Hong-Kong Protests
- Thread starter Pika
- Start date
That's the problem.
"Known to the authorities" is the key phrase. Lots of people have gotten away with violence and destruction.
The national security law will (at a minimum) enact UK/US levels of surveillance.
I also expect they'll re-establish Special Branch or create something similar.
Special Branch (political policing) was actually abolished by Chris Patten just prior to the Hong Kong handover.
But Special Branch in the UK and Singapore still exist today.
That suggests that the Hong Kong doesn't have all the powers they need.
Last edited:
Article 23 is very broad as it is.
---
the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region "shall enact laws on its own to prohibit any act of treason, secession, sedition, subversion against the , or theft of state secrets, to prohibit foreign political organizations or bodies from conducting political activities in the Region, and to prohibit political organizations or bodies of the Region from establishing ties with foreign political organizations or bodies."
---
And think about it.
It has been 17 years since Hong Kong tried to pass a National Security Law.
It has been more than 6 months since the recent protests/riots died off.
This has not been rushed, and bears all the hallmarks of a carefully considered action which has been prepared for.
Have you not been following anything here? Have you not been studying history book of the British empire?
First, I suggest you look up what happened last time the UK was forced to accept 28,000 FULL British passport holders (full British citizens) from Uganda.
2nd, you do know what a BNO is, right? As such, why did you think the UK have such distinctive British National Overseas (BNO) passport for Hong Kongers? Their other colonial processions such as the Falklands, and Gibraltar Don't have this? A case of racist discrimination?
As John Ross had commented, if the British wanted to confer fill rights to Hong Kongers, they wouldn't have distinguish it by offering BNOs!
This big talk from Boris about letting all 3 million Hong Kongers in it is just that. Talk! Big talk. They have no right is abode and after 6 months (Now extended to 12 months) stay, they would have to go back to..... Oh Hong Kong!
Noticed how he tries to elicit the other four eyes in helping him with his offer! Well good luck with that. That's realpolitik for you.
You really need to get a grip of reality rather than stick with your ideal utopia world of Britain doing the right thing. The right thing to do was offering FULL British passport 30 years ago. And the reason they didn't then is dame as the reason they won't now. That much hasn't changed in 30 years!
Obviously you've been missing a few post on this subject. So here's couple of videos for you to catch up on. Enjoy.
John Ross interview
No words needed.
Mr T
Senior Member
Universal suffrage does not exist in Hong Kong. Only half of the legislative's seats are directly elected. The other have come from the functional constituencies. The functional constituences are not representative of Hong Kong's electorate as a whole because they're not based on member size.
For example, the Finance FC has less than 200 voters. Whereas the Education FC has upwards of 100,000 voters. But each FC has a seat in the legislative.
Also, if you look at every single election since the handover, the pro-Beijing camp has never gained a majority of seats in the directly elected half, but has always had a large majority in the FCs. I think in the last election the pro-Beijing camp got 16 directly elected seats, but 22 of the FC selected-seats. The pan-Democrats and Localists got 19 directly elected seats but just 7 FC seats.
(3 DC seats to the pan-Democrats and 2 DC seats to the pro-Beijing camp.)
Also there still aren't direct elections for the Chief Executive. The CE is appointed by a committee drawn almost exclusively from the Functional Constituencies. When Beijing proposed a "reform" package, they wanted that same committee to vet all candidates, there could be no more than 3 people running in the election and all candidates would need approval from at least half the committee. So any candidate that wasn't a 100% Beijing loyalist could be vetoed without the HK public ever having a chance to vote for them.
That shows the system is biased in the favour of the HK Establishment and against the interests of the voters as a whole. Therefore it's hardly surprising if the protesters in Hong Kong are calling for actual universal suffrage.
A small number have. And that's after decades of failed promises from the HK Establishment and Beijing over political reform.
"Hey, don't worry, reform's around the corner."
"Listen, we know you've had to wait a long time. We promise universal suffrage is coming soon."
"Well it's not the best reform package, but it's just a stepping-stone to universal suffrage.
"If you go home and stop protesting, we might be able to look at political reform again. But we don't promise it will be what you want."
