiwan.

Taiwan IS independent...

Actually, Taiwan is still very much a part of China, called the ROC. The Taiwan independence movement is about whether Taiwan should move out of the ROC.

Taiwan is legally considered part of the PRC, and even many American companies which produce political maps show China and Taiwan as a single county. In practice, however, Taiwan is not ruled by the mainland, and it is an independent sovereign state with limited international recognition. Even with this limited recognition, many countries such as the United States have informal relations with Taiwan, and products which are produced in Taiwan and exported to the United States have a label that says "Made in Taiwan", not "Made in China".
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
Diqiucun_Cunmin
Posts: 2,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/3/2016 6:26:41 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 8/3/2016 6:23:44 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 8/3/2016 6:02:36 PM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
At 8/3/2016 5:45:26 PM, triangle.128k wrote:
At 8/3/2016 3:05:12 AM, PetersSmith wrote:
No. If Hong Kong wants their independence they should get it, as well as Taiwan.

Taiwan IS independent...

Actually, Taiwan is still very much a part of China, called the ROC. The Taiwan independence movement is about whether Taiwan should move out of the ROC.

Taiwan is legally considered part of the PRC, and even many American companies which produce political maps show China and Taiwan as a single county. In practice, however, Taiwan is not ruled by the mainland, and it is an independent sovereign state with limited international recognition. Even with this limited recognition, many countries such as the United States have informal relations with Taiwan, and products which are produced in Taiwan and exported to the United States have a label that says "Made in Taiwan", not "Made in China".

Yeah, but the Taiwanese independence movement (which I think Peters is referencing here) doesn't mean gaining recognition for Taiwan under the ROC as a sovereign state with international recognition, but rather for Taiwan to establish itself as an independent state that is not dependent even on the ROC (not just of the PRC).
The thing is, I hate relativism. I hate relativism more than I hate everything else, excepting, maybe, fibreglass powerboats... What it overlooks, to put it briefly and crudely, is the fixed structure of human nature. - Jerry Fodor

Don't be a stat cynic:
http://www.debate.org...

Response to conservative views on deforestation:
http://www.debate.org...

Topics I'd like to debate (not debating ATM): http://tinyurl.com...
Diqiucun_Cunmin
Posts: 2,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/3/2016 6:31:09 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 8/3/2016 6:19:06 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 8/2/2016 4:43:02 PM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
Are there legal steps in place for amending the constitution in this case?
The Basic Law ('mini-constitution') does allow for amendment, but core parts of it (including Hong Kong being a part of China) cannot be changed.
If so, then I don't see how it's at all justified to keep someone from running just because they have views that conflict with the constitution at the present time, just so long as the person promises not to push through such laws before the constitution is changed to allow them.
Actually he would have no right to push through any laws, only to discuss, debate and vote on laws suggested by the government - the Legislative Council does not have right of initiative. The government's current position is that separatists do not uphold the Basic Law and therefore cannot serve in an office established by it.
The thing is, I hate relativism. I hate relativism more than I hate everything else, excepting, maybe, fibreglass powerboats... What it overlooks, to put it briefly and crudely, is the fixed structure of human nature. - Jerry Fodor

Don't be a stat cynic:
http://www.debate.org...

Response to conservative views on deforestation:
http://www.debate.org...

Topics I'd like to debate (not debating ATM): http://tinyurl.com...
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,078
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/3/2016 6:34:54 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 8/3/2016 5:58:53 PM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
At 8/3/2016 3:25:20 AM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
The political status of Hong Kong should be determined through democratic means. If the denizens of Hong Kong don't want independence, then they won't elect people who threaten the status quo. If they do want independence, then they should be able to select such people, and to vote in favour of independence whenever enough pro-independence politicians are elected, or else it isn't really democracy. To deny Hong Kong independence in the event that the large majority of Hong Kongers were to desire it would be wrong. Even more wrong is to prohibit democratically elected people from taking office who support independence.

Actually there will be no way of attaining independence, even if the geographical constituencies are filled with secessionists to the brim. The government's Executive Council, not the Legislative Council, has the right of initiative in legislation, so only laws approved by the government can be discussed; and in any case, there are still the functional constituencies, whose elections ensure that the majority of the seats are gained by pro-government politicians. So there isn't a real risk of independence. Tthe government, apparently, just wants to suppress the movement further, which they have to do to avoid looking bad in front of Beijing...

If they suppress dissidents to the regime, then they risk making the movement even stronger. To pacify the Hong Kongers they have to lead them to believe that they live in a free city. If the Hong Kongers no longer believe this to be the case, then they'll protest the government all the more loudly. Right now, Beijing should probably just let the pro-secession politicians be, because if there's no crackdown then those people won't have any real influence over the public.

