• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Hong Kong police clash with pro-democracy demonstrators

Mizuho

Member
Joined
Sep 28, 2014
Messages
68
Reaction score
29
Location
Hong Kong
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Hong Kong police have used tear gas to disperse pro-democracy protesters outside the main government building, after a week of escalating tensions.

Demonstrators trying to push through police barricades were earlier repelled by pepper spray.

Protesters want the Chinese government to scrap rules allowing it to vet Hong Kong's top leader in the 2017 poll.

Hong Kong Chief Executive CY Leung said the demonstration was "illegal" and elections would go ahead as planned.

In his first public statement since the protests began, Mr Leung also added that consultations would continue.

He said he and his government had "been listening attentively to members of [the] public". But, he said, "resolute" action would be taken against the "illegal demonstration".

Protesters blocked a busy road on Sunday, clashing with police as they tried to join a mass sit-in outside government headquarters.

Police used hand-held cans of pepper spray to drive back the protesters, who defended themselves with umbrellas and face masks.

As evening fell, the police lobbed tear gas canisters into the crowd, scattering some of the protesters.

The BBC's Juliana Liu in Hong Kong described chaotic scenes in the streets around the main government complex.

Jump media playerMedia player helpOut of media player. Press enter to return or tab to continue.
Chief Executive CY Leung said the government was "resolute in opposing the unlawful occupation" by protesters
Despite the tear gas and pepper spray, she said, the large crowds did not appear to be dispersing, moving instead into a park adjacent to the complex.

Thousands joined a sit-in outside government headquarters this weekend, bolstering a week-old protest, which began as a strike by students calling for democratic reforms.

On Saturday night, the leader of Occupy Central, another protest movement, brought forward a planned action to merge it with the sit-in by the students outside the central government building.

A statement by the movement said Mr Leung had "failed to deliver on political reform".

The protesters had also called for further talks but it is not clear how far - if at all - Mr Leung's mention of further consultations will be seen as recognising their demands.

Faith Kwek, a 19-year-old student protester, said Mr Leung's "words are just words".

"I don't think myself or any of the protesters will give in until we see bigger progress in the form of action from him. We don't want our country to surrender to China."

Occupy Central had originally planned to paralyse the central business district next Wednesday, but organisers advanced the protest and changed the location in an apparent bid to harness momentum from student protests outside the government complex.

Student activists had stormed into a courtyard of the complex late on Friday and scuffled with police using pepper spray.

Police said they made more than 60 arrests including prominent student activist leader Joshua Wong.

The BBC's Juliana Liu says that thousands had arrived spontaneously to support the demonstration by students.

Those outside the government buildings plan to stay until they are forcibly removed, she adds.

Police protect a cordon outside government offices in Hong Kong. 28 Sept 2014
Overnight, police protected a cordon outside the government offices
However, some students expressed unease that their protest was apparently being taken over by Occupy Central.

"A lot of students left as soon as Occupy made the announcement they were starting their occupation," said university graduate Vito Leung, 24.

"I think they were really forcing it. This was always a separate student movement with similar goals but different directions. I don't think it should be brought together like this."

Unrest began when the Chinese government announced that candidates for the 2017 chief executive election would first have to be approved by a nominating committee.

Activists have argued that this does not amount to true democracy.

At least 34 people have been injured since the protests began, including four police officers and 11 government staff and guards, authorities said.

BBC News - Hong Kong: Tear gas and clashes at democracy protest

Thoughts? I think it quite unlikely China will back down on this issue.
 
BBC News - Hong Kong: Tear gas and clashes at democracy protest

Thoughts? I think it quite unlikely China will back down on this issue.

I am following that situation with interest. It is really quite dangerous for the Chinese no matter, what the dictatorship does. But it is also quite normal for societies with rigid political systems to become unstable as the population becomes wealthier. But it is more interesting than just Hong Kong. As I understand, the number of uprisings has increased rather profoundly over the past years indicating a broad based disaffection with the political hierarchy, which mean that the danger of spillover must be worrying the Party leaders some. T
I really do not think it makes much difference, whether the lid comes off now or in five years. The danger will mount till the system is opened and as the growth has been widely within a planned economy the imballances must be unhappily large. There is a definite danger of depression to accompany wide spread unrest.
 
Yeah, they will sentence them all to death then harvest their organs...

It's amazing how horrible people can be.
 
Yeah, they will sentence them all to death then harvest their organs...

It's amazing how horrible people can be.

Hong Kong abolished the death penalty in 1993, and hasn't executed anyone since the 1960's.
 
Hong Kong abolished the death penalty in 1993, and hasn't executed anyone since the 1960's.

You actually believe that?

