Hong-Kong Protests

[Hendrik_2000]

That's my entire point. The comparison you've made with other countries isn't valid because Hong Kong was guaranteed 50 years of autonomy and separate law enforcement as the result of an international diplomatic process and a treaty that was lodged with the UN. The CCP has torn up the agreed legal system for HK just because it wants greater control of the city.

Besides, it's not so unusual for other countries to sub-divide law enforcement and respect boundaries. Gibraltar has its own law enforcement, as does England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.

there are 2 sides to the story China would probably left the agreement intact were it not for the secessionist movement demanding ever mover outrageous demand for independent Hongkong was never independent They were slave for british for 200 year and they never were allowed to select their own government everything is appointed from London Any attempt to change that will be met with harsh force think of 1956 Hongkong riot

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

So what China attempt to deal with them is 100 time better what they were offered by the british But this numb nut never know their luck and they pushed to the limit Now they get what they were dreaded Good for them !

 

[Quickie]

That's my entire point. The comparison you've made with other countries isn't valid because Hong Kong was guaranteed 50 years of autonomy and separate law enforcement as the result of an international diplomatic process and a treaty that was lodged with the UN. The CCP has torn up the agreed legal system for HK just because it wants greater control of the city.

Besides, it's not so unusual for other countries to sub-divide law enforcement and respect boundaries. Gibraltar has its own law enforcement, as does England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.

You're straying from the point of the argument to that which I have no intention to go, and which you guys I suppose are arguing about.

I was arguing against your suggestion that the police should have the right to search and detain security apparatus agents.

Here is what you said: " It even grants Chinese state security immunity from being detained or even have their vehicles searched. "

 

[Rettam Stacf]

there are 2 sides to the story China would probably the agreement intact were it not for the secessionist movement demanding ever mover outrageous demand for independent Hongkong was never independent They were slave for british for 200 year and they never were allowed to select their own government everything is appointed from London Any attempt to change that will be met with harsh force think of 1956 Hongkong riot

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

So what China attempt to deal with them is 100 time better what they were offered by the british But this numb nut never know their luck and they pushed to the limit Now they get what they were dreaded Good for them !

Let us set the record straight once and for all. China did not, and I repeat, DID NOT break her promise of One Country Two System and High Degree of Autonomy.

The agreement of One Country Two System and High Degree of Autonomy for Hong Kong are not some vague terms left up to China, UK nor any other countries like the US or Australia, and individuals like Mr. T and yourself to interpret. They are embodies in the Hong Kong Basic Law which is a specific and signed document between China and UK.

The Hong Kong people and government broke the agreement by not implementing Article 23 of the HK Basic Law as required. China corrected the problem by exercise the right given to her in Article 18 and Annex 3 of the Hong Kong Basic Law.

China did not break her promise of One Country Two System and High Degree of Autonomy embodies in the Hong Kong Basic Law.

 

[B.I.B.]

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

I think that the UK government had been looking to work with other countries in case there were large outflows of HK residents, so it will probably welcome this (tentative) plan from Australia. Even if it doesn't lead to enhanced residency rights Australia could offer asylum, which just leads to the same thing anyway.

That would be fantastic. But why just keep it to British passport holders?Anyone that wants to go can, but with financial restrictions like those placed on South Africans and Zimbawe. GB takes 3million.USA takes another 3 Australia takes 1 million and the European and Nordic countries can share the balance for anyone else who wants to leave.

 

[Mr T]

there are 2 sides to the story China would probably left the agreement intact were it not for the secessionist movement demanding ever mover outrageous demand for independent

The HK independence movement has only ever had a small minority of support in HK. Even amongst the protest movement as a whole it didn't have majority support - none of the "five demands" included independence.

Also, the CCP already had that issue dealt with via disqualification for electoral positions and political parties if people were actively supporting independence. There was never any credible threat of independence, so it was no reason to just tear up the previous treaty about HK's status.

They were slave for british for 200 year

Yet millions of people fled from mainland China to Hong Kong for a better life over the years. In the 19th century HK island was home to a few fishing villages. Now look at it. Pretty much all of the ancestors of current HKers moved there voluntarily.

The Hong Kong people and government broke the agreement by not implementing Article 23 of the HK Basic Law as required. China corrected the problem by exercise the right given to her in Article 18 and Annex 3 of the Hong Kong Basic Law.

First, there was no timescale in the Basic Law to bring in such regulations.

Second, the HK government has always been under the influence of Beijing and recently Beijing has effectively been giving it orders. The Chief Executive is chosen by the Functional Constituencies, which are mostly pro-CCP special interest groups. The vast majority of HKers have no say in the election of the Chief Executive. Similarly, LegCo has always been under the control of pro-CCP parties, because they always get a majority of the seats in the FCs and enough of a minority of the directed-elected seats to have control of LegCo. Ordinary HKers have never had a say in the matter.

