Talk:Tung Chee Hwa's resignation

To split and merge?
Could we please just merge this article into that of Tung Chee Hwa himself? You will never find an article with such a name in any encyclopedias. Colipon+(T) 06:20, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * There's some consequences following his resignation, for instance the dispute among legal experts on the length of the term of office of his sucessor. &mdash; Instantnood 08:12, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)


 * Actually it's not clear that a separate article like this is needed. About 2/3 can go back to TCH article, and another 1/3 should go into the 2005 elections article. What do you think, Instantnood? Fuzheado | Talk 09:49, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Fuzheado. The consequences of his resignation pertain to the election. Let's merge. --Jiang 14:45, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * I tend to keep this article here. It is a record of an event. The election article should be about the election itself. I am open on renaming the title to a more appropriate one, for instance "Tung Chee Hwa's resignation and its consequences". &mdash; Instantnood 21:13, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)

Not every event deserves its own article. I still dont see a reason this one does. What is the reason? The resignation section belongs at Tung's bio, and the election/contenders section belongs at the election page. The election page also needs a background section, which will duplicate everything here and make this article redundant--Jiang 01:50, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * If it is split into the two existing articles, there will also be some overlapping. I tend to keep this article, and let it serves as the main article of a section for those two articles.
 * The event and its aftermath is an important event in Hong Kong's politics and history. The dispute on the length of term of office, and the contenders, will all be settled before the election can be held, and they are not part of the election. &mdash; Instantnood 08:46, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)

This article isn't really long and the election article fails to provide adequate information on this so I don't see how this could serve as a "main article". Our election articles often provide extensive background info (e.g. ROC presidential election, 2004) so all of this is fully relevant there. I don't see where else that we have provided an entire article devoted to a single resignation (is there a precedent). Any significance of this built up with time and belongs in Tung's biography and History of Hong Kong.--Jiang 09:36, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * His resignation is just a prelude to the election and is somehow irrelevant to the election itself. The electoral commission has not announced the details or arrangments of the election and there's not much to write on. The background information, which is already included, are the relevent articles in the Basic Law and the CE Election Ordinance. It was an anonymous contributor who started the 2005 election article, and I have been chasing after her/him for days, modifying and tidying her/his edits. I have left her/him messages, but she/he hasn't responded.
 * Some of the political events in Hong Kong are now sections under the article Politics of Hong Kong, with main articles on their own. This event is no exception. &mdash; Instantnood 10:10, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)

Of course, this is to be split, not merely copied at two place. This is one of the reasons this article shouldnt exist. The content at "The contenders" and "Election or byelection" sections are not discussed at the election page and should be. Any details about Tung's resignation should be at his bio unless the page gets too large (which it is far from obtaining). --Jiang 10:16, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid this is not the case. "The contenders" section is about those who are reportedly to be interested to join the race, although some has denied. The "Election or byelection" dispute is an outcome of C H Tung's resignation. Both are not part of the election to be held. The contenders won't probably join the election, and the dispute would have be settled at the time the election is held. The background of the election is the relevent Basic Law articles, and the to be modified version of the CE Election Ordinance.
 * This is a single event in Hong Kong's history and political development, and should be an article on its own. &mdash; Instantnood 10:54, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)


 * Instant, have been seeing it both ways, from your way and what Jiang and I have mentioned. But I still think the resignation is a "point" in time, it is not really the subject of an article. It is the aftermath of the resignation (ie. the election thereafter) that is the real newsmaker. The buildup to the resignation should be in the TCH article, because it is part of him and his administration - he bungled much in his administration, even his own resignation. Therefore, I still don't see how a singular point in time (that announcement in Government House at 5:36 p.m. local time) is an article. A good question to ask is - is there an article like this for other leaders and elections? I cannot track one down, but am open to see other examples. Fuzheado | Talk 11:00, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * To repeat myself, the aftermath of the resignation is not part of the election. The buildup of his resignation is already presented as a section, in the form of a summary of part of this article, in his biographical article. The only example that I could think of at the moment is some of the sections in the article Watergate scandal. &mdash; Instantnood 12:12, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)

