From: anthony@cs.uq.oz.au (Anthony Lee)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.hongkong
Subject: Re: CG and U.K. are both irresponsible
Date: 12 Dec 92 03:24:39 GMT
Reply-To: anthony@cs.uq.oz.au

In <1992Dec7.182919.15919@acd4.acd.com> jjs@iedv7.acd.com ( James J. Song       ) writes:

>But for the recent dispute over the Patton's new plan, I blame him for 

Firstly, would you guy at least spell his name correctly: it is
***Patten*** not Pattern not Patton (Patton was a famous American
general of WWII).

>disturbing peace. Unless he is a complete fool, he should have anticipated 
>the CG's devastating response. But more importantly, can his new plan
>really safeguard the future of the H.K.? H.K. will eventually fall into

Ok, you question is really one of: suppose the Legco seats are
all fully democractically elected by 1997 then would it really
safeguard H.K. ?

Let's for discussion say, suppose all the Legco seats are
democractically elected by 1997.  The CG decided that she doesn't
like any of the legistators.  She have them all arrested and
thrown into prison, what do you think the international community
will say ?  I am sure the U.S. would not just standby and do
nothing.  The point is: once the reforms are in place, it will be
that much harder to reverse.  

Now, let's for discussion, we assume only 1/3 of the Legco seats
are elected by 1997.  The remaining 2/3s are just the puppets of
the CG and will do everything Beijing wants not what the people
of HK want.  Now of the two possibility, which one do you think
will safeguard the future of HK ?

>CG's hand. I do feel that the people in HK should trust CG's promise to
>leave HK the same way as it is for at least another 50 years. My feeling

Do you really believe that ?  Already the CG is trying to turn HK
updside down and you are telling me that CG is going to leave HK
alone for the next 50 years.  Who are you trying to kid, yourself
?  Only if the CG has to deal with a democratically elected
government in HK will we be sure that HK will have some
protection from these gangsters.

>is based on the fact that HK is such a special place in the world that 
>it is benificial to the CG not to do anything to chage it. And another

CG won't change HK, if it serves her purpose not to change.

>fact is that not only the CG has been treating people from HK quite well,
>but also the CG has done a tremendous job to protect HK from being
>affected by the domestic situation in mainland. So if HK people did not

Really, I suppose you won't around in 1967 then ?  My grandfather
do business with China.  In 1967 at the height of the culture
revolution my grandfather had to protest outside the legislative
council.  He had no choice, either do that or risky not getting
any supplies from China.  So you still think the CG treat HK
people well ?

>need much democracy before and now, they have no reason to try to get
>one from the CG in the future. 

Democracy is the safeguard we need, what other forms do you
suggest ?

>While there is no way to really safeguard the people in HK from the 
>irrational behavior of CG after 97 and considering the past experience,
>what is the benifit to irritate the CG now? Besides why didn't the stupid
>UK government work hard to negotiate the same term in the early contract talks? 

Good question, but it is not too late now.

>From the whole HK 97 episode, I have more doubts on the UK goverment for
>taking a good care of HK people than on the CG. I really think this dispute
>is stupid and unneccessary. I believe that it will result in nothing but 
>inflicting pain on the people in HK.

There will be no pain, if the CG accept its responsibility to the
Joint Declaration and let the reforms proceed.
--
Anthony Lee (Time Lord Doctor) (These are my opinions !)
email: anthony@cs.uq.oz.au	voice:+(61)-7-3651204 FAX:+(61)-7-3651999
SNAIL: Department Computer Science, The University of Queensland, 
       St Lucia, Qld 4072, Australia