Now if pro-CCP politicians were too scared of a backlash from the HK public to push the legislation through, whose fault is that? Beijing and its allies in HK have all the power. Yet you're blaming the public?

Moreover, if Beijing had made good on its promises for direct elections for the Chief Executive (without trying to rig them so only candidates who were slavishly loyal to the CCP could stand), there might have been enough trust in the political system to allow a national security law to be passed.

 

[supersnoop]

This will be my final response, because I don't think there is anymore point to discuss this any further. If you can sit there and seriously compare apartheid system to HK, then there is no limit to the sort of mental gymnastics that you are willing to perform to claim UK political moral superiority.

If you think Nathan Law/Joshua Wong are Mandela-like figures and the people of Hong Kong CCP suffer even 1/100th of the severity of black Africans under the apartheid regime in South Africa, then everything else is pointless.

What can I say, it's British law. Don't ask me why, but BNOs are a type of national. Also being a national isn't always the same as being a citizen. Again, don't ask me why.

"Slaves were 3/5 of a person under American law, don't ask me why!"
See how that sounds?

 

[Mr T]

This will be my final response, because I don't think there is anymore point to discuss this any further. If you can sit there and seriously compare apartheid system to HK

I didn't compare them. Someone else raised the comparison they said other people had made. I said that I understood the comparison. That's different to actually making the comparison myself. I see some validity in it, but I wouldn't have suggested it independently. I'm sure there are much better comparisons, like with Solidarity in Poland.

"Slaves were 3/5 of a person under American law, don't ask me why!"

Slaves have never been any degree of a person under any country's law. That's what made them slaves.

 

[weig2000]

That's my entire point. The comparison you've made with other countries isn't valid because Hong Kong was guaranteed 50 years of autonomy and separate law enforcement as the result of an international diplomatic process and a treaty that was lodged with the UN. The CCP has torn up the agreed legal system for HK just because it wants greater control of the city.

You, like the many western politicians and media, are continuing ignoring and twisting facts to suit your purpose and bias.

It's actually very simple. The "One Country, Two Systems" is not solely to be observed by China. There is the other side that must also uphold its end of the bargain. The Article 23 of the Basic Law has not been introduced and passed after 23 years. There have been increasing calls and activities for Hong Kong independence by substantial groups of people in Hong Kong and they started to resort to violence and crimes to destabilize the society, the economy and the HKSAR government, which culminated in last years months-long protests and riots. These people, organizations and activities have been increasingly supported by hostile foreign forces, with plenty of evidence.

As a result, the central government of China had to act and introduce the security law to safeguard the national security and territorial integrity and in general the welfare of Hong Kong seeing that HKSAR government had been almost paralyzed. Hong Kong is never promised full autonomy, it's high autonomy that is promised. Hong Kong will continue to enjoy high-level of automony and have a great future within China.

Hong Kong is part of China and has been part of China for 23 years now, the responsibility for Hong Kong's security and prosperity is solely with China. As foreigners or foreign governments, you may not like the direction that Hong Kong is going under the sovereignty of China (or the direction of China for that matter), then it's your problem. Hong Kong is NOT for the US or UK to "lose." Move on with your life, and don't come to Hong Kong if you don't like to. But also don't mess with Hong Kong, because you would be responded to accordingly as an individual or as a government.

 

[getready]

I suggest people stop giving attention to well known trolls. It kinda pollutes the thread

 

[muddie]

You, like the many western politicians and media, are continuing ignoring and twisting facts to suit your purpose and bias.

It's actually very simple. The "One Country, Two Systems" is not solely to be observed by China. There is the other side that must also uphold its end of the bargain. The Article 23 of the Basic Law has not been introduced and passed after 23 years. There have been increasing calls and activities for Hong Kong independence by substantial groups of people in Hong Kong and they started to resort to violence and crimes to destabilize the society, the economy and the HKSAR government, which culminated in last years months-long protests and riots. These people, organizations and activities have been increasingly supported by hostile foreign forces, with plenty of evidence.

As a result, the central government of China had to act and introduce the security law to safeguard the national security and territorial integrity and in general the welfare of Hong Kong seeing that HKSAR government had been almost paralyzed. Hong Kong is never promised full autonomy, it's high autonomy that is promised. Hong Kong will continue to enjoy high-level of automony and have a great future within China.

Hong Kong is part of China and has been part of China for 23 years now, the responsibility for Hong Kong's security and prosperity is solely with China. As foreigners or foreign governments, you may not like the direction that Hong Kong is going under the sovereignty of China (or the direction of China for that matter), then it's your problem. Hong Kong is NOT for the US or UK to "lose." Move on with your life, and don't come to Hong Kong if you don't like to. But also don't mess with Hong Kong, because you would be responded to accordingly as an individual or as a government.

It's also important to note that the so called "5 demands" made by these "protesters" weren't acceptable to China to begin with. These demands were designed in such a way that compromise and negotiations weren't possible between the 2 sides.

Hypothetically speaking, it China did agree to these 5 demands, the next demand would be full independence.