I don't think the day will ever come that the majority demands independence, tbh. It's just a fad that arose because of the incompetence and moral bankruptcy of the current leader, but it's likely Beijing will learn its lesson and choose a more capable guy next time.

If they don't want independence, then that's fine. I'm not saying that independence should be crammed down their throats. But I think that we can all agree Beijing should give Hong Kong some breathing space.
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,078
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/3/2016 6:39:12 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 8/3/2016 6:26:41 PM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
At 8/3/2016 6:23:44 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 8/3/2016 6:02:36 PM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
At 8/3/2016 5:45:26 PM, triangle.128k wrote:
At 8/3/2016 3:05:12 AM, PetersSmith wrote:
No. If Hong Kong wants their independence they should get it, as well as Taiwan.

Taiwan IS independent...

Actually, Taiwan is still very much a part of China, called the ROC. The Taiwan independence movement is about whether Taiwan should move out of the ROC.

Taiwan is legally considered part of the PRC, and even many American companies which produce political maps show China and Taiwan as a single county. In practice, however, Taiwan is not ruled by the mainland, and it is an independent sovereign state with limited international recognition. Even with this limited recognition, many countries such as the United States have informal relations with Taiwan, and products which are produced in Taiwan and exported to the United States have a label that says "Made in Taiwan", not "Made in China".

Yeah, but the Taiwanese independence movement (which I think Peters is referencing here) doesn't mean gaining recognition for Taiwan under the ROC as a sovereign state with international recognition, but rather for Taiwan to establish itself as an independent state that is not dependent even on the ROC (not just of the PRC).

Taiwanese independence would mean ceding the ROC's claims to the mainland, and the country would probably have to rename itself. "Republic of Taiwan" has a nice ring to it.
I honestly don't know why Beijing is okay with Taipei claiming to be the legitimate government of China (obviously a bulls**t claim but I digress) but not with them claiming that the two countries are independent of each other.
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
triangle.128k
Posts: 3,675
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/3/2016 6:40:46 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 8/3/2016 6:02:36 PM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
At 8/3/2016 5:45:26 PM, triangle.128k wrote:
At 8/3/2016 3:05:12 AM, PetersSmith wrote:
No. If Hong Kong wants their independence they should get it, as well as Taiwan.

Taiwan IS independent...

Actually, Taiwan is still very much a part of China, called the ROC. The Taiwan independence movement is about whether Taiwan should move out of the ROC.

I meant it's independent from the PRC. It's a part of China, just not a part of the PRC despite their claims to Taiwan.

So basically the Taiwanese independence movement wants regime change? Isn't it in the form of breaking economic ties with the PRC, removing heritage and historical references from the Kuomintang, and having a separate identity as Taiwanese and not Chinese, and some other stuff?
triangle.128k
Posts: 3,675
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/3/2016 6:42:46 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 8/3/2016 6:23:09 PM, PetersSmith wrote:
At 8/3/2016 5:45:26 PM, triangle.128k wrote:
At 8/3/2016 3:05:12 AM, PetersSmith wrote:
No. If Hong Kong wants their independence they should get it, as well as Taiwan.

Taiwan IS independent...

As in declaring it's sovereignty. If Taiwan called itself independent right now China would destroy it.

No, the ROC still has support from the US and the PRC wouldn't dare to use imperial force against Taiwan.

Also keep in mind Taiwan's military could hold off a PRC invasion for quite a bit of time, and it would cause unnecessary casualties and economic loss for the PRC. So the Mainland would be stupid in declaring war against the ROC.

Also, Taiwan has called itself independent from the PRC...
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,078
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/3/2016 6:46:45 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 8/3/2016 6:42:46 PM, triangle.128k wrote:
At 8/3/2016 6:23:09 PM, PetersSmith wrote:
At 8/3/2016 5:45:26 PM, triangle.128k wrote:
At 8/3/2016 3:05:12 AM, PetersSmith wrote:
No. If Hong Kong wants their independence they should get it, as well as Taiwan.

Taiwan IS independent...

As in declaring it's sovereignty. If Taiwan called itself independent right now China would destroy it.

No, the ROC still has support from the US and the PRC wouldn't dare to use imperial force against Taiwan.

Also keep in mind Taiwan's military could hold off a PRC invasion for quite a bit of time, and it would cause unnecessary casualties and economic loss for the PRC. So the Mainland would be stupid in declaring war against the ROC.

