Hong-Kong Protests
- Thread starter Pika
- Start date
Jura The idiot
General
Can the term ‘cockroach’ actually be a compliment for Hong Kong protesters? Officers from police’s public relations unit contradict each other on pesky issue
Dec 1, 2019
- Team member says on TV show that insect is resilient and can survive under difficult conditions
- But senior colleague admits at press conference such language from the force is not ideal
Dec 1, 2019
at one point I began to use this "term" myself, so follow the link if interested
I saw this and thought what an informative read, it's nothing that surprises me since I'm aware of most of the issues.
But I think its interesting, and goes someway in explaning the situation before, during and after the handover. The black hands worked hard indeed!
Warning Very long and Informative post, but a must read for all.
Someone asking why Hong Kong didnt have any national security within our law before the handover and why Article 23 was left for the Hong Kong government to enacted .
Well Hong Kong wasn't actually a part of a country before the handover, futhermore the Governor was like dictator until the early 1990's and police has special power to deal with such problems, especially these powers used by the Special Branch better know in Hong Kong as the Political department was mainly used for political policing, counter-intelligence, counter subversion activity and counter espionage operations.
However in 1991 Governor Patten pushed for Hong Kong bill of right ordinance (BORO) claiming it was to protect human right which supersedes all conflicting laws which directly cancelled out all of these special powers forcing many quick change to the existing laws. However we must consider the fact the that the UK Bill of rights was enacted in 1689 and for 150 years of colonial rule the British never bothered to enacted such a law and has been abusing the very power that was cancelled just before the handover.
Under the British rules the Governor had the power to declare martial law and ultimate power to order the military as he feel necessary as the Governor was also the commander in chief of the military force in Hong Kong. This is no longer the case and it would create a political crisis if the CE requested for the PLA support.
Under the British rules until the early 1990's when Legco election was introduced all legislature were basially rubber stamped with no political opposition, futhermore all civil servants were background checked and approved by the special branch before appointment which futher eliminated subversion act.
The Judge were appointed by the Governor during the British rule and until 1994 they had no authority to overrule Legco.
There was actually top secret documents marked with 'English Eye Only' as well as Top Secret files which only the Special Branch, High level British Offical and the Governor has the power to see and many of these documents are still hidden in an archive in the UK. Futhermore many of the action taken by the Special Branch can only be approved & reviewed by the Governor and no one else not even the court. For example if someone dies and the Special Branch did an investigation then marked it as a case of accident or suicidal, no one not even the police commissioner has the right to reopen, reinvestigate or review the case without the approve of the Governor.
Under section 33 of the telecommunications ordinance 1966 under the authorized of the Governor, officers usually the Special Branch had unlimited telephone tagging, message and data interception power. After the BORO major amendments was made to the law and the power to authorize data interception for investigation was given to the court under much stricter restriction.
Societies Ordinance which gave the Governor-in-Council the power to ban any society deemed to be injurious to law and order in Hong Kong and the law required all society registration with the government which was actually managed by the special branch gaving the government extensive powers of supervision. Major amendments in 1992 after the enactment of the BORO which largely relaxed the restriction on the registration of a society.
Under the Public Ordinance as we all know all demonstration must have a permit from the police. However under the British rule the police can deny a permit for any reasons and the court can only review if proper procedures were followed however under the BORO the law was changed so the court can review the police decision for reasonableness.
Under the emergency regulations 31 the Governor can imprison anyone for up to 1 year without trial and as we know the emergency regulation ordnance the Governer can basically do whatever he wanted. Although these law still exist but would be subjected to judicial review just like how the anti mask law which got dismissed by the court.
Under the seditious publication Ordinance of 1914 and printer & publisher Ordinance 1927 basially allow the British govner to censorship press and media during the British rules and change to the law was only made after BORO which limited these power and many final decisions were made by the court.
I have try to cover as much as I possibly can with the little information available during my research. But with these examples we can understand why we didnt need a national security laws during the British rule and why we much enacted Articles 23 as soon as possible. Futhermore we actually had much less freedom under the British then we do now and we can make a logically guess when the British enrected BORO was it really for the genuine interest of the people of Hong Kong or were they setting Hong Kong up for the mess we have now.
But I think its interesting, and goes someway in explaning the situation before, during and after the handover. The black hands worked hard indeed!
Warning Very long and Informative post, but a must read for all.
Someone asking why Hong Kong didnt have any national security within our law before the handover and why Article 23 was left for the Hong Kong government to enacted .