If the contenders wont join the election (speculative or otherwise), then what are they listed for? I don't see how that section is relevant. Choosing of Tung's successor isnt really relevant under a discussion of his resignation. The whole "Election or byelection" dispute is over whether the person elected in 2005 will serve for two or five yrs. It deals with the election, not Tung's resignation which is done and finished. Background of the 2005 election includes Tung's resignation because the election is taking place because Tung resigned.--Jiang 11:10, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * The dispute is not part of the election, but a constitutional debate over the intepretation of the Basic Law. The contenders section is not added by me. Those contenders are reportedly speculations for many years. &mdash; Instantnood 12:12, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)

I think you'll have to do a better job explaining how the aftermath of the resignation has nothing to with the election. The whole constitutional debate is over the election, that is, what the election is for (2 yrs v. 5 yrs). The contenders are possible candidates in the election. I really still can't see your point here. Please make yourself thorough if you have one. --Jiang 12:35, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * I have read through the ROC elections 2004 article, as well as several articles on US presidential elections. I see no reason or precedant to include the aftermath of the resignation of the predecessor to be included in an article on the following election. The watergate scadal, for instance, is not a section of the 1978 presidential election.
 * The debate following his resignation does not only affect the immediately following election, but more importantly the rule of law in Hong Kong. It is more suitable to be a section under Politics of Hong Kong.
 * The contenders were reportedly to be possible candidates in the 2007 election, if Tung hadn't had stepped down early. Indeed the contender are of little relevence to Tung's resignation nor to the 2005 election. What is relevent is that if they remain in the government from 2005 election to the next election as secretaries, it would bring possible instability within the cabinet. &mdash; Instantnood 13:47, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)

The 1978 election was not a consequence of watergate. It would have occurred whether Nixon resigned or not. Of course there's not precedent in ROC or US elections because those are fixed terms and not a result of resignations. I fail to see the precedent where a resignation deserves an entire article. Does one exist for every single British Prime Minister? --Jiang 03:05, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't think British PM is comparable. The resignation of a PM does not lead to a parliamentary election, but an election among the MPs (for the Tory) or the MPs plus the unions (for Labour). And I don't think the resignation of a PM would have led to a constitutional crisis. &mdash; Instantnood 07:04, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)

Actual Merge
Could we perhaps really merge this now? Colipon+(T) 18:41, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * I have to oppose, and I am afraid many people may not have taken the practical situation with Hong Kong politics into consideration. &mdash; Instantnood 11:07, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid I'm not convinced that this article should stay. Why can't it just go into Politics of Hong Kong and Tung Chee Hwa? I ask again, where is the precedent for this? I'm sure plenty of people have resigned. None have their own articles. It's the stuff before and after the resignation that deserves mention, not the resignation itself. That is covered in one sentence. --Jiang 10:03, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid I cannot compromise on splitting and merging, though I has been ready to have the title renamed (e.g. Tung Chee Hwa's resignation and aftermath) to better reflect its purpose. &mdash; Instantnood 21:49, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)


 * Can you please provide an argument in favor? Preferably in at least 250 words and not just two sentences saying it should be done? What is the precedent for this and what is wrong with the content sitting in other articles? --Jiang 01:31, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Sounds like an essay writing test. :-)
 * Right. C H Tung's resignation was an important event in politics and history of Hong Kong. Some consider it as a consequences of his failures in governance, and the two mass rallies. Its aftermath was a constitutional crisis, over the meaning and application of the Basic Law. The Hong Kong Government has previously made it clear that the term of office of the chief executive is always 5 years, but it changed its mind after Tung's resignation, citing the opinion of legal experts in the mainland, and the gap between the intepretations based on socialist law and common law traditions. Many fear one country two systems will further be undermined, and any legal challenge to the government would lead to an intepretation of the Basic Law by the Standing Committee of the NPC, which unpopular.
 * It is already not only a matter of his resignation, but the constitutional crisis. I believe a centralised manner would be the best way to present this event, rather than breaking it down into several parts under different articles. It is one and continuous event. &mdash; Instantnood 08:45, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)


 * Instantnood, I understand your points, but they seem to be in the minority in terms of whether this should be split. Perhaps it could be a redirect to a TCH article section? Fuzheado | Talk 09:38, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks Fuzheado. I don't think I can further compromise. &mdash; Instantnood 11:27, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)

