zoids

Oh everything not pro-Anson must be pro-PRC, what a great logic.

With this kind of logic, the Americans voted Bush (33% Approval rating according to Washington Post) and TWese voted Ah Bien (below 20% according to interview from Wall Street Jounral).  Obviously they are regretting it now but cannot do anything to impeach him or correct their mistakes.

This is why Democracy won't work in Hong Kong anytime soon, with people have been misled to believe democracy is the only way to go and refused to search for alternatives or make compromises.  More importantly, those supporters who turned a blind eye on Hong Kong's past achievements and their unsustainable lives without PRC's support (even before the reunification).  Hong Kong desperately needs China, not the other way around, without PRC's constant help, Hong Kong would not be the same city as of right now.

zoids

原帖由 kipposhi 於 2007-12-2 14:14 發表
自 稱 中 華 總 商 會 致 電 　 虛 報 更 改 選 舉 編 號
毒 招 「 支 持 陳 太 　 請 投 4 號 」

【本 報 訊 】 左 派 陣 營 昨 於 立 法 會 港 島 區 補 選 投 票 日 最 後 衝 刺 ， 繼 續 向 陳 方 安 生 發 出冷 ...

I despise all those dirty tricks Yip's supporters had resort to do in recent days.  They deserved to be the loser if they cannot fight cleanly, but who knows where are all these sms msgs are coming from?

Revealing Anson's hypocrisy and past scandals are fine (because it proves her credibility as a politician) but spreading lies to misled voters is just plain wrong.

zoids

原帖由 Traum 於 2007-12-2 23:21 發表
Zoids, as far as the by-election is concerned, Apple Daily is pro-Anson. Ming Pao pretends to remain netural when in fact many of their articles and columns side with Yip Lau. And then you have Sing T ...

If you try to state your own opinion as fact, please provide proofs.  Newspaper might not be perfectly neutral (who can define neutral to start with) because readers themselves usually read it with biased mindset already.  That's why your point there is not valid at all.  I just see you throwing out accusations without any proof to back it up.

I used the US and TW for examples because US is considered the land of freedom, democracy, human rights, world police, etc.  That's why it's normal to bring US up for example.  Martin Lee didn't go to other country when he wanted foreign power to intervene China's internal policy.  I used TW because TW is the closest democratic model around China, with very similar cultural values too.

HK is not ready for democracy due to internal and external factors, for one of the internal factors, as you agreed, "a large number of HK people are too short-sighted and have no political ideals at all".  For one of the external factors, it is because HK must relies on PRC to have a sustainable economy and living style, therefore unless the PRC finally decides to let HK have democracy, HK is not ready to have democracy.

However, I think most people are just being misled to only concentrate their focus on the democracy issue to create political value for the opposing parties.  Not having universal suffrage does not mean HK ppl do not have any freedom.  At the end of the day, it's the freedom that really matters.  HK has been ranked the 58th country on 2007 Pree Freedom list by Reporters without Borders, just 2 countries behind USA.  Considered most other countries above HK in the list are western developed countries, and PRC itself is ranked pretty much dead last (163 of 168), HK citizens has pretty much any kind of freedoms as the west except universal suffrage.  It is not hard to see universal suffrage is not permitted simply because it is closely linked with sovereignty issue, and we all know PRC will not bulge an inch on this matter.  HK as of now is already enjoying highest level of autonomy in PRC (Ranked 1st in the eocnomic freedom list by The Heritage Foundation and Wall Street Journal), further asking universal suffrage is simply too much for the current PRC right now.  HK citizens should understand that and be reasonable, instead of chasing the perfect ideal political system they were misled to believe.  The history has shown HK successfully defended their freedom in 2003 by protesting.  HK citizens should know there is limit to everything and should not ask for more unreasonably.  I personally think status quo is the best option right now.

zoids

原帖由 Traum 於 2007-12-3 03:09 發表
王岸然 keeps slamming Anson every single day:
http://wongonyin.mysinablog.com/

李慧玲 slammed Anson for the 100% mortgage thing for the whole week:
http://pshweb01.881903.com/framework/pccs.gateway?u ...

I don't think 王岸然 is slamming Anson without reason.  The whole point of the "mortgage door" incident is exactly what he stated, "法律，是有客觀標準的，不會為個人主觀意志所轉移。一眾泛民小政客包括曾經被誤會為會為法律公義而戰的大狀議員，一個二個為政治利益而變臉，一句抹黑就將解釋的責任推得一乾二淨。法律對這些人物而言，只是律人嚴而律己寬的政治工具，也不應太過意外。"  As far as I know, Anson still haven't provide enough proof on the issue to clean herself up.  Remember I brought up the point that her background is not as clean as the media/politicians portrayed before?  No matter what reason is it, a rule is a rule and everyone should be treated equally.  When the gov't enforce the 70% mortgage rule back in the 90s, the bank you have only gave her 70% maximum.  Remember why we had the 70% mortgage rule at that time?  It is to discourage overheating property investment.  Either way, Anson was corrupted with greed.  She used her high position in the gov't to get around the rule for her SELF INTEREST.  There is no difference as Leung Gum Chong bought his new Lexus given that he knows the tax will be increased.  You and the self called "pro-democracy" ppl distracted the issue by claiming it is throwing mud.  No, this is not throwing mud.  This is called holding Anson credible to what she have done.  On the other hand, what ppl found fault with Reginia Yip was just because she was helping gov't to promote an unpopular law.  Let me say this again, it WAS her RESPONSIBILITY to do that AS A CIVIL SERVANT IN HER THAT PARTICULAR POSITION.  All these should not harm Reginia's credibility as a politician.

