Perhaps this should be renamed to 12/4 March? Also, is this name widely used? -- Anon.
- I feel that would be an unhelpful name, as it wouldn't convey a)What the marches were about b)Where they were c)What date they occurred on, to people outside the US, hence making them unlikely to be found by someone searching from memory. My 2p.
57.66.51.165
16:08, 6 December 2005 (UTC)(Skittle)
- The above query was made when this article was titled 124 March. — Insta ntnood 16:30, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
According to Chief Executive of Hong Kong article, the "elected Chief Executive must then be approved by the Central People's Government", but this statement was removed from this article. Is the statement true or false? thks. -- Vsion 06:27, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
- It's true, but it's irrelevant to the protest or electoral reform. A popularly elected Chief Executive by universal suffrage will still be appointed by the Central People's Government in Beijing. —
Insta
ntnood
08:05, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
- It's quite relevant; the entire point of the protest is to call for the economic freedoms and social liberties commonly misidentified as "democracy," and such a system is inherently undemocratic. I find it quite strange that they'd go to all this trouble and not object to the main problem.
Rogue 9
08:55, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
- This was a protest to the government's proposed package of electoral changes. The economy here is free enough (usually ranked as the freest), and civil liberties are basically available. Many PMs are appointed by monarchs or presidents.. is that undemocratic? —
Insta
ntnood
10:31, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
- I notice that according to Basic Law, the correct word is "appointed" not "approved". Therefore except in unusual circumstances, I believe it is just a formality, then Instantnood is correct that it is irrelevant. The protestors are pushing for universal suffrage, not federalism. There are news media who used the word "approved", which is technically inaccurate and misleading. --
Vsion
10:42, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
- I cannot comment if it is simply a formality. Nobody has ever made it clear that whether the CPG can choose not to appoint a candidate-elect. —
Insta
ntnood
11:14, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
- If a person is elected, then appointed, that does mean that the person elected must be approved - even if it is a mere formality. --
Xinoph
17:23, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
- Y..es.. but it's not explicitly stated in the Basic Law, and there's never such a situation, therefore it's only an assumption. — Insta ntnood 17:41, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
- If a person is elected, then appointed, that does mean that the person elected must be approved - even if it is a mere formality. --
Xinoph
17:23, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
- I cannot comment if it is simply a formality. Nobody has ever made it clear that whether the CPG can choose not to appoint a candidate-elect. —
Insta
ntnood
11:14, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
- I notice that according to Basic Law, the correct word is "appointed" not "approved". Therefore except in unusual circumstances, I believe it is just a formality, then Instantnood is correct that it is irrelevant. The protestors are pushing for universal suffrage, not federalism. There are news media who used the word "approved", which is technically inaccurate and misleading. --
Vsion
10:42, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
- This was a protest to the government's proposed package of electoral changes. The economy here is free enough (usually ranked as the freest), and civil liberties are basically available. Many PMs are appointed by monarchs or presidents.. is that undemocratic? —
Insta
ntnood
10:31, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
- It's quite relevant; the entire point of the protest is to call for the economic freedoms and social liberties commonly misidentified as "democracy," and such a system is inherently undemocratic. I find it quite strange that they'd go to all this trouble and not object to the main problem.
Rogue 9
08:55, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
Why was this moved from the original pro-democracy title? No one's disputed that's what these guys were rallying for. Maybe you're not a fan of representative democracy Ruy but that's your own opinion. Dr. Trey 08:02, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
- I agree to move it back. There are many protests in December 2005 alone. — Insta ntnood 08:26, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
Perhaps this should be renamed to 12/4 March? Also, is this name widely used? -- Anon.
- I feel that would be an unhelpful name, as it wouldn't convey a)What the marches were about b)Where they were c)What date they occurred on, to people outside the US, hence making them unlikely to be found by someone searching from memory. My 2p.
57.66.51.165
16:08, 6 December 2005 (UTC)(Skittle)
- The above query was made when this article was titled 124 March. — Insta ntnood 16:30, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
According to Chief Executive of Hong Kong article, the "elected Chief Executive must then be approved by the Central People's Government", but this statement was removed from this article. Is the statement true or false? thks. -- Vsion 06:27, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
- It's true, but it's irrelevant to the protest or electoral reform. A popularly elected Chief Executive by universal suffrage will still be appointed by the Central People's Government in Beijing. —
Insta
ntnood
08:05, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
- It's quite relevant; the entire point of the protest is to call for the economic freedoms and social liberties commonly misidentified as "democracy," and such a system is inherently undemocratic. I find it quite strange that they'd go to all this trouble and not object to the main problem.
Rogue 9
08:55, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
- This was a protest to the government's proposed package of electoral changes. The economy here is free enough (usually ranked as the freest), and civil liberties are basically available. Many PMs are appointed by monarchs or presidents.. is that undemocratic? —
Insta
ntnood
10:31, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
- I notice that according to Basic Law, the correct word is "appointed" not "approved". Therefore except in unusual circumstances, I believe it is just a formality, then Instantnood is correct that it is irrelevant. The protestors are pushing for universal suffrage, not federalism. There are news media who used the word "approved", which is technically inaccurate and misleading. --
Vsion
10:42, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
- I cannot comment if it is simply a formality. Nobody has ever made it clear that whether the CPG can choose not to appoint a candidate-elect. —
Insta
ntnood
11:14, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
- If a person is elected, then appointed, that does mean that the person elected must be approved - even if it is a mere formality. --
Xinoph
17:23, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
- Y..es.. but it's not explicitly stated in the Basic Law, and there's never such a situation, therefore it's only an assumption. — Insta ntnood 17:41, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
- If a person is elected, then appointed, that does mean that the person elected must be approved - even if it is a mere formality. --
Xinoph
17:23, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
- I cannot comment if it is simply a formality. Nobody has ever made it clear that whether the CPG can choose not to appoint a candidate-elect. —
Insta
ntnood
11:14, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
- I notice that according to Basic Law, the correct word is "appointed" not "approved". Therefore except in unusual circumstances, I believe it is just a formality, then Instantnood is correct that it is irrelevant. The protestors are pushing for universal suffrage, not federalism. There are news media who used the word "approved", which is technically inaccurate and misleading. --
Vsion
10:42, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
- This was a protest to the government's proposed package of electoral changes. The economy here is free enough (usually ranked as the freest), and civil liberties are basically available. Many PMs are appointed by monarchs or presidents.. is that undemocratic? —
Insta
ntnood
10:31, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
- It's quite relevant; the entire point of the protest is to call for the economic freedoms and social liberties commonly misidentified as "democracy," and such a system is inherently undemocratic. I find it quite strange that they'd go to all this trouble and not object to the main problem.
Rogue 9
08:55, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
Why was this moved from the original pro-democracy title? No one's disputed that's what these guys were rallying for. Maybe you're not a fan of representative democracy Ruy but that's your own opinion. Dr. Trey 08:02, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
- I agree to move it back. There are many protests in December 2005 alone. — Insta ntnood 08:26, 8 December 2005 (UTC)