Well Hong Kong wasn't actually a part of a country before the handover, futhermore the Governor was like dictator until the early 1990's and police has special power to deal with such problems, especially these powers used by the Special Branch better know in Hong Kong as the Political department was mainly used for political policing, counter-intelligence, counter subversion activity and counter espionage operations.
However in 1991 Governor Patten pushed for Hong Kong bill of right ordinance (BORO) claiming it was to protect human right which supersedes all conflicting laws which directly cancelled out all of these special powers forcing many quick change to the existing laws. However we must consider the fact the that the UK Bill of rights was enacted in 1689 and for 150 years of colonial rule the British never bothered to enacted such a law and has been abusing the very power that was cancelled just before the handover.
Under the British rules the Governor had the power to declare martial law and ultimate power to order the military as he feel necessary as the Governor was also the commander in chief of the military force in Hong Kong. This is no longer the case and it would create a political crisis if the CE requested for the PLA support.
Under the British rules until the early 1990's when Legco election was introduced all legislature were basially rubber stamped with no political opposition, futhermore all civil servants were background checked and approved by the special branch before appointment which futher eliminated subversion act.
The Judge were appointed by the Governor during the British rule and until 1994 they had no authority to overrule Legco.
There was actually top secret documents marked with 'English Eye Only' as well as Top Secret files which only the Special Branch, High level British Offical and the Governor has the power to see and many of these documents are still hidden in an archive in the UK. Futhermore many of the action taken by the Special Branch can only be approved & reviewed by the Governor and no one else not even the court. For example if someone dies and the Special Branch did an investigation then marked it as a case of accident or suicidal, no one not even the police commissioner has the right to reopen, reinvestigate or review the case without the approve of the Governor.
Under section 33 of the telecommunications ordinance 1966 under the authorized of the Governor, officers usually the Special Branch had unlimited telephone tagging, message and data interception power. After the BORO major amendments was made to the law and the power to authorize data interception for investigation was given to the court under much stricter restriction.
Societies Ordinance which gave the Governor-in-Council the power to ban any society deemed to be injurious to law and order in Hong Kong and the law required all society registration with the government which was actually managed by the special branch gaving the government extensive powers of supervision. Major amendments in 1992 after the enactment of the BORO which largely relaxed the restriction on the registration of a society.
Under the Public Ordinance as we all know all demonstration must have a permit from the police. However under the British rule the police can deny a permit for any reasons and the court can only review if proper procedures were followed however under the BORO the law was changed so the court can review the police decision for reasonableness.
Under the emergency regulations 31 the Governor can imprison anyone for up to 1 year without trial and as we know the emergency regulation ordnance the Governer can basically do whatever he wanted. Although these law still exist but would be subjected to judicial review just like how the anti mask law which got dismissed by the court.
Under the seditious publication Ordinance of 1914 and printer & publisher Ordinance 1927 basially allow the British govner to censorship press and media during the British rules and change to the law was only made after BORO which limited these power and many final decisions were made by the court.
I have try to cover as much as I possibly can with the little information available during my research. But with these examples we can understand why we didnt need a national security laws during the British rule and why we much enacted Articles 23 as soon as possible. Futhermore we actually had much less freedom under the British then we do now and we can make a logically guess when the British enrected BORO was it really for the genuine interest of the people of Hong Kong or were they setting Hong Kong up for the mess we have now.
This was what I try to say in my previous posts. Noticed these thugs trying to link Xinjian with Hong Kong, because western MSM have moved on to Uighuis in a big way.
1st, there was the Ozil case, a German footballer of Turkey desecend made a political statement about Uighuis. That got favourable MSM courage, whereas his previous political statement in support of Turkey president Erdogan, who was his best man at his wedding, got completely the opposite treatment!
Then, this week came "lettergate". A "letter" was "found" inside a packet of Christmas cards from Tesco's of UK. The letter was supposed to have been written by an inmate in Xinjiang describing the condition there. Of course, this gave the opportunity for the MSM to wheel out the case few years ago of another "hidden" message in a Christmas present!
Really, so the burden of proof falls on China, and not on the purchaser, the supply chain, or even people working on the supply chain with motives to blacken China on every opportunity!
Also, it defies logic, does anyone really think China need to use prison labour, as the BBC was trying to say. And with a hint this is somewhat barbaric!? Conveniently forgotten to tell viewers that it wasn't so long ago that USA had chain gang prison labour, but that's ok then!
