7 ms·

A significant number of the seats in Hong Kong government are voted/belong to "industry/corporations", and these have been able to decide the Government recentl

A significant number of the seats in Hong Kong government are voted/belong to "industry/corporations", and these have been able to decide the Government recently. China buying control of the corporations will further subvert the democracy.

dontbenebby 7y ago
Sounds like their cup didn't runneth over with democracy even beforehand... that's bizarre. Like a modern House of Lords that just leans into giving corps a seat in government...
- qwanzi77 7y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Functional_constituency_(Hong_Kong) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Functional_constituency_(Hong_... "Pro-democracy supporters criticise the functional constituency system for giving a minority too much power and influence. The right of corporations and legal entities to vote is also controversial, as it gives some individuals multiple votes. For example, in 1998, Sino Group chairman Robert Ng and companies he controlled held roughly 3-4% of the votes in the real estate constituency, according to an analysis by the Hong Kong Human Rights Monitor; they described this as being equivalent in voting power to 15,940 people in a geographical constituency.[5][6] In some functional constituencies, the entire body of eligible voters comprises legal entities that are not natural persons. This is known as corporate voting."
- louthy 7y ago
  Probably more like the Corporation of London https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/City_of_London_Corporation https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/City_of_London_Corporation
- arcticbull 7y ago
  IMO this has to do with Beijing's pushback in the mid 1900s against expanded political freedoms in what I would assume was an anticipation of the end of the 99 year lease on the New Territories [1] and the fact that HK was caught as the middle region in a multi-circle Venn diagram (between China, the UK, the US and other regional powers). They weren't able to really push any one thing too far in any direction without pissing off one of them. So they focused on what they could control: creating an incredibly effective financial center. Corporations in HK don't have nearly as much power in the US as if they pulled to far, someone would come knocking. [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/28/world/asia/china-began-push-against-hong-kong-elections-in-50s.html https://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/28/world/asia/china-began-pu...
hanniabu 7y ago
> A significant number of the seats in Hong Kong government are voted/belong to "industry/corporations" Sounds like they're pulling an America
- Stevvo 7y ago
  It has been this way since 1997; Hong Kong is the only terretory I know of governed by a CEO.
  - dragonwriter 7y ago
    > Hong Kong is the only terretory I know of governed by a CEO Many US counties have a similarly-titled head of government.
  - djcapelis 7y ago
    The City of London has a system not too dissimilar. Note: The City of London is not the same thing as London. It’s real weird.
- jryle70 7y ago
  No, since when America practicing functional constituency [0]? It was invented long before 1997 when HK was still under British rule, nothing to do with China, so I think you can take easy with whataboutism. [0] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Functional_constituency_(Hong_Kong) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Functional_constituency_(Hong_...
  - coliveira 7y ago
    The problems of Hong Kong started with colonization by the British. But of course only now the western journalists are worried.
    - throwaway1997 7y ago
      Most HKers would not see that as a problem. The city thrived under British rule.
sjg007 7y ago
CEOs/industry could be boycotted induce political change. To mitigate that risk, China really should just have elected representatives as a political proxy. Then HK can have the same system we do where corporations really run the show.
daddylonglegs 7y ago
Rather like the City of London then [1] - not the only similarity between the two places. I think the system dates to British rule in Hong Kong, which became partly democratic rather late in the day. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City_of_London#Elections https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City_of_London#Elections note: this is the City of London (~1 square mile) not the metropolis. Edit: ninja'd by louthy and djcapelis
- arcticbull 7y ago
  Towards the end of British rule in Hong Kong the Brits sought to make HK more democratic but were rebuffed by Beijing, as in the 1960s [1]. [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/28/world/asia/china-began-push-against-hong-kong-elections-in-50s.html https://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/28/world/asia/china-began-pu...
  - dirtyid 7y ago
    The original source of this narrative is VJMedia.hk [1], popularized by QZ in English web [2]. VJMedia is operated by RongLeQi who was a member of the League of Social Democrats at the time, aka pro-democrat party who participated in the LegCo oath-taking controversy. Unsurprisingly, it's a fairly biased and disingenuous interpretation of FCO40/327 and the Thatcher memo that border on propaganda. The primary sources quoted in the article has nothing to do with democratic reforms but UK seeking HK sovereignty as a self-governing dominion like Singapore (not just democratic reforms) as an alternative to handover because it would stabilize investor fears - the concerns were purely economic. Obviously China would reject this proposal which basically tried to circumvent handover by making HK dejure independent in 1997. The reason why UK/Patten introduced some democratic reforms near handover was a last minute effort to maintain some political and economic influence over the colony. There was never any effort in the 60s to grant HK democracy within the context of Extension of Hong Kong Territory lease - they asked for sovereignty which was never an option - and what little that was given was a last minute geopolitical power play. [1] https://www.vjmedia.com.hk/articles/2014/01/11/60039 https://www.vjmedia.com.hk/articles/2014/01/11/60039 [2] https://qz.com/279013/the-secret-history-of-hong-kongs-stillborn-democracy/ https://qz.com/279013/the-secret-history-of-hong-kongs-still...
coliveira 7y ago
Companies are buying the American democracy through lobbying and campaign contributions. The disastrous decision of the supreme court called "Citizens United" puts the US in a similar situation as Hong Kong. That's why the flow of foreign money (including Russian money) will not stop to influence US politics in the foreseeable future.
- dantheman 7y ago
  Citizens united was about people not losing their individual rights when they group together. Do you have a problem with someone writing a book about a presidential candidate? If not, why would you have a problem with a movie being released? Do you think newspapers and tv shows should endorse candidates? Or choose which ones to cover and how much to cover? Citizens united is incredibly misunderstood. If anything, the problem is that there is so much money being spent by the federal government that it makes sense to try and and get it.
  - ethbro 7y ago
    Let's not pretend corporations are groups of people.
    - bpodgursky 7y ago
      Let's not pretend the Sierra club and ACLU are _incorporated_ entities whose speech could (and would) be throttled by restrictions on "corporate" spending.
  - mochris 7y ago
    Citizens United was a travesty, beloved only by the naive and the fascist, and I do not believe you are naive.
  - coliveira 7y ago
    That's nonsense. People don't lose their rights when they control a company. They continue having the ability to contribute to whomever they want as an individual. > there is so much money being spent by the federal government that it makes sense to try and and get it. The money spent by the federal government is people's money. Trying to get it is called stealing.
NeedMoreTea 7y ago
"recently"? That's how it was designed by Beijing. Every single Chief Exec since handover has been Beijing's choice, and the legislature balance has always been in Beijing's majority. That's because the proportion of votes to each trade and whether an industry gets a vote at all was decided in proportion of how Beijing sympathetic they were. There's more - Wikipedia has the full absurdity. That is how you create a show democracy, with show elections, and give the impression there is democracy to subvert.

