args

Universal Suffrage in Hong Kong

"This would be a matter for political debate in a democracy. For example, a socialist candidate might argue that a developed, civilized society should make health care provisions for all citizens free at the point of use according to need, not the ability to pay, and he might also add that although taxes would rise in order to pay for a nationalised health service, citizens would no longer need to purchase private health insurance." Actually, Hong Kong has medical aid too, that"s why staying in a public hospital is so much cheaper. Also, most of Hong Kong doesn"t pay tax, so if the health insurance increases, taxes have to increase, and ultimately the people who pay tax have to suffer. But of course, LegCo members won"t allow it to happen as no one wants to pay more tax and they need to secure votes, so the Government will end up giving out more money and receiving less as LegCo members will call for tax cuts. "On the other hand, a capitalist candidate might argue that consumers should decide how best to spend their own money, not the government, and that those people who cannot afford private health insurance should rely on their families or charities for support in a medical crisis." This will not happen, as everyone wants a free lunch. All citizens would fight for no tax and huge welfare. "I would suspect that the Hong Kong electorate would overwhelmingly vote for capitalist candidates ahead of socialist candidates but, of course, there is a possibility that I could be wrong. Perhaps the people of Hong Kong are unlike their cousins in Singapore and value social justice more than personal wealth and would vote in a socialist regime." Hong Kong people, just like all other people, are greedy. They vote for candidates that benefit them, financially or otherwise. They vote for people who share their views and beliefs, which may not be the best for the city"s development. Imagine everyone fighting for no tax and huge welfare. What would happen? Due to populism, Hong Kong would become bankrupt. "This statement seems to be self-contradictory but, in any case, it does seem that food is cheaper in the US than Hong Kong, although I have to say that food here in London, like property prices, the cost of fuel and public transport and other major outgoings is higher than either Hong Kong or the US: it is all relative to average income. Furthermore, the exchange rates distort the real cost of living. That said, living in poverty is not easy anywhere, but the opportunities to succeed in Hong Kong are there for those who want to take them, which is not true in many parts of the US or the UK. That's why there is more of a demand for welfare services in Europe and America than there is in Hong Kong or Singapore." I do not understand why my opponent finds my statement self-contradictory. It is easier to be under the poverty line in HK than in US because the things are more expensive. Secondly, as I mentioned earlier, the need for a welfare state does not affect the greed of people. No one will not want things that benefit them. "Finally, regarding popularise in the Legislative Council of Hong Kong, I would suggest that it would be healthy for the members voted in by the Council to be popular with the citizens, enacting popular policies that the people approve of. Surely this is better than having some forelock-tugging technocrat parachuted into power by his political masters in Beijing, accountable not to the citizens but, instead, to his bosses on the unelected Chinese State Council?" Well, firstly, I would like to state that it is not healthy. Sure, it might benefit citizens temporarily, but when the city suffers because of badly implemented policies due to populism, the people are the ones who will suffer! Not only people in Hong Kong, but people who trade with HK companies all over the world! Yes, the LegCo would have the people"s support, but will they have the same support when HK goes bankrupt or its economy goes back to its level in 2003? ""but that does not mean that they should not be entitled to be represented by leaders of their own choosing." I would like to remind my opponent that I am only arguing against universal suffrage in the Legislative Council of Hong Kong. I did not say the Chief Executive could not be elected in that way. The Chief Executive is the highest ranking official in Hong Kong, and together with an un-universal suffrage elected LegCo, they could balance the benefit of the people and the city. I would like to thank my opponent for bringing new ideas into this debate.