‘Apple Daily’ Shamefully Seeks for the US to Interfere

[unhappycamper]

http://watchingamerica.com/News/241706/apple-daily-shamefully-seeks-for-the-us-to-interfere/

‘Apple Daily’ Shamefully Seeks for the US to Interfere
Takungpao, China
By Guan Zhao
Translated By Darius Vukasinovic
27 June 2014
Edited by Gillian Palmer

With “Occupy Central” mobilizing and the June 22 referendum still in progress, Hong Kong’s “Apple Daily” has ventured into the fray. Blasting its war trumpet, the paper printed responses from both the U.S. and U.K. consulates in Hong Kong regarding their “inquiries” into the region’s “referendum.” The result was a decidedly inappropriate response from the U.S. Department of State spokesperson, while the U.K. consulate added its own tidbit: “We refuse to comment.”*

According to Apple’s article, the response from the U.S. Department of State indicates fundamental support for the legal position guaranteeing international recognition of basic freedoms. Apple also stated that “if the SAR Chief Executive election provides Hong Kong citizens with genuine choices in the election process, it will reflect the true desires of voters and increase the performance of the chief executive that is elected to office.”

In truth, we can say this response from the U.S. Department of State is more like “speaking is saying nothing.” To begin with, how can Apple Daily make this statement that “if the SAR Chief Executive election provides Hong Kong citizens with genuine choices in the election process, it will reflect the true desires of voters and increase the performance of the Chief Executive that is elected to office?” When voting in the SAR is carried out in accordance with the Basic Law, and using Hong Kong’s one person, one vote system, how can it be said that the outcome will not be a “genuine election?” And how can the person elected also not represent the people’s “true will?” If we say that they can’t, then how can the U.S. Department of State determine what a “genuine election” for the Hong Kong people is, and how can they know the “true will” of the Hong Kong citizenry? Do they believe that by allowing opposition — letting Martin Lee, Anson Chan, Joseph Zen and others run for Chief Executive — there will not be a “genuine election” that represents “the people’s will?” Does the legally sanctioned general suffrage in Hong Kong not truly provide the people with a “genuine election” that represents their “true desires”?

The crux of the argument here is that the 2017 Chief Executive election is absolutely constitutional and follows due legal processes. Moreover, it is a matter of China’s internal politics — the affairs of which should be the dominion of the Chinese Hong Kong SAR only. Foreigners shouldn’t be interfering in these matters at all. Who cares about the U.S. Department of State “sticking its nose into other people’s business” and spouting nonsense over the “people’s will” and “genuine choices”?

[MisterP]

1. their approach is literally called "evangelism marketing"

so of course it's gonna end up like a cross between Exxon and Jonestown