dontbenebby 7y ago

Sounds like their cup didn't runneth over with democracy even beforehand... that's bizarre. Like a modern House of Lords that just leans into giving corps a seat in government...

qwanzi77 7y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Functional_constituency_(Hong_Kong) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Functional_constituency_(Hong_... "Pro-democracy supporters criticise the functional constituency system for giving a minority too much power and influence. The right of corporations and legal entities to vote is also controversial, as it gives some individuals multiple votes. For example, in 1998, Sino Group chairman Robert Ng and companies he controlled held roughly 3-4% of the votes in the real estate constituency, according to an analysis by the Hong Kong Human Rights Monitor; they described this as being equivalent in voting power to 15,940 people in a geographical constituency.[5][6] In some functional constituencies, the entire body of eligible voters comprises legal entities that are not natural persons. This is known as corporate voting."
louthy 7y ago
Probably more like the Corporation of London https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/City_of_London_Corporation https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/City_of_London_Corporation
arcticbull 7y ago
IMO this has to do with Beijing's pushback in the mid 1900s against expanded political freedoms in what I would assume was an anticipation of the end of the 99 year lease on the New Territories [1] and the fact that HK was caught as the middle region in a multi-circle Venn diagram (between China, the UK, the US and other regional powers). They weren't able to really push any one thing too far in any direction without pissing off one of them. So they focused on what they could control: creating an incredibly effective financial center. Corporations in HK don't have nearly as much power in the US as if they pulled to far, someone would come knocking. [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/28/world/asia/china-began-push-against-hong-kong-elections-in-50s.html https://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/28/world/asia/china-began-pu...

hanniabu 7y ago

> A significant number of the seats in Hong Kong government are voted/belong to "industry/corporations" Sounds like they're pulling an America