It's been over 20 years since the handover. Beijing's stalled enough on universal suffrage.
And pro-Beijing officials have also threatened civilians who don't agree with their policies from being banned from standing for election, or threatened companies who didn't publicly endorse the new national security legislation.
People on both sides have tried to use coercion to get their way. Which is why the best way to resolve everyone's grievances is by political reform and direct elections for all legislative seats and the Chief Executive, letting the public decide..
@Mr T
I don't see Westminster voting to allow 3million potential migrants to the UK.
The mere possibility would send the Conservative Party into apoplexy.
There are only 1 million Poles in total in all of the UK, and look at what happened as they became the lightning rod for anti-EU sentiment.
Then consider the effect of potentially 3 million East Asians in the wake of COVID-19.
In any case, it looks like HSBC, Standard Chartered, Jardines and Mathesons are now trying to perform damage control.
These companies have had a long history of deciding China policy in the British Parliament
Like I said before, this isn't a rash act by China, and the likely implementation will likely be reasonable, because that is all they need.
I don't see Westminster voting to allow 3million potential migrants to the UK.
The mere possibility would send the Conservative Party into apoplexy.
There are only 1 million Poles in total in all of the UK, and look at what happened as they became the lightning rod for anti-EU sentiment.
Then consider the effect of potentially 3 million East Asians in the wake of COVID-19.
In any case, it looks like HSBC, Standard Chartered, Jardines and Mathesons are now trying to perform damage control.
These companies have had a long history of deciding China policy in the British Parliament
Like I said before, this isn't a rash act by China, and the likely implementation will likely be reasonable, because that is all they need.
It is another smoke a d mirror trick. I've just gone back from the golf club this morning. And my less informed friends were harping on about this as the big thing Britain is doing. It make them all feel good and proud to be British. It's nothing but PR exercise so people like our Mr T here can feel good about themselves. And Boris and Britain still thinks they got a place at the head table in geopolitics.
In fact it is still short of citizenship. Basically, and I can't be more blunt than this. They are still not BRITISH citizens. They don't have the same rights as other British citizens. Vote in elections, stay for more than 12 months. Take unemployment benefits. Use the national health system. Should I go on?
They are basically tourists that's allowed to work with maximum stay of 12 months, after which they would have to go back to where they come from....... which is Hong Kong. All the while, they are, unfortunately still Chinese nationals!
@Mr T
I will admit this adds nothing to this discussion, and is firmly a personal thing
But will you PLEASE stop using HKese/Hong Kongese/or whatever variation thereof?
For someone so firmly ensconced in spreading the gospel of the Westminster system, I would hope that you at least use the common vernacular.
There are 400+ pages of discussion, and I don't think a single person besides yourself has used that term.
No one I have ever met from HK has used that term, family, friends, schoolmates, not one.
It's just weird.
Imagine someone talking about fighting racism and they keep saying "Orientals" and "Negroes".
I will admit this adds nothing to this discussion, and is firmly a personal thing
But will you PLEASE stop using HKese/Hong Kongese/or whatever variation thereof?
For someone so firmly ensconced in spreading the gospel of the Westminster system, I would hope that you at least use the common vernacular.
There are 400+ pages of discussion, and I don't think a single person besides yourself has used that term.
No one I have ever met from HK has used that term, family, friends, schoolmates, not one.
It's just weird.
Imagine someone talking about fighting racism and they keep saying "Orientals" and "Negroes".
Mr T
Senior Member
Apparently Tories think differently.
It's not the 19th century anymore. Of course, if you see any of those companies make a statement about the proposed immigration changes, feel free to share them.
How else would you like me to refer to people living in Hong Kong?
I've heard mainlanders refer to "Shanghainese", "Beijingers", etc (in English, of course). Are they also being racist?
After seeing what happened with Brexit, let's see what actually happens if the Conservative Party has to vote.
But note the City of London is as influential as ever in Parliament, and is heavily influenced by those companies.
And the broader interests of the City of London are to piggy back on China's globalisation.
Note that the City of London Corporation didn't tolerate any protestors spilling over last year's Extinction Rebellion protests in Westminster.
That will temper the situation, so there won't have to be a vote in Parliament about letting in 3million migrants.