Also, Taiwan has called itself independent from the PRC...

The tide is changing. The U.S. will, with each passing year, find it increasingly difficult to defend Taiwan were it to be invaded. Furthermore, as it stands right now Taiwan could only hold out for about a month on its own (this was back in 2014, so it'd be at least somewhat shorter today).
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
triangle.128k
Posts: 3,675
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/3/2016 6:50:22 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 8/3/2016 6:10:47 PM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
At 8/3/2016 5:44:22 PM, triangle.128k wrote:

No, he shouldn't be excluded from running at all, that's pretty much an attack on freedom of speech/expression.

I personally don't support the secession of Hong Kong, Macau, Tibet, or Xinjiang, or whatever autonomous region/city has a separatist movement. Though I feel the best solution in Hong Kong would be less interference with their politics, essentially leaving them more autonomous, or for the CCP to become less autocratic.
Yeah, basically. Beijing has been 'testing the waters' by intervening more in recent years, but they've probably realised the reaction that resulted was not worth it, so I think it's likely they'll refrain from overly heavy-handed interference, at least for a while.
I can understand why Hong Kong wants independence. If the mainland wants to prevent it, maybe they really should improve their record on human rights, mainly with the regard of censorship. From what I've seen, the CCP hasn't made too much progress in improving their reputation.
Censorship isn't really the main concern (at least before the booksellers' incident) - the biggest worry amongst people, which also triggered the recent tide of nativist and anti-China sentiment, is cultural: it is the worry that the local way of life will be 'dyed red', such as increasing corruption, nepotism and cronyism, the decline of Cantonese and traditional Chinese characters, etc.

The PRC could clean up its corruption you know, it isn't the best in the world. Hong Kong should keep Cantonese and refrain from simplified Chinese if they so feel. The best solution here is for Beijing to leave Hong Kong alone.
triangle.128k
Posts: 3,675
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/3/2016 6:56:37 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 8/3/2016 6:46:45 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 8/3/2016 6:42:46 PM, triangle.128k wrote:
At 8/3/2016 6:23:09 PM, PetersSmith wrote:
At 8/3/2016 5:45:26 PM, triangle.128k wrote:
At 8/3/2016 3:05:12 AM, PetersSmith wrote:
No. If Hong Kong wants their independence they should get it, as well as Taiwan.

Taiwan IS independent...

As in declaring it's sovereignty. If Taiwan called itself independent right now China would destroy it.

No, the ROC still has support from the US and the PRC wouldn't dare to use imperial force against Taiwan.

Also keep in mind Taiwan's military could hold off a PRC invasion for quite a bit of time, and it would cause unnecessary casualties and economic loss for the PRC. So the Mainland would be stupid in declaring war against the ROC.

Also, Taiwan has called itself independent from the PRC...

The tide is changing. The U.S. will, with each passing year, find it increasingly difficult to defend Taiwan were it to be invaded. Furthermore, as it stands right now Taiwan could only hold out for about a month on its own (this was back in 2014, so it'd be at least somewhat shorter today).

Agreed, they're likely going to loose support as time passes. Taiwan's claims to the entire mainland are utter BS. They had plenty of chances to take back the Mainland in the past, but now their claims need to be retracted.

Though I do think the US (with maybe help from other countries) should do their best to support Taiwan. Taiwan can be a useful "pseudo-satellite state" to keep the PRC's power in check, as small as it may be. If we loose Taiwan, essentially we have less power against mainland China.
PetersSmith
Posts: 5,859
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/3/2016 7:04:27 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 8/3/2016 6:42:46 PM, triangle.128k wrote:
At 8/3/2016 6:23:09 PM, PetersSmith wrote:
At 8/3/2016 5:45:26 PM, triangle.128k wrote:
At 8/3/2016 3:05:12 AM, PetersSmith wrote:
No. If Hong Kong wants their independence they should get it, as well as Taiwan.

Taiwan IS independent...

As in declaring it's sovereignty. If Taiwan called itself independent right now China would destroy it.

No, the ROC still has support from the US and the PRC wouldn't dare to use imperial force against Taiwan.

Under the 1992 Consensus, both governments agree that there is only one sovereign state encompassing both mainland China and Taiwan. China claims Taiwan as its territory and anyone who recognizes it as independent are forced to cut all relations off with China. The United States does not recognize Taiwan as independent.

Also keep in mind Taiwan's military could hold off a PRC invasion for quite a bit of time, and it would cause unnecessary casualties and economic loss for the PRC. So the Mainland would be stupid in declaring war against the ROC.

