and, in the "No Democracy Please, We're Chinese" department

[winterbadger]

"If too many legislators advocate democracy, I don't think it would be good for Hong Kong's business environment," said Dorothy Chow, 30, an office clerk who said she voted for a slate of candidates from the largest pro-Beijing party, the Democratic Alliance for the Betterment of Hong Kong.

from the Post

I'm sure they must have a People's Assembly for Empowering the Environment that fights against clean air and water standards and a Workers' Health and Safety Cooperative Movement that ensures that businesses don't have to actually pay to protect their workers from their manufacturing processes or give them health- or child care.

Comments

[peaceful-fox.livejournal.com]

"Pollsters estimated that 60 to 67 percent of voters had cast ballots for pro-democracy candidates, possibly setting a new record for the camp. But the showing was not enough to overcome an electoral system designed to keep allies of the Chinese government in control of the legislature."

GRRRR.

I heard almost 56% of the population turned out for the elections.

[kevinrtaylor.livejournal.com]

Not knowing how it translates into Chinese, I'm wondering how many saw "Democratic Alliance" and voted for that party thinking that they were voting pro-democracy.
Similar things have happened here, with candidates from minor parties grabbing a disproportionate share of the vote by inventing party names containing the name of one of the major parties as an adjective.
I don't remember details, but imagine for instance a far left wing candidate standing as a "People's Republican".

[robbysmom.livejournal.com]

All Things Considered reported on this in Hong Kong last week. it seems this is all complicated by tax policy-- big surprise. it seems that average citizens do not pay taxes; and the expressed concern of business elites) who do is that of course folks will vote for and advocate policies like, you know, a social safety net or infrastructuire improvements or I dunno community policing, progressive health care delivery, etc. that wll cost lots of money that the same folks woudl not have to contribute to the public purse. At the same time, folks who do not now have a real franchise do not want to begin to pay (more) taxes, according to the democratic activists interviewed.

This is from 2000:

"The government recognizes the need to restructure the tax system. First, Hong Kong’s tax base remains extremely narrow. Only about 1.3 million of the territory’s 6.8 million residents pay income taxes, and a mere 10% of those who do pay contribute more than 80% of the total."
http://www.chinaonline.com/commentary_analysis/instreform/currentnews/secure/c000131joung.asp

This month, the Cato Institute published an assessment of the effects of expanding suffrage on the fiscal policy and economic health of Hong Kong:

"the government has increased in the corporate income tax from 16 percent to 17.5 percent, raised the standard tax rate on personal income from 15.5 percent to 16 percent, and will introduce a sales tax in the next several years. Hong Kong also faces serious political challenges as the mainland delays universal suffrage and more closely monitors activists."

"When Hong Kong does achieve democracy, that political watershed could be a curse as well as a blessing. It would be a curse if it allowed voters to use the force of legislation to plunder private property by redistributing it to special interest groups in the name of "social justice." The expansion of the welfare/regulatory state would endanger both economic and personal freedom in Hong Kong."

Nst business, limting suffrage to ensure the continued domination of workers. And note that proposal for a regressive sales tax. Hong Kong has a structural deficit. . .

[winterbadger]

I love that in a recent discussion I had with one of those "jam tomorrow" libertarians, he asserted that Hong Kong was one of the only true capitalist systems in the world (his contention was that all the others are not really capialtist at all, but "cronyist"). Conscious that my actual knowledge of HK economics was restricted to (a) 20 years a go and (b) seen through James Clavell's semifictional lens, knowing I didn't want to bother looking up the actual details, and fairly sure in any case that even if I did there was no way I would convince him that the real world didn't interesect with his fantasy world, I just left it. Imagine my amusement to be told that the HK tax structure currently does all the things he was arguing vehemently *agaisnt*...