Sorry to mind **** you but they (Chinese) murder people for organs.. You want a heart or liver? guess what they will just murder one of their condemned inmates.... It was so damn terrible that Israel had to pass a law stopping Jews from stealing organs..

I know it seems wild but look it up...
 
You actually believe that?

Sorry to mind **** you but they (Chinese) murder people for organs.. You want a heart or liver? guess what they will just murder one of their condemned inmates.... It was so damn terrible that Israel had to pass a law stopping Jews from stealing organs..

I know it seems wild but look it up...

Yes, and Hong Kong is a special administrative region, with it's own laws and freedoms enshrined in the Basic Law. You think people could protest like this on the mainland? You think I would be able to post on this site in the mainland? Hong Kong is fundamentally different, culturally and legally from mainland China.

I know it seems wild, but look it up...
 
The known propensity of a democracy is to licentiousness which the ambitious call, and ignorant believe to be liberty . Fisher Aimes

I agree, I think this is a silly thing to taking to the streets for, especially when it puts you in direct confrontation with wealthy and illiberal communist China. I can't see any good coming to the people of Hong Kong out of this. Hell, if they could vote, half the people here would probably support the communists anyway if it would make them a buck.
 
Yes, and Hong Kong is a special administrative region, with it's own laws and freedoms enshrined in the Basic Law. You think people could protest like this on the mainland? You think I would be able to post on this site in the mainland? Hong Kong is fundamentally different, culturally and legally from mainland China.

I know it seems wild, but look it up...

I think you don't know what the **** you're talking about.
 
Nice, it's amazing how you even got on this server.....

How many cartoon cops did you have to get through to get here?

Hong Kong has an open and free press. Did you read my link on the basic law? Freedom of speech and freedom of press are enshrined in the Basic Law. It doesn't seem like you know very much about Hong Kong, to be honest.
 
Hong Kong has an open and free press. Did you read my link on the basic law? Freedom of speech and freedom of press are enshrined in the Basic Law. It doesn't seem like you know very much about Hong Kong, to be honest.

Ok "Tank Man" you're delusional....

I don't know who you are but you're not "free."
 
Ok "Tank Man" you're delusional....

I don't know who you are but you're not "free."

None of us are free. If push comes to shove my government, your government and every one else's government would gun them down in the streets to maintain their power. But in terms of legal liberties, Hong Kong is on par with most western democracies and miles ahead of the mainland. The only substantive freedom you have that we don't is the right to vote. A right most American's don't exercise, and which hasn't prevented your government from spying on you, shooting tear gas in your face, or running the country in an incompetent manner.
 
None of us are free. If push comes to shove my government, your government and every one else's government would gun them down in the streets to maintain their power.

Ah, no, actually. One of the benefits of our political system is that our government would not do that, and that' its' military would refuse to do so, if ordered. You lose the election, your butt is out.

But in terms of legal liberties, Hong Kong is on par with most western democracies and miles ahead of the mainland. The only substantive freedom you have that we don't is the right to vote. A right most American's don't exercise, and which hasn't prevented your government from spying on you, shooting tear gas in your face, or running the country in an incompetent manner.

Hong Kong's liberties are degrading - hence the protests (incidentally, yes, there are protests across mainland China. The government simply downplays them, and often the protests are to the central government about local officials)


All in all, my second main take-away from this is that I wonder what the play on this is in Taiwan.
 
None of us are free. If push comes to shove my government, your government and every one else's government would gun them down in the streets to maintain their power. But in terms of legal liberties, Hong Kong is on par with most western democracies and miles ahead of the mainland. The only substantive freedom you have that we don't is the right to vote. A right most American's don't exercise, and which hasn't prevented your government from spying on you, shooting tear gas in your face, or running the country in an incompetent manner.

BS..... I don't believe on word you post...

**** my government - I hate them all - at least I can say it tho.
 
Ah, no, actually. One of the benefits of our political system is that our government would not do that, and that' its' military would refuse to do so, if ordered. You lose the election, your butt is out.

You mean like kent state? How many American's are killed by the police each year? 400? I don't think the police in Hong Kong have killed that many people in the last half century. You are deluded if you think your government would not shoot on protesters if push came to shove.

Hong Kong's liberties are degrading - hence the protests.
That's not the reason for the protests. This has been a long time building. The people of HK were promised universal suffrage in the 2017 election. They got universal suffrage, but the Chinese added the caveat that any candidate has to be approved by a council, the majority of which is pro-beijing. Hong Kong has never had democracy, under British or Chinese rule. And yet it is still a rich, liberal country that puts most western democracies, the USA included, to shame on when it comes to the Human Development Index.