That's highly speculative, but it also doesn't really matter. The Chinese Constitution says, "Taiwan is part of China. The state shall never allow the "Taiwan independence" secessionist forces to make Taiwan secede from China under any name or by any means." The PRC threatened to invade Taiwan should it consider peaceful incorporation not possible (http://www.taiwandc.org...).

Also, Taiwan has called itself independent from the PRC...

Prove this.
Empress of DDO (also Poll and Forum "Maintenance" Moderator)

"The two most important days in your life is the day you were born, and the day you find out why."
~Mark Twain

"Wow"
-Doge

"Don't believe everything you read on the internet just because there's a picture with a quote next to it."
~Abraham Lincoln

Guide to the Polls Section: http://www.debate.org...
SolonKR
Posts: 4,042
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/3/2016 7:30:18 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 8/3/2016 5:36:01 PM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
At 8/3/2016 2:25:18 AM, SolonKR wrote:
I would say, in the case of crime, a candidate cannot run if he is serving a prison term (although the reasons for that are obvious). :P

Well, actually, there's a rather famous case of a member of Eugene V. Debs of the Socialist Party here in the States who ran while imprisoned, winning almost a million votes. https://en.wikipedia.org...

People can and should be allowed to run while openly expressing views different to the current constitution. After all, Hong Kong's Basic Law has a process for amendment, does it not? There's not really a point to that if the Chinese government is going to keep people out of the running based on different views; it's farcical.
This point came to mind too, though I looked up changes to the Basic Law and it appears that although there is a mechanism for changing it (probably too bureaucratic to be implemented it practice), certain principles, like one country, two systems cannot be changed, so independence cannot really be achieved through that in reality.

Then it is the right of Hong Kong to strike down their constitution and forge a new one, if it ever must come to that.
SO to Bailey, the love of my life <3
SolonKR
Posts: 4,042
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/3/2016 8:59:06 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 8/3/2016 7:30:18 PM, SolonKR wrote:
Well, actually, there's a rather famous case of Eugene V. Debs, a member of the Socialist Party here in the States who ran while imprisoned, winning almost a million votes. https://en.wikipedia.org...

Fixed.
SO to Bailey, the love of my life <3
Diqiucun_Cunmin
Posts: 2,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2016 3:05:01 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 8/3/2016 6:34:54 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 8/3/2016 5:58:53 PM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
At 8/3/2016 3:25:20 AM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
The political status of Hong Kong should be determined through democratic means. If the denizens of Hong Kong don't want independence, then they won't elect people who threaten the status quo. If they do want independence, then they should be able to select such people, and to vote in favour of independence whenever enough pro-independence politicians are elected, or else it isn't really democracy. To deny Hong Kong independence in the event that the large majority of Hong Kongers were to desire it would be wrong. Even more wrong is to prohibit democratically elected people from taking office who support independence.

Actually there will be no way of attaining independence, even if the geographical constituencies are filled with secessionists to the brim. The government's Executive Council, not the Legislative Council, has the right of initiative in legislation, so only laws approved by the government can be discussed; and in any case, there are still the functional constituencies, whose elections ensure that the majority of the seats are gained by pro-government politicians. So there isn't a real risk of independence. Tthe government, apparently, just wants to suppress the movement further, which they have to do to avoid looking bad in front of Beijing...

If they suppress dissidents to the regime, then they risk making the movement even stronger. To pacify the Hong Kongers they have to lead them to believe that they live in a free city. If the Hong Kongers no longer believe this to be the case, then they'll protest the government all the more loudly. Right now, Beijing should probably just let the pro-secession politicians be, because if there's no crackdown then those people won't have any real influence over the public.
True, there was quite a bit of anger after this incident.

I don't think the day will ever come that the majority demands independence, tbh. It's just a fad that arose because of the incompetence and moral bankruptcy of the current leader, but it's likely Beijing will learn its lesson and choose a more capable guy next time.

If they don't want independence, then that's fine. I'm not saying that independence should be crammed down their throats. But I think that we can all agree Beijing should give Hong Kong some breathing space.

Yes, that's right. Usually Beijing when it comes to such matters - it's just the local government officials, in their hopes to stick up to Beijing and guess their intentions, that screw things up. :P
The thing is, I hate relativism. I hate relativism more than I hate everything else, excepting, maybe, fibreglass powerboats... What it overlooks, to put it briefly and crudely, is the fixed structure of human nature. - Jerry Fodor

Don't be a stat cynic:
http://www.debate.org...

Response to conservative views on deforestation:
http://www.debate.org...

Topics I'd like to debate (not debating ATM): http://tinyurl.com...