I see this as two clearly distinguishable topics: Although these are cause and effect, they are not related any further than that. They are clearly two very separate articles. "Tung Chee Hwa's resignation" is by no means a widely circulated phrase/title used by the media to describe what you seem to be both 1) and 2). It's a term concocted just for wikipedia. I don't think this is appropriate. The constitutional crisis should either belong in politics of Hong Kong or the 2005 election article (probably should be mentioned in both, with the latter being given more detail). Tung is out of the picture already. He might have indirectly caused the constitutional crisis, but he has nothing to do with it. Let's lead the cause and effect separate since they aren't really closely related.--Jiang 05:59, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) The mass amt of public discontent over Tung's administration leading to his resignation
 * 2) The Constitutional debate due to Tung's premature departure.
 * I cannot agree with the conclusion that the cause and the effect "aren't really closely related". Yes, the aftermath was not directly caused by Tung, but the vacancy of the position, as a result of his resignation. Therefore the subject here is not "Tung Chee Hwa", but "Tung Chee Hwa's resignation".
 * His resignation and what follows have little to do with the election itself, or its arrangment, but the rule of law in Hong Kong, and the stability and validity of OCTS. I believe it's move to do with the Politics of Hong Kong article, and it deserves a main article to a section under that article. &mdash; Instantnood 11:07, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)

Please elaborate on "His resignation and what follows have little to do with the election itself, or its arrangment, but the rule of law in Hong Kong, and the stability and validity of OCTS. "

From what I see, the debate is only over 2 years vs. 5 years. What else is there? And if it fits in politics of HK, then why not keep it there? We normally split articles only when we run out of room....and even then it would be under some title such as "Constitutional crisis of 2005" (doesn't seem to exist) if this were as important as you make it out to be. --Jiang 02:02, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * I guess I've made it clear enough, and for the rest you may have to proceed to the relevant articles on Hong Kong politics.
 * I agree that this article may not be long enough to be split. But it's a notable current event, and it relates with two or more articles, such as Tung Chee Hwa, Politics of Hong Kong, and perhaps Donald Tsang. If it must have to be merged, it would break off the interlocking of the events, between resignation and the constitution crisis. To repeat, I am open on moving to a better title. &mdash; Instantnood 12:26, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)

So the debate is only over 2 years vs. 5 years? This is only over a single term and pertains to whoever is elected in the 2005 election. What constitutional crisis is there? What is the notability here? It seems this has already been settled an can be stated thoroughly in about two paragraphs - it's going to be 2 years because analysts believe Beijing doesnt really trust tsang yet. What else is there? You're saying this is important, but havent told be how exactly. Can you possibly expand this article to twice to three times its current size? --Jiang 13:51, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Not at the present moment. The amendment has not been gazetted, and the amendment bill has not been presented to the legislative council. Some lawmakers have suggested judicial review, but it is not yet time to do so. SCMP reported today that Elsie Leung privately told some pro-Beijing politicians that the Hong Kong Government has would seek intepretation by the NPCSC. The assistant director of CPG Liaison Office in Hong Kong Wang Rudeng says today that the central government will not let the debate persist (CRHK).
 * By the way, I bet you're not really very familiar with Hong Kong politics, am I right? :-) &mdash; Instantnood 17:06, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)

No I am not very familiar, but I dont see evidence here that this has anything more to do with the difference between 2 years and 5 years. This has no long lasting implications and the amendment in question doesn't have to do with the resignation, but the election. Would we have a "Tung Chee Hwa's death" article if he happened to die instead? the situation would be no different. --Jiang 21:01, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * The aftermath of his resignation (or death, whatever it could have happened to be) led to a constitutional debate. It affects rule of law and Hong Kong's autonomy. It affects not only the coming election, but the election afterwards. It also leads to a question on the role of the Basic Law.
 * If this article must has to be relocated, Politics of Hong Kong would be a much much better destination. &mdash; Instantnood 09:26, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

Interpretation of the Basic Law
As discussed above, this article should include information about interpretation of the Basic Law by the NPCSC on the length of the term of office of the successor. &mdash; Instantnood 18:55, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)