Had it been a clean democratic process to end up in that, then so be it, but having things go in this kind of a fashion is truly terrible.
I truly hope they can still turn the situation over, and wish them all the best in their attempts - I'm lucky to live in a country where I do not worry about these kind of things, so it is easy to talk from my ivory tower, but damn I would be scared to live in a place where democratic process can be dismantled just because it is an inconvenience for someone else :(
>In the end it seems the phony protests and other types of agitation funded by western intelligence agencies and capital weren't successful.
>99% sure China's remaining illegal drug problem is further reduced thanks to this news. The criminals will now have to peddle their garbage elsewhere if all goes according to plan.
>Hopefully Taiwan is next...
Is there any proof these protests were foreign funded? From my understanding this was a grassroots democracy movement.
Today it is just one more financial hub and manufacturing centre out of many.
It just isn't important any more. Its survival or not is pretty much irrelevant to both the West and China.
Particularly this matters in the finance sector where Hong Kong has plenty of expertise but it requires a solid legal foundation which Hong Kong now lacks. This can't be done overnight but Hong Kong should certainly start making a plan B. It's the only way they can expect to keep Beijing at bay.
The western nations should give Visas to Hong Kong residents, to get them to immigrate over.
That way, they can bring with them their delicious Cantonese cuisine, dim sum restaurants, and the rest. And start more Chinese restaurants in the west.
Oh wait.. the people in western nations can’t tell the difference between regular Hong Kong people, and those from China. And will accuse these Hong Kong people of eating bats. Ok, well, scratch that idea. You’re on your own over there.
What is happening revolves around article 23 of HK's Basic Law (which governs its autonomous status):
"The Hong Kong Special Administrative Region shall enact laws on its own to prohibit any act of treason, secession, sedition, subversion against the Central People's Government, or theft of state secrets, to prohibit foreign political organisations or bodies from conducting political activities in the Region, and to prohibit political organisations or bodies of the Region from establishing ties with foreign political organisations or bodies"
Of course, the key in that text is "on its own".
On the other hand, the counter argument is that they have failed to do that in the last 23 years.
Which, I think, explains this excerpt from the article:
"“The social unrest last year showed that the Hong Kong government was unable to handle passing [national security legislation] on its own,” said Ng, a Beijing loyalist who has for years pushed for a similar law."
So I read this as saying that the HK government is in effect in breach of the Basic Law and thus the Central Government will step in.
It couldn't be clearer that if anything HK wants nothing to do with China.
This is a conclusion which definitely can be argued. Plenty of people point out to the roots of unrest coming from Beijing.
There could be determination that Sino-British Joint Declaration was violated by Beijing, with corresponding corrective measures from UN members.
At some point it can be argued not implementing the Basic Law should lead to 'corrective measures'.
The Sino-British Declaration calls for the Basic Law to be followed, so article 23 should be implemented.
It's all largely irrelevant in the grand scheme of things, though. HK is a territory of the PRC. No foreign country has any say in Chinese domestic issues. Following treaties to the letter only leads to 2047, but the end result is the same however you look at it.
This is all stirred up because it is seen as a tool to cause trouble to China. It's a show.
Unfortunately, China has clearly and publicly stated that they consider the Declaration non-binding and have no intention of following it.
> corresponding corrective measures from UN members
Unfortunately, China has a permanent seat on the UNSC and so can veto any resolution against them.
But others may think differently and act accordingly.
> has a permanent seat on the UNSC and so can veto
Russia has a permanent seat. And is under sanctions. Not even strongest possible - could be worse.