China to impose sweeping security law in Hong Kong, ends city’s autonomy | Hacker News Reader

China to impose sweeping security law in Hong Kong, ends city’s autonomy

washingtonpost.com

52 pointsdoener21 comments

I'm quite sad for the people living in Hong Kong, to be stripped from their autonomy by means like dragging out the pro-democratic party members and "voting" for a person who is pro-CCP, and claiming that to be a legitimate.

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 :(

The thing that made Hong Kong successful was that it was a financial hub. That kind of requires trust in a system, so that's going to go away. China has significantly devalued what should have been one of their best resources because they couldn't take criticism and leave a city alone.

Hong Kong used to be the the Chinese financial hub and manufacturing centre.

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.

The end of any pretense that “One country, two systems” means anything real. But for coronavirus this would be the biggest news of the year. Millions of people have had any hope of democracy taken from them.

The citizens of Hong Kong need a new domicile, perhaps Tsushima Island between Japan and Korea. In any case, somewhere where they can continue with the rule of law. There is no way that the economy of Hong Kong can thrive under the (non existent) laws of mainland China.

Hong Kong’s economy is built on its (arguably at least economically) exploitative relationship with China. More improbable even than the successful implementation of a relocation plan (to N. Ireland, Tsushima Island, or whatever) is that China would allow this new Hong Kong to have any economic relationship with the Mainland. It has factored in the economic cost already, and has decided that the tradeoff of having a free and democratic Chinese city is too much. As Chip Tsao said on television recently,⁰ the Zhongnanhai is using ‘bottom line thinking’—they have decided they can do without a window on the West, and so will neither act to save the other one nor allow the creation of a new one.

0. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qtom_T9-g08

If Reunion and Mauritius can make a go of things in the middle of nowhere I'm pretty sure the people of Hong Kong can do equally as well, with or without China. However, having a reliable rule of law would be the big advantage that Hong Hong can bring to the table as no one, not even mainland Chinese, trust the legal system of 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.

I wonder if this will eventually affect cryptocurrency exchanges in Hong Kong. For example, as far as allowing US citizens.

The western nations have this weird fascination with Hong Kong. It was basically unbridled capitalism over there, and westerners lived above the law among the local peasants.

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.

There is quite an important omission in this article (which is a bit too emotional without enough focus on factual info...) about the whole issue.

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"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hong_Kong_Basic_Law_Article_23

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.

Yeah because the right to protest shouldn't be a thing and they should all bow down to the CCP. /s

It couldn't be clearer that if anything HK wants nothing to do with China.

I am just trying to comment something substantive to go beyond the sensationalist and emotional way the topic is usually (purposely) covered.

> The social unrest last year showed that the Hong Kong government was unable to handle passing [national security legislation] on its own

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.

> determination that Sino-British Joint Declaration was violated by Beijing

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.

> they consider the Declaration non-binding

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.

But did those sanctions have any meaningful effect upon Russia's conduct? Did the sanctions stop Russia from annexing Crimea?

Well, the HK government previously attempted to implement article 23 about 10 years ago and backed off due to demonstrations, etc.

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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com