Nominating Committee Interest Form: Fill & Download for Free

Here is the election committeeElection CommitteeYou'll notice that there are no students on it, and no obvious way that a student can get on the committee or have their views represented.You'll also notice that the committee is very, very heavily weighted toward the big corporations and tycoons. For example, the Finance sector has 18 seats, these are voted on by 136 companies. The Financial services sector has 18 seats, these are voted on by about 100 companies. Etc. Etc. Etc. Etc.So the problem is that there is no way for a student or someone who has interests similar to students to get on the nominations committee.The problem was that in August the NPCSC issued a ruling that said that the election committee/nominations cannot change. However, the Hong Kong government has restated (just yesterday) this by saying that the national laws that form the election/nominations committee can't change, but that the details of the committee, which is determined by local law can change.This changes things a lot. The thing about the NPCSC decision is that Beijing ultimately interprets the law, and in August, it seemed clear to everyone that Beijing would interpret the law to prevent any changes from happened to the nominations committee. Beijing and the HKSAR government are now giving hints that they are willing to consider changes in the details. However, they are not willing to say this explicitly or issue any binding instructions, because they want the option of changing their mind back again.One thing that I'm positive will come out of this is that the Hong Kong Federation of Students will get seats (probably 18 seats) out of this. But this opens the question that if the HK students can get seats then why not Quora users. Why indeed.One model for how to open things up is the Information Technology seats. Those are pretty open. Personally, now the government has offered to open things up, I think there need to be seats for angel investors, small startup companies, and bitcoin users.I'm going to actively (and seriously) campaign for a seat for Quora users.

Saying the basic law is a lie is too simplistic, but there are certainly important promises that have been broken, at least in spirit.Interpretations by the NPCUnder the basic law the National Peoples' Congress has the power to interpret provisions the basic law. Some of these "interpretations" seem to contradict the plain text of the Basic Law and thus are more like wholesale revisions.The most blatant instance was the interpretation in 2004 which stipulated that any change to the procedures for forming the Legislative Council (LegCo) would require the approval of the NPC (the Basic Law requires that the change "be reported to the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress for the record").Half of LegCo is made up of "functional constituencies" -- representatives of industry sectors and other special-interest groups (the other half comes from geographic constituencies). This system is wildly unrepresentative and directly enables widespread rent-seeking by the tycoon class in vast swaths of the economy (particularly in property, utilities, construction, and telecoms). But HK is forced to stick with it because it is an important lever of control for the central government Which brings me to:De-facto lack of autonomyIn theory, the Hong Kong government represents the interests of Hong Kong under the principle of "Hong Kong people running Hong Kong". In practice, the central government exercises substantial influence, mostly behind the scenes, in both the Legislative and Executive branches.In LegCo, the central government mainly works through influence over the functional constituencies -- largely representatives of industry who are easily made to fall in line with favors or threats. Most have interests on the mainland and can't afford to cross the central government. Control over the election committee that selects the Chief Executive works similarly, but even fewer seats are selected in a way that can be considered at all democraticFurthermore, it is widely understood that the Executive branch makes important decisions in "consultation" with Chinese officials. There is a lot of (sometimes very awkward) pretending by Hong Kong officials that decisions heavily influenced by Beijing were made locally.Word games around "universal suffrage"One of the most important and contentious provisions of the Basic Law is this:The ultimate aim is the selection of the Chief Executive by universal suffrage upon nomination by a broadly representative nominating committee in accordance with democratic procedures.To Hong Kongers (and, I think, anyone else objectively reading the text) this was and is clearly a promise of eventual "democracy", with the role of the nominating committee circumscribed by requirements that it be "broadly representative" and "in accordance with democratic procedures".The government dragged its feet on implementing this provision for the first 20 years, making no progress at all towards universal suffrage ("one country two systems" is only supposed to last for 50 years). Now in 2017 we are finally supposed to get universal suffrage. But all indications are that the nominating committee will be constituted similarly to the Election Committee -- which makes a mockery of "broadly representative" and "democratic procedures".Is "universal suffrage" meaningful at all if everyone can vote but there is pre-screening of candidates such that only a select few can stand? Can we say a nomination committee is "broadly representative" if it is designed to give each property tycoon representation equivalent to tens of thousands of ordinary voters? Sadly that seems to be the direction we are heading.------------------------------In summary -- it is undeniable that HK has been allowed to keep a separate system based on common law and an important set of basic rights (freedom of speech and assembly) are still mostly respected. The Basic Law is not a lie. But there is a long trail of broken promises. To say China has kept its end of the bargain, just because the government doesn't declare martial law to put down demonstrations or round up politicians with anti-establishment views, is in my view setting the bar way too low.

Thanks for the A2A.Really, what it comes down to is that the nominating committee has very specific tastes. For a while, there were a lot of artists to be inducted who were so huge that your personal tastes didn't matter—-even if you don't personally like, say, James Brown or Pink Floyd that much, it is clear that they are Hall of Famers. But having run out of those giants, but continuing to want to induct artists from the 60s and 70s (the nominating committee has, unfortunately, lost interest in the 50s), they tend toward what they like. What they like is mostly, from a radio perspective, the triple-A format, with an emphasis on folk and blues influences. There's some love for “alternative” rock and its roots, too. Generally NOT in their wheelhouse are poppier sounds, metal, modern forms of R&B, and, most relevant here, prog. The result is that the likes of Laura Nyro and the Paul Butterfield Blues Band are in, while artists with far more commercial success, innovation, and influence, such as Janet Jackson, are not. Ask the Hall, and they'll tell you it's all about “musical excellence”, although Jackson has received lots of critical acclaim over the years.So, the Moody Blues. If “musical excellence” is measured by critical acclaim, they don't do as well as some candidates, but certainly not badly. If you interpret the term in terms of technical proficiency, they'd be well ahead of most groups in the Hall. If you ask me, their overall acclaim, commercial success, and influence ought to have gotten them in by now. They aren't, in my view, the worst snub out there, but they're more deserving than some who are in there.The good news, assuming you'd like to see them get in, though, is that although the larger voting body has made some mistakes, they tend to be open to these kinds of artists. A lot of the poppier artists who waited many years to be nominated (McCartney, Hall & Oates, Neil Diamond) got in the first time they did appear on the ballot. While those artists don't have much in common with the Moodies musically (notwithstanding that their original singer was Macca’s right-hand man for a decade), in recent years some artists who are up that alley have appeared on the ballot and been voted in: Chicago, ELO, Journey, and, most of all, Yes. My guess is that the Moody Blues will finally get on the ballot in the next year or two, and if they do I'd give them over a 75% chance of getting in the first time.