It is clearly stated that "The term of office of the Chief Executive of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region shall be five years" in the Article 46 of the Basic Law.  Traum, again you need to learn more about politics before you are throwing out accusations.  Just like many presidents in other countries, Chief Executive can only be in the office for a limited time.  Therefore the voters still can kick Chief Executive out if they want.  You really need to stop this dirt smearing.

No, even they practiced democracy, it won't make the citizen smarter.  If your point was valid, Chen Shui Bian won't be elected again after the first 4 years of bad governance, so is GW Bush.  Did you even remember all those crazy scandal involved in those elections?  Democracy is just an illusion to "majority rules", it is not about what's right or wrong.  It is about who can deceive the most people.  It is just a bunch of liars doing their lip service about a year before the election.

It's true that citizens were pushed to disparity in 2003, but you also need to understand they cannot blame everything to the HKSAR gov't.  HKSAR didn't spread SARS, didn't brought Avian Flu to themsevles, everyone was pissed due to so many unfortunate incidents happened in such a short time and the economy plummeted as normal.  The HKSAR gov't was not wise to promote such unpopular law at that moment, and they suffered the consequence already.  Tung and Reginia resigned.  PRC did not dare to bring it up again in near future.

Finally, you were dead wrong to associate democracy with freedom.  Again, I have stated this issue before, it all boils down to what kind of freedom you want.  Do you agree everyone should have gun ownership freedom?  When people say speech/religion freedom, should people allowed to spread racist messages or cult messages?  Democracy is just one kind of freedom, stop exergeratting it to involve everything.  People who truly understand freedom and democracy will not misled by your false claims.

I am so disappointed at your false accusation again.  I just cannot stand no one here dare to counter your fallacy point by point, I would not even want to spend so much time pointing out where you were wrong.  I was just hoping other LYK can see the other side of the argument instead of being brainwashed by your constantly baseless Hong Kong gov't bashing.

zoids

原帖由 Traum 於 2007-12-5 16:47 發表

While that is a perfectly acceptable opinion, the thing to remember is -- a lot of times, you must choose between the bad and the worse. Even if you think Anson is a poorly qualified candidate (I do  ...

Don't put all the blame to Reginia Yip just because she was involved in the by-election and future election.  2003 protest was caused by a combination of factors, not just Reginia Yip's promotion of Article 23 alone.  You should be shamed for your own closed-minded hatred toward a diligent civil servant and your selective memories.  The more you post, the more it proves HK citizens do not have the open-mindset to choose a right candidate in a democracy system.

zoids

原帖由 Traum 於 2007-12-5 22:55 發表
Zoids, thank you for replying. Unfortunately, I do not agree with any of your points at all.

Well, lemme ask you this -- between Anson's 100% mortgage thing and Yip Lau's Article 23 bad record, which ...

Certainly Anson's 100% mortgage hurt her credibility more than Regina Yip trying to fulfill what her responsibility as Secretary of Security.  You can find fault on her unwise approach, but you cannot fault her on her credibility.  You are obviously blinded by your strong self-claimed "democracy" position to think everyone not agreeing you are anti-democracy.

2nd, that's what exactly I was talking about on the TW issue.  Chen Shui Bian used dirty tricks to scare ppl like you who cannot think critically to vote for him.  Case closed.  You are acting exactly like one of those pan-green supporters.

About the SARS, do you know what you were talking about?  Blaming officials for wide spread?  Do you know it is PRC that hid the fact about the outbreak, so HK officials and doctors are blindsided. HK and Singapore are the first 2 countries to announce compulsory quarantine and stopped school?  Do you have some common sense at all?  SARS is new so no one would have expected it to spread quickly and fatal, how many case the doctors need before they realize it's a dangerous disease?  I think gov't did a good job to quarantine ppl as soon as they realize the danger of it.

In theory, bird flu should not infect human being easily, it just happened that H5N1 is the first virus to adapt to human body.  The speech of Margaret Chan was made before more cases turned up, she was just saying what the past scientific report suggested.  People in the know did not fault her for that, they even credited her for killing all the chickens immediately although many ppl opposed.

Finally, PRC surely would want a tighter political grip, but does that mean Regina Yip is working for PRC?  No, read her platform again, it is very similar to Anson Chan's.  Both are eventually aiming for universal suffrage.  It seems that it is YOU who need to get your fact straight, lyk.

zoids

原帖由 kipposhi 於 2007-12-6 02:39 發表

For the case of GW Bush, I don't think it is nothing wrong for he got elected.  You don't like him.  This doesn't mean US people don't like him.  I don't trust those biasd polls.

One of the reasons  ...

I don't like him because I know he is a lying piece of shit from the begining, and thank you for supporting my point.  In a democratic system, what one needs to win is just to deceive the most people compare to one's opponents.

For Tung's resignation, as little as we know about the truth, if you strongly believe it is due to Jiang's resignation, why didn't PRC fire Tung to earn more political points instead of letting him resign?  Especially if they do not trust Donald Tsang, why let the good old loyal guy quit?  If PRC really doesn't care about HK citizens, why let Donald Tsang be Chief Executive?  They can just hold another election similar to the 1996 one with all the candidates are pro-PRC.

OK, I admit I got it mixed up because Reginia Yip's resignation is very close to the 2003 protest so I take that back.  She resigned on June 25th, citing personal reason.  However, can you see it as some work done to cool down the anti-government atmosphere at least?  Some kind of compromises that rarely seen in PRC?  I think all these can be interpreted either way depends on what you want to believe.