Dave's ESL Cafe's Student Discussion Forums

[toomuch]

We've a March in protest on July 1.
We believed that more than 10 thousand people will join the campaign.
The major aim of the campaign is against the 23th of the basic law.
The law is overright our human right.
It threaten our liberty of speech(may be I can't talk to all you guy after that law is activate),freedom of publication.
Even if we've got a certain book at home may offend the law.
Do you think it is very horrible?

[Diana]

What exactly does the new law say?

[obelix]

Surely you didn't believe China would keep its word?

[obelix]

China's slow march toward openness took a big leap backward last week.
Beijing forced the leaders in Hong Kong, which China took over in 1997, to put forth tough new laws that would end up stifling political dissent and the media in that major Asian city.

The proposed antisubversion laws aren't likely to be passed by Hong Kong's undemocratic Legislative Council until next year. That should give time for President Bush, who will host the Chinese president on a visit to the US this month, to ask if such measures mean China's Communist Party is more interested in its survival than in freedom and self-rule for its people.

China has so far failed in its handover agreement with Britain to bring democracy to the former colony and abide by its promise of "one country, two systems." That point won't be missed in Taiwan, which distrusts Beijing's offer of autonomy if the island will only return to the motherland.

China's long-term fear is that Hong Kong will be used for massive protests for democracy, as happened during the 1989 Tiananmen crisis. Or that independent groups like the Falun Gong spiritual movement [�].

Such fears wouldn't exist if China, including Hong Kong, would channel dissent through a democracy, and not restrict basic civil liberties.

In fact, the exact wording of the proposed laws hasn't been released for public debate. But in the vague overview, the laws would give police even more powers than they now have in investigating murders. Anyone publishing "seditious" material could be jailed for seven years. And, most important, such actions would lack the checks and balances found in a democratic system.

With the US now restricting civil liberties in its war on terrorism, China may have thought it could get away with this. But a key difference is that a US-type democracy has the corrective ability to restore civil liberties.

[Diana]

I think China should reconsider passing laws restricting civil liberties such as free expression. Then again, they may be more interested in keeping their type of governmental system. When only a few group of people rule for a long time, they tend to like it up there and will find ways to stay up there. I just hope that it doesn't become another "Tiananman Square." China is going to have to realize sooner or later that many young people in China, Hong Kong, and Taiwan favor a more democratic government and civil liberties. And it is these young people who are the future of China.

By the way, I heard that many students in Iran are demonstrating against their own government. Iran's leaders, however, are blaming the US for corrupting their youths.

[wetsmile]

don't you guys think "one country two systems" is little more than just a bridging diplomatic slogan?! when most HKness gradually get used to the mainlanders' way of doing things, i wonder how much will that literal "two systems" mean virtually?! ... but of course, you don't have to take my cynical pessimistic personal opinions that seriously, feel free to hope for the best light-heartedly! good luck ~~~