Stevvo 7y ago
It has been this way since 1997; Hong Kong is the only terretory I know of governed by a CEO.
- dragonwriter 7y ago
  > Hong Kong is the only terretory I know of governed by a CEO Many US counties have a similarly-titled head of government.
- djcapelis 7y ago
  The City of London has a system not too dissimilar. Note: The City of London is not the same thing as London. It’s real weird.
jryle70 7y ago
No, since when America practicing functional constituency [0]? It was invented long before 1997 when HK was still under British rule, nothing to do with China, so I think you can take easy with whataboutism. [0] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Functional_constituency_(Hong_Kong) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Functional_constituency_(Hong_...
- coliveira 7y ago
  The problems of Hong Kong started with colonization by the British. But of course only now the western journalists are worried.
  - throwaway1997 7y ago
    Most HKers would not see that as a problem. The city thrived under British rule.

sjg007 7y ago

CEOs/industry could be boycotted induce political change. To mitigate that risk, China really should just have elected representatives as a political proxy. Then HK can have the same system we do where corporations really run the show.

daddylonglegs 7y ago

Rather like the City of London then [1] - not the only similarity between the two places. I think the system dates to British rule in Hong Kong, which became partly democratic rather late in the day. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City_of_London#Elections https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City_of_London#Elections note: this is the City of London (~1 square mile) not the metropolis. Edit: ninja'd by louthy and djcapelis

arcticbull 7y ago
Towards the end of British rule in Hong Kong the Brits sought to make HK more democratic but were rebuffed by Beijing, as in the 1960s [1]. [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/28/world/asia/china-began-push-against-hong-kong-elections-in-50s.html https://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/28/world/asia/china-began-pu...
- dirtyid 7y ago
  The original source of this narrative is VJMedia.hk [1], popularized by QZ in English web [2]. VJMedia is operated by RongLeQi who was a member of the League of Social Democrats at the time, aka pro-democrat party who participated in the LegCo oath-taking controversy. Unsurprisingly, it's a fairly biased and disingenuous interpretation of FCO40/327 and the Thatcher memo that border on propaganda. The primary sources quoted in the article has nothing to do with democratic reforms but UK seeking HK sovereignty as a self-governing dominion like Singapore (not just democratic reforms) as an alternative to handover because it would stabilize investor fears - the concerns were purely economic. Obviously China would reject this proposal which basically tried to circumvent handover by making HK dejure independent in 1997. The reason why UK/Patten introduced some democratic reforms near handover was a last minute effort to maintain some political and economic influence over the colony. There was never any effort in the 60s to grant HK democracy within the context of Extension of Hong Kong Territory lease - they asked for sovereignty which was never an option - and what little that was given was a last minute geopolitical power play. [1] https://www.vjmedia.com.hk/articles/2014/01/11/60039 https://www.vjmedia.com.hk/articles/2014/01/11/60039 [2] https://qz.com/279013/the-secret-history-of-hong-kongs-stillborn-democracy/ https://qz.com/279013/the-secret-history-of-hong-kongs-still...

coliveira 7y ago

Companies are buying the American democracy through lobbying and campaign contributions. The disastrous decision of the supreme court called "Citizens United" puts the US in a similar situation as Hong Kong. That's why the flow of foreign money (including Russian money) will not stop to influence US politics in the foreseeable future.

dantheman 7y ago
Citizens united was about people not losing their individual rights when they group together. Do you have a problem with someone writing a book about a presidential candidate? If not, why would you have a problem with a movie being released? Do you think newspapers and tv shows should endorse candidates? Or choose which ones to cover and how much to cover? Citizens united is incredibly misunderstood. If anything, the problem is that there is so much money being spent by the federal government that it makes sense to try and and get it.
- ethbro 7y ago
  Let's not pretend corporations are groups of people.
  - bpodgursky 7y ago
    Let's not pretend the Sierra club and ACLU are _incorporated_ entities whose speech could (and would) be throttled by restrictions on "corporate" spending.
- mochris 7y ago
  Citizens United was a travesty, beloved only by the naive and the fascist, and I do not believe you are naive.
- coliveira 7y ago
  That's nonsense. People don't lose their rights when they control a company. They continue having the ability to contribute to whomever they want as an individual. > there is so much money being spent by the federal government that it makes sense to try and and get it. The money spent by the federal government is people's money. Trying to get it is called stealing.

NeedMoreTea 7y ago

"recently"? That's how it was designed by Beijing. Every single Chief Exec since handover has been Beijing's choice, and the legislature balance has always been in Beijing's majority. That's because the proportion of votes to each trade and whether an industry gets a vote at all was decided in proportion of how Beijing sympathetic they were. There's more - Wikipedia has the full absurdity. That is how you create a show democracy, with show elections, and give the impression there is democracy to subvert.