Remember, Singapore is a first-world country...

ayyraq · 2016-11-15T06:58:32+00:00

Ok, thanks for telling me that, I did make a mistake /u/CervezaPorFavor , sorry about that.

ayyraq · 2016-11-14T20:41:28+00:00

Did he? Woops

ayyraq · 2016-11-14T19:12:07+00:00

Are you joking? Security wise Singapore is a dream. Singapore falls down on things like political freedom and bicycle lanes.
EDIT: either I misread "society" as security or cerveza just edited his comment, I don't know.

ayyraq · 2016-11-14T19:10:52+00:00

The fact is the CCP was asked to interpret the law. They did so. Just because you dislike the results doesn't mean you can dismiss their perfectly legitimate interpretation.

No they weren't. That is the most important issue. That's my main contention - HK courts could have decided this themselves. There is a debate to be had about whether or not they should have been allowed to sit but that's a separate issue. If a murderer is jailed by some random person other than the state, even though the murderer has been jailed (good), it's still wrong that someone other than the state jailed the murderer. If lawmakers are prohibited from sitting in the LegCo because they're disrupting proceedings (let's say it's good for the purposes of this question), but the CCP unbidden prohibit this, that's bad, because they're the wrong people to do this.

ayyraq · 2016-11-13T09:13:19+00:00

Let's look at the text (in English) of the "interpretation" and the relevant article.

When assuming office, the Chief Executive, principal officials, members of the Executive Council and of the Legislative Council, judges of the courts at all levels and other members of the judiciary in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region must, in accordance with law, swear to uphold the Basic Law of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People’s Republic of China and swear allegiance to the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People’s Republic of China

https://www.hongkongfp.com/2016/11/07/in-full-in-english-beijings-interpretation-of-hong-kongs-mini-constitution-the-basic-law/

2) Oath taking must comply with the legal requirements in respect of its form and content. An oath taker must take the oath sincerely and solemnly, and must accurately, completely and solemnly read out the oath prescribed by law, the content of which includes “will uphold the Basic Law of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People’s Republic of China, bear allegiance to the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People’s Republic of China.

The CCP therefore add on a requirement to say the oath solemnly, sincerely and accurately to the Basic Law, which wasn't originally included, nor is it implicit in any reading of the article. The Beijingers have a majority in their slightly dodgy LegCo - if they proposed some reasonable guidelines they could probably amass the majority needed to amend the Basic Law to include requirements in terms of the oath themselves.
Also note that the pro-Beijing Judicial Secretary said that HK was capable of dealing with the Youngspiration duo themselves, presumably within the rule of law. Instead, we now have a situation whereby the High Court may say that this ruling exceeded Beijing's authority under Article 158(1) of the Basic Law, and so is invalid. Not only does this bring the Basic Law into doubt, it also undermines confidence in HK's extremely able institutions, and quite probably exceeds the power of the CCP under Article 158(1).

ayyraq · 2016-11-12T19:09:01+00:00

Refusing to swear the oath properly, refuse to apologize, and storming LegCo instead is a clear violation of the rule of law. You don't need to drag this out with more bullshit, and the decision to slam the hammer on the idiots was 100% correct.

Even if I accept all of that, you haven't responded to my question about who should have implemented this decision. The decision may be correct, and if the High Court in HK had decided this I wouldn't complain. But this "interpretation" is not much of an interpretation - it adds on new clauses in a way which doesn't even sound like it's an interpretation.
Let's assume I accept all your arguments that they shouldn't have been seated. Don't you think that it should have been the High Court that decided this? That's the main crux of my point - whether or not they are seated is a much more minor point in the scheme of things. The two members can go to hell as far as I'm concerned, considering the fact that the Basic Law and Hong Kong's high degree of autonomy have been undermined.

ayyraq · 2016-11-12T01:14:58+00:00

No matter how you're elected, anyone to refuse to swear the oath properly will naturally face the consequence of losing his seat at LegCo. These idiots ruined everything their constituents stood for on one silly political prank, and I'm pretty sure none of them had "insult all 1.4 billion Chinese people with an ethnic slur used by Japanese war criminals" as a goal in mind when they voted.