All in all, my second main take-away from this is that I wonder what the play on this is in Taiwan.
Taiwan is in a fundamentally different position from Hong Kong. Hong Kong is a world financial center in large part because of it's ties with the Mainland. The Taiwanese see closer economic ties with the mainland as a threat to their own autonomy and independence (see the April protests in Taipei). Of course, Taiwanese students are in favor of the Hong Kong protesters because they are protesting actions taken by Beijing.
 
I think it quite unlikely China will back down on this issue.

I agree with you. I was in Beijing at the time the White Paper on Hong Kong was released in June and it seemed pretty clear that the Chinese government's views were pretty much set in place. Some symbolic concessions such as increased public input might be offered, but I would be very surprised if direct and open elections are permitted. If the Chinese government were to yield, it would very likely be confronted with a whole range of other challenges, so I just don't see an appetite for great flexibility.
 
You mean like kent state?

1. the government was not threatened at Kent State, the guardsmen were, and so your attempt to draw a parallel to it is invalid.
2. the government was (somewhat) threatened in the response to Kent State, and it did not many any of the decisions that you claim it would.

I've run into the "oh, any government would do that" excuse on the part of CCP apologists before in the Tiananmen discussions, however, I admit, I don't know that I've ever seen a resident of Hong Kong use it. That's interesting.

However, the claim is and remains false. Every couple of years like clockwork we toss out portions of our government, and had Obama lost in 2008, he would not have even had the realistic ability to attempt to protect himself with a military that simply would have refused to follow orders had he done so.

And if they did, well, we have a second Amendment.

How many American's are killed by the police each year? 400?

:shrug: I admit I'm not sure. I am sure that (for example) shooting someone who is engaged in armed robbery has nothing whatsoever to do with "gunning people down in the streets to maintain the administrations' power".

I don't think the police in Hong Kong have killed that many people in the last half century. You are deluded if you think your government would not shoot on protesters if push came to shove.

Push has come to shove. Our government doesn't shoot protesters. They will shoot back at rioters on occasion who devolve into violence. But we have how many major protests a year? Yeesh, did you see any of the anti-Bush anti-war protests? The Battle in Seattle? Occupy Idiocy?

That's not the reason for the protests. This has been a long time building. The people of HK were promised universal suffrage in the 2017 election. They got universal suffrage, but the Chinese added the caveat that any candidate has to be approved by a council, the majority of which is pro-beijing.

Yup.

Hong Kong has never had democracy, under British or Chinese rule. And yet it is still a rich, liberal country that puts most western democracies, the USA included, to shame on when it comes to the Human Development Index.

And the Economic Freedom Index. It's amazing what a little libertarianism can do for you.

Taiwan is in a fundamentally different position from Hong Kong.

One of PRC's pitches to ROC is that they will have the option of choosing a special status like Hong Kongs'. I would bet that the Taiwanese are watching Hong Kong developments very closely.

Taiwan’s pro-independence movement and the government hardly see eye to eye, but thanks to Chinese President Xi Jinping, both sides are singing the same tune: no to “one country, two systems.”

In remarks delivered at a meeting with pro-unification delegates from Taiwan on Friday, Mr. Xi said China took “a firm and unwavering stance” on reunification with Taiwan. He went on to say that the best way to resolve lingering animosity across the Taiwan Strait was to employ the “one country, two systems” framework that governs Beijing’s relationships with Hong Kong and Macau....

It would be interesting to see if the CCP is able to breathe past their fear of internal instability enough to realize they are having potentially net negative strategic effects.
 
Last edited:
I agree with you. I was in Beijing at the time the White Paper on Hong Kong was released in June and it seemed pretty clear that the Chinese government's views were pretty much set in place. Some symbolic concessions such as increased public input might be offered, but I would be very surprised if direct and open elections are permitted. If the Chinese government were to yield, it would very likely be confronted with a whole range of other challenges, so I just don't see an appetite for great flexibility.

Yeah? you're a US/Canadian citizen - you can do whatever the heck you want...
 
Yeah? you're a US/Canadian citizen - you can do whatever the heck you want...

My freedoms as a U.S. citizen have absolutely no bearing on my assessment of the likely outcome in Hong Kong. I just don't see the Chinese government reversing its basic position based on how it defines its interests, goals, and needs. Symbolic or cosmetic concessions might be feasible, but fundamental ones appear very unlikely.
 
My freedoms as a U.S. citizen have absolutely no bearing on my assessment of the likely outcome in Hong Kong. I just don't see the Chinese government reversing its basic position based on how it defines its interests, goals, and needs. Symbolic or cosmetic concessions might be feasible, but fundamental ones appear very unlikely.

You are their interest.....

