
Hong Kong security chief warns of growing terrorism backing planned security law - partingshots
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-hongkong-protests/hong-kongs-security-chief-warns-of-growing-terrorism-as-govt-backs-beijings-planned-security-laws-idUSKBN23107F
======
culturestate
As a longtime Hong Kong resident, the worst part about this for me is the
abject intellectual dishonesty - we already know that this is the _real_ [1]
beginning of the end of Hong Kong's autonomy, so they could at least have the
decency to be straight with us.

CY Leung (the previous Chief Executive) said[2] the quiet part out loud
yesterday:

> "Former Chief Executive CY Leung acknowledged on Sunday that Hong Kong’s
> annual June 4 candlelight vigil could be banned, along with the group that
> has organised the event for the past three decades, under a new national
> security law for the SAR to be drawn up by Beijing."

Putting that kind of censorship on the table is antithetical to the spirit of
OC2S and the foundations that make Hong Kong great.

1\. The Causeway Bay booksellers were a foreshock.

2\.
[https://news.rthk.hk/rthk/en/component/k2/1528043-20200524.h...](https://news.rthk.hk/rthk/en/component/k2/1528043-20200524.htm)

~~~
yaus831
Hong Kong resident here as well, I am in no way CY Leung nor Carrie Lam fan. I
am pro peaceful demonstration and believe police brutality is real and support
independent inquiry.

But this is not exactly his quote when you read further than the first
paragraph:

"Asked if slogans like “end one-party rule” – which is often chanted at the
June 4 vigil – would be allowed in future, Leung demurred, saying there’s no
need to get into the nitty gritty of legal definitions at this point, as this
could ‘affect public feelings’ about the coming legislation."

"He also said whether the vigil itself could fall foul of the law could depend
on what participants do even after the gathering is over – saying that
anything that involves activities that are ‘separatist in nature’ may well be
banned even in other countries."

He evaded the question when asked about the "end one-party rule" slogans, and
repeat the line "separatist" will be banned when ask about the vigil.

Do I believe "end one-party rule" slogan will cause problem? I think so, and I
do not support arresting people for just yelling the "end one-party rule"
slogan. But I would like to see the detail of the law before I draw any
conclusion.

~~~
dragonsh
In my view Hong Kong being a territory of China should be prepared for such
laws and so should be it's residents. If people who have passports of other
country, they have a choice if they don't agree with this change. This change
was kept on back burner for a while until majority of the Chinese could reap
the benefits of economic progress. In this case China's legislature has a
backing of majority of the Chinese population, so the change will go through.
China like Singapore is a meritocracy, not democracy, still for any policy
change to be enacted it needs a tacit approval from majority Chinese.

So like in any democracy laws can be passed with majority, its the same for
China.

Chinese legislature learned from the mistakes of USSR with perestroika and
glasnost that until welfare and progress do not reach its population, it
cannot have legitimacy. So they succeeded in it and USA cannot find a clear
opening like USSR to break China. So they started firing guns on the shoulders
of Hong Kong, Taiwan, India, Japan and other countries surrounding China,
because the initial attempt did not succeed. In this game these countries will
suffer immensely and USA will progress by selling them weapons and prop it's
own economy.

Hopefully instead of questioning other country if every country look inward
and secure to all its own people JUSTICE, social, economic and political;
LIBERTY of thought, expression, belief, faith and worship; EQUALITY of status
and of opportunity; and to promote among them all FRATERNITY assuring the
dignity of the individual, the world will be a better place.

~~~
culturestate
This would be a stronger argument if a majority of Hong Kongers had agreed
that they _wanted_ to be a Chinese territory in the first place. They didn't
get to pick - two governments, neither of which the people chose, made the
decision for them.

You can argue that they didn't choose to be a British colony either, but
nevertheless they were and many generations have now grown up in that system
and internalized those values.

 _> If people who have passports of other country, they have a choice if they
don't agree with this change_

What about the millions who don't have second passports or any real option to
leave? They have no legal avenue to effect change; are they just supposed to
sit quietly and take whatever gets thrown at them?