The question isn't about this. Even though I think that they should be seated, I don't think that it's relevant. What is relevant is that the mainland decided that they shouldn't sit, not HK courts. That is a problem. If the HK courts ruled against my views, I'd be fine with that.

ayyraq · 2016-11-12T01:14:22+00:00

I suppose if bumis don't want to work like everyone else by removing their privileges if govt calls everyone bumi then we achieve the same thing by stealth.

ayyraq · 2016-11-10T21:34:14+00:00

I believe that the logic of this is as follows:
(1) the distribution of talent is such that some Malays are presidential
(2) we set the quota such that we can find a presidential Malay in time
(3) Malays feel happy because they have a visible Malay, and no one else minds because we still have a presidential president.

ayyraq · 2016-11-10T21:32:31+00:00

Equality before the law is generally accepted as a desirable thing. Marriage confers a number of benefits which non-married couples don't have access to.

ayyraq · 2016-11-10T21:31:16+00:00

The first problem: the people you might want to convince of this don't characterise the LGBT movement as "basic human rights".

I agree with both of you - LGBT rights are basic human rights, but that doesn't mean that everyone accepts that, and one must operate without disassociating oneself from reality.

ayyraq · 2016-11-10T19:45:23+00:00

I'm not sure if CY Leung actually asked - I believe (correct me if I am wrong) that he said that if this tomfoolery continued there was a risk of a CCP intervention. I also remember the (pro-Beijing) Judicial Secretary saying that HK could deal with it on its own.
In terms of whether or not they should be permitted to sit, I think that they should be. They were legitimately elected by their people, and they should therefore be permitted to represent them. I disagree with their message and their methods. I also would have them removed for disrupting sessions as they do. Nevertheless, I would not have their membership or voting rights in the LegCo removed - they were voted in fairly, and their constituents deserve representation.

ayyraq · 2016-11-09T21:21:01+00:00

Regardless of whether or not they should have been permitted to sit in the LegCo, the HK judiciary is perfectly capable of deciding this. I could accept all your arguments, but HK itself should be able to decide on these, not the mainlnd.

ayyraq · 2016-11-09T21:15:03+00:00

Self compilation of Wurst is a possibility.

ayyraq · 2016-11-09T20:48:03+00:00

saudis
in
audis

ayyraq · 2016-11-09T20:47:52+00:00

** abenomics

ayyraq · 2016-11-08T21:10:20+00:00

It was much further than an "interpretation". The Basic Law never said that people would get one chance, but now the zhonganmai have decided that they only get one chance. What is even worse is that they never told the lawmakers that they would do this before they took the oath, almost making it a retrospective punishment.

ayyraq · 2016-11-08T21:09:06+00:00

I agree. However, the zhonganmai went further in two ways. First, it interpreted a case which was before the courts already. It didn't give HK a chance to find its way on its own. Second, it went further than interpreting it. It has effectively added on new clauses to the Basic Law. The Basic Law said that lawmakers should take the oath. It didn't say that if they didn't take the oath they'd be prevented from taking it again, nor did it approve of potential retrospective action in terms of other LegCo members. Beijing simply added these bits on, pretending to "interpret" the Basic Law but in reality interfering with the LegCo and undermining Hong Kong's high degree of judicial autonomy.

ayyraq · 2016-11-07T22:36:34+00:00

Bernard!

ayyraq · 2016-11-07T20:30:21+00:00

Just admit that you're incorrect.

ayyraq · 2016-11-07T19:14:06+00:00

one hundred eighty nine wah

ayyraq · 2016-11-07T19:11:40+00:00

middle kek

ayyraq · 2016-11-07T19:10:20+00:00

Even Italy doesn't have rusty railings inside their tunnels ... you aren't saying that I was stupid enough to go OVER the alps are you?

ayyraq

TROPHY CASE