kipposhi

原帖由 zoids 於 2007-12-5 17:28 發表
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.

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 for Tung forced to resign probably was Jiang Zemin's resignation from Chairman of the Central Military Commission.  Otherwise, Tung might be able to finish 10 years term.

Regina resigned not because of 500K protest on July 1st.  Before July 1st, even 1470's 張無忌 said that Regina's friends knew that Regina planned to go to US with her daughter already.  Don't be too naive that Chinese Communist Party would really care what HK citizens' needs.

peter236

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  ...

You know, Anson Chan is a respectful person, and therefore she has to come clean about her shady business dealings. Every buyer, no matter how rich, has to follow the mortgage rules set by the HK Monetary Authority. In particular, HK's real estate prices became a bubble during her tenure pre-1997. A person with shady pasts is untrustworthy and should be removed from office.

You asked what does Anson's 100% mortgage incident amount to? It amounts to preferential treatment and even violation of laws. Don't you understand, you smartie?

As for Yip Lau, she has not committed any crimes. She was just carrying out government policies. At least, she is consistent with her past position, instead of 除了忽然民主，更是忽然民生.

The Article 23 is just securities laws. Even the US and other western countries have these laws to protect them from terrorists attacks. HK people who protested were misled by those anti-Hong Kong smarties. So why shouldn't HK have these laws?

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.

kipposhi

原帖由 zoids 於 2007-12-6 04:54 發表


I don't like him because I know he is a lying piece of **** 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 peopl ...

Sorry, you got something wrong.  I am not for your point that "in a democratic system, what one needs to win is just to deceive the most people compare to one's opponents."

If central government fired Tung, then this would mean they picked the wrong person for HKSARS CEO even I believe Tung really got fired.  Letting Tung "resign" means that grandfather did not pick the wrong person.  Tung got fired probably because of politics inside communist party. Don't forget that the central government probably has never admitted that they did anything (including Cultural Revolution, Tienanmen massacre) wrong.  What grandfather did may be to stabilize their power and to "have face".  They picked Donald because none of the dogs can do a good job for reviving the economy.

Regina planned to go to US almost a year ago before the protest in 2003.  She would resign even she did not promote Article 23.

kipposhi

原帖由 peter236 於 2007-12-6 03:19 發表


You know, Anson Chan is a respectful person, and therefore she has to come clean about her shady business dealings. Every buyer, no matter how rich, has to follow the mortgage rules set by the HK Mo ...

US and other western countries indeed have Article 23-like law, but they have democracy which HK doesn't have.