~~~
dragonsh
> This would be a stronger argument if a majority of Hong Kongers

Hong Kongers are like Beijinger or Shanghainese so if China legislature wants
to enact security law for country, they need to consider whole China not
specific city or province like any central government in most democracies
(when it comes to national laws). Hong Kong being a territory of China what
matters is the majority of Chinese support and in this case overwhelming
number support this action. If Chinese National in Hong Kong (i.e. Hong
Kongers) are in doubt can do China countrywide survey and understand the
national pulse.

> who don’t have second passports.

Live the way minority live in most commonwealth democratic countries. Unless
these minority go out to fight till end (like Kashmiris are fighting Indian
government unilateral actions), which I doubt any is willing to do, my guess
is most can look for asylum as option in countries which support their cause,
I believe Taiwan already offered (only risk is their founding fathers also
consider Taiwan as one China, so may be it might lead to conflict in future).

------
rorykoehler
>“In just a few months, Hong Kong has changed from one of the safest cities in
the world to a city shrouded in the shadow of violence,” he said, adding
national security laws were needed to safeguard the city’s prosperity and
stability.

Absurd lack of introspection. What change was the catalyst for violence? Maybe
start there and work backwards to see who is actually responsible (hint...
it's the CCP).

~~~
dragonsh
Hong Kong is a territory of China and they have a right to enact this law
based on perceived threat to national security because this will not be the
first time USA used others shoulders to fire gun.

China don’t want to make same mistake as USSR of ignoring the outside
influence and USA succeeding in its mission to thwart another rising power
with a different system like USS dream of Mikhail Gorbachev was broken by
similar kind of violent protests.

China learned from mistakes of USSR and worked to let the economic benefits
trickle down to general population and their people’s life is better than
before. I agree they could have treated minorities better and given more
rights but looking at conditions of minority in most democratic nation its a
worldwide problem.

So do a better introspection and you will notice that answer for this violence
and protest is very much linked to geopolitical rivalry especially with USA.
There is an uncanny timings that Hong Kong protests flared up quite
dramatically right before Taiwan elections, and then suddenly reduced in
intensity.

------
throwaway1997
The irony being that this so-called terrorism is in reaction to clamping down
of freedoms and arbitrarily adding national security laws into the Basic Law.

I want to know who falls for this nonsense.

------
gremlinsinc
I don't think they know what 'terrorism' means. Civil disobedience because of
rights being usurped !== terrorism, it === a probably futile but admirable
'attempt' to fight back at an oppressive regime.

------
redis_mlc
> "Terrorism is growing in the city and activities which harm national
> security, such as ‘Hong Kong independence’, become more rampant," Secretary
> for Security John Lee said in a statement.

Well, at least the CCP is consistent.

------
scoot_718
CCP is using terror to inflict its policies counter too the wishes of the HK
people.

------
gentleman11
Hong Kong is the frontier of the fight for freedom against autocracy. I hope
the news continues to cover it

~~~
mrcorona
HK is a US and UK mission to have a permanent colony in China. We can't really
rebrand this exercise with any honest look at history.

------
2019-nCoV
What's pushing China from hiding their capacities and biding their time? Why
push the world on this now than wait until 2047? Awfully, it looks like Xi
thinks China's time has come.

~~~
joaomacp
He knows China is powerful enough to do this without meaningful consequences.
Taiwan not yet, but soon.

~~~
Melting_Harps
> He knows China is powerful enough to do this without meaningful
> consequences. Taiwan not yet, but soon.

Unlike Hong Kong, Taiwan has (thinly veiled) US military Support [1] that
would put China in defacto WWIII territory should an attack occur--after this
COVID coverup, the CCP and Xi are persona non grata on the international
stage. If anything I hope the people of the Mainland realize the dystopia they
have created (some do, most are too conditioned) and revolt before that
happens as the CCP seems amendment for a suicidal act if they continue with
such brazen violence in the area.

They've already pissed off every neighbor in the South China Sea which is
essentially opening the doors for more US military bases and interventionism--
which I abhor, but recognize as a reality.

1: [https://www.cfr.org/in-brief/us-military-support-taiwan-
what...](https://www.cfr.org/in-brief/us-military-support-taiwan-whats-
changed-under-trump)