What's so laughable, is Tesco conducted audit of the card manufacturing few months earlier and gave it a clean bill of health! Also we all know, China's manufacturing is efficient, and is probably all mechanised, the last thing they need is prison labour that slow everthing down!
You just can't make this up!
This makes me laugh, talk about hypocrisy! This pan-dem guy known as long hair. (I can think of many other things to call him).
He thinks he's so cool, and trying to be "trendy. So he thought he would wear a tee-shirt with Che on it! Lol, didn't he know that Che is a commies, the very kind he dispises in China CCP!
And this is propaganda at its ugly best. The rioters message to their comrades is that they can't give up the fight, or they will end up living like this! lol
He thinks he's so cool, and trying to be "trendy. So he thought he would wear a tee-shirt with Che on it! Lol, didn't he know that Che is a commies, the very kind he dispises in China CCP!
And this is propaganda at its ugly best. The rioters message to their comrades is that they can't give up the fight, or they will end up living like this! lol
broadsword
Brigadier
Che was against the US too.
AssassinsMace
Lieutenant General
It's pretty tame compared to what some Hong Kongers want to see happen like a war between the West and China which would inevitably see the use of nuclear weapons. Should we take that seriously? I've read from protestor statements the goal of rioting is Hong Kongers' belief that Hong Kong is that important to China's economy that if they ruin Hong Kong, the Chinese economy will collapse and make it easier for Hong Kong to declare independence. So the Mainland Chinese suffer just so Hong Kongers can declare independence? If they're okay with Chinese and Westerners dying in a nuclear fire just for them, I guess they can think nothing of it where Chinese civilians suffer from an economic collapse.
My family has been in the US since the late 1800s. My grandfather was in the US Army during WWII. My father was in the army stationed in South Korea after the Korean War during the most tension-filled time of the Cold War yet people to this very day tell my family that we aren't Americans. When I was younger, they outright told you that. Today it's more passive aggressive. My sister owned a small shop that was in an open market. There was a lot of foot traffic that walked by. Anyone that had a problem with China, they would let her know about it and take it out on her just because she was Chinese. For me I would notice every time I would makes friends with someone and I would eventually meet their friends, there's always one or two people who all of the sudden brings up China and tell me what problems they have with China and I don't initiate these conversations. Americans don't like hyphenated Americans because everyone is supposed to be just American yet they're always reminding me I'm not American. Americans complain these days about identity politics yet like the examples before, they always see you by race first.
The one constant is I'm Chinese. So when I see Hong Kongers trying to create their own identity at the expense of the Chinese, I don't see any civility from them nor will I be sympathetic on the side that wants to spread hate towards anyone Chinese. I don't see Hong Kongers thinking twice about the words they choose. I don't see anyone telling them they crossed the line. It's offensive that Hong Kongers are putting their allegiance with racists and historic oppressors of other countries. If Hong Kongers' aim was to become like Americans, congratulations like Americans they don't see what they do first.
Don't get me wrong, as a resident of Hong Kong I am fiercely proud to be Chinese. The exploits, lies, back stabbing and frankly traitorous actions that protesters are undertaking are harmful to China and frankly naive and selfish; completely disregarding the reality of Hong Kong's colonial past and China's humiliation by Western powers in the past 200-300 years and the progress which China has made to better the life of hundreds of millions through sacrifice and determination.
However the point of my post was not directed at the protestors or these real-world affairs. My post was directed at members of this forum when tackling and discussing such affairs. Ensuring that we maintain a certain objective and professional standard without succumbing too much our emotions (some emotion is important). Protestors and protest sympathisers may be bandying empty and foolish words, but we should as an established forum be better than them.
Last edited:
Yeah..."cockroach" ought not be entertained. Its not that I'm against it but it doesn't do much help. Furthermore, it degrades this thread which had previously seen attempts to get closed down.
This thread is tottering along only for the contributions of Gatekeeper and few others. Not get them banned is just common sense.
This thread is tottering along only for the contributions of Gatekeeper and few others. Not get them banned is just common sense.
plawolf
Lieutenant General
The west always holds the semi-racist view that no country of colour should be able to do better than the pure, white, master race. That is why stories about China relating to prison labour, hacking/‘forced tech transfers’, poor quality and similar always gets particular interest by the western MSM, as it plays to their narrative that China is only doing so well because of ‘cheating’ and that in a ‘fair’ competition, the west would be doing better, as is their birthright.