Think about it...

If you really want to get bold then go to North Korea.
 
1. the government was not threatened at Kent State, the guardsmen were, and so your attempt to draw a parallel to it is invalid.
2. the government was (somewhat) threatened in the response to Kent State, and it did not many any of the decisions that you claim it would
Jackson state in 1970, guardsmen fired on the crowd and killed innocents. You are drawing distinctions where there are none. The fact remains American armed forces HAVE fired on protesters. The Hong Kong police have never done such a thing (yet).

I've run into the "oh, any government would do that" excuse on the part of CCP apologists before in the Tiananmen discussions, however, I admit, I don't know that I've ever seen a resident of Hong Kong use it. That's interesting.
I'm no CCP apologist, but Hong Kong is not Beijing. And yes, any government would do what the hong kong police did. American police routinely use tear gas and pepper spray on unsanctioned demonstrations. Happened in Ferguson just a few weeks ago. They did it to the occupy protesters in wall street. If you protest without a permit and block streets and disrupt public life, every government on earth will use things like tear gas or pepper spray to try to restore order.

If the Hong Kong police start shooting live rounds, then I will change my tone. Until then, they haven't done anything to warrant a comparison with Tiananmen and only have responded in the way every other metropolitan police force would.

However, the claim is and remains false. Every couple of years like clockwork we toss out portions of our government, and had Obama lost in 2008, he would not have even had the realistic ability to attempt to protect himself with a military that simply would have refused to follow orders had he done so.

And if they did, well, we have a second Amendment.
No one here is trying to over throw the government. Your point however, remains invalid. Lets not forget about the civil war, where the federal government literally went to war to prevent a section of their country from trying to leave. I just find it amusing that there are multiple instances of where the military actually has killed protesting civilians in the US, while there are zero such instances in Hong Kong. Yet you are the one insisting it can't happen?


:shrug: I admit I'm not sure. I am sure that (for example) shooting someone who is engaged in armed robbery has nothing whatsoever to do with "gunning people down in the streets to maintain the administrations' power".
How many innocent people or unarmed people have been killed by the police, just this year, that we got on video. Again, I have to laugh. I don't think the police in Hong Kong have gunned down anyone in years. There are two videos of the police shooting unarmed people in the USA just this week. Like I said, you seem to be throwing a lot of stones for someone who lives in a place where the police regularly take the lives of citizens. That does NOT happen here.


Push has come to shove. Our government doesn't shoot protesters. They will shoot back at rioters on occasion who devolve into violence. But we have how many major protests a year? Yeesh, did you see any of the anti-Bush anti-war protests? The Battle in Seattle? Occupy Idiocy?

Yup.

You shot protesters at kent state. And at jackson state. Hong Kong has ZERO such incidents. Your government shoots 400 citizens a year without trial. The police here almost never shoot anyone. You can argue they are all rioters or criminals, but we actually have video evidence to prove that many of these people were not a threat or were not doing anything to warrant getting shot. You come from a place where there are more instances of police shooting unarmed people on video than there are instances of the police shooting anyone, bank robbers and gangsters included, here.

And the Economic Freedom Index. It's amazing what a little libertarianism can do for you.
Yes, but none of that had anything to do with democracy. Democracy is not equivalent to proper governance. Proper governance does not require democracy.
 
I agree with you. I was in Beijing at the time the White Paper on Hong Kong was released in June and it seemed pretty clear that the Chinese government's views were pretty much set in place. Some symbolic concessions such as increased public input might be offered, but I would be very surprised if direct and open elections are permitted. If the Chinese government were to yield, it would very likely be confronted with a whole range of other challenges, so I just don't see an appetite for great flexibility.

Xi has put himself in a tough position. His anti-corruption campaign and consolidation of power has no doubt made him many enemies who are just waiting for him to mess up. He can't afford to have PLA soldiers shooting people in the streets of Hong Kong. At the same time, he certainly cannot afford to have protests like this popping up in the Mainland. There is simply no way he can back down now. I think we have already seen his next move, as he summoned all the wealthy tycoons of Hong Kong to Beijing for a photo opportunity and a pep talk. As usual, money talks and he hopes by putting economic pressure on those with a vested interest in the status quo in Hong Kong, he can make the business and political community here bring an end to the protests. It will probably work. I know many a banker who aren't happy with the traffic and the market's performance today.

Let's also not forget Xi is very much in the Putin mold, and has made numerous hints that he believes the Soviet Union fell because the leaders didn't have the heart to stamp out the opposition in 89 and 90. He may be in a lose-lose position, but I think it's clear he will go the Tiananmen route before he will concede to pro-democracy activists.
 
Back
Top Bottom