Comment by yaus831 | Hacker News Reader

Comment by yaus831 | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

Hong Kong resident here as well, I am in no way CY Leung nor Carrie Lam fan. I am pro peaceful demonstration and believe police brutality is real and support independent inquiry.

But this is not exactly his quote when you read further than the first paragraph:

"Asked if slogans like “end one-party rule” – which is often chanted at the June 4 vigil – would be allowed in future, Leung demurred, saying there’s no need to get into the nitty gritty of legal definitions at this point, as this could ‘affect public feelings’ about the coming legislation."

"He also said whether the vigil itself could fall foul of the law could depend on what participants do even after the gathering is over – saying that anything that involves activities that are ‘separatist in nature’ may well be banned even in other countries."

He evaded the question when asked about the "end one-party rule" slogans, and repeat the line "separatist" will be banned when ask about the vigil.

Do I believe "end one-party rule" slogan will cause problem? I think so, and I do not support arresting people for just yelling the "end one-party rule" slogan. But I would like to see the detail of the law before I draw any conclusion.

I understand the nuance of his answer, but in my view the acknowledgement that something like that could even be possible is a tacit admission that this is not intended as an emergency fallback to be used only when absolutely necessary.

The smart response to that question (not that he had the best political instinct to begin with, but...) would've been the same kind of non-answer Carrie Lam gives: we cherish Hong Kong's freedom of speech, et cetera.

But he didn't say that, and even he has to know that answering the way he did will ring alarm bells. Talking up the need for legislation to address homemade bombs and property destruction is one thing; curtailing political speech in the name of security is quite another.

The thing is they can now use "it's a separatist movement" to shut anything down that's too inconvenient for them. For example, the last year of protests are being deemed "separatist" and caused by "foreign powers". Lam Cheng repeats this sentiment nearly every press conference.

In my view Hong Kong being a territory of China should be prepared for such laws and so should be it's residents. If people who have passports of other country, they have a choice if they don't agree with this change. This change was kept on back burner for a while until majority of the Chinese could reap the benefits of economic progress. In this case China's legislature has a backing of majority of the Chinese population, so the change will go through. China like Singapore is a meritocracy, not democracy, still for any policy change to be enacted it needs a tacit approval from majority Chinese.

So like in any democracy laws can be passed with majority, its the same for China.

Chinese legislature learned from the mistakes of USSR with perestroika and glasnost that until welfare and progress do not reach its population, it cannot have legitimacy. So they succeeded in it and USA cannot find a clear opening like USSR to break China. So they started firing guns on the shoulders of Hong Kong, Taiwan, India, Japan and other countries surrounding China, because the initial attempt did not succeed. In this game these countries will suffer immensely and USA will progress by selling them weapons and prop it's own economy.

Hopefully instead of questioning other country if every country look inward and secure to all its own people JUSTICE, social, economic and political; LIBERTY of thought, expression, belief, faith and worship; EQUALITY of status and of opportunity; and to promote among them all FRATERNITY assuring the dignity of the individual, the world will be a better place.

This would be a stronger argument if a majority of Hong Kongers had agreed that they wanted to be a Chinese territory in the first place. They didn't get to pick - two governments, neither of which the people chose, made the decision for them.

You can argue that they didn't choose to be a British colony either, but nevertheless they were and many generations have now grown up in that system and internalized those values.

> If people who have passports of other country, they have a choice if they don't agree with this change

What about the millions who don't have second passports or any real option to leave? They have no legal avenue to effect change; are they just supposed to sit quietly and take whatever gets thrown at them?

> This would be a stronger argument if a majority of Hong Kongers

Hong Kongers are like Beijinger or Shanghainese so if China legislature wants to enact security law for country, they need to consider whole China not specific city or province like any central government in most democracies (when it comes to national laws). Hong Kong being a territory of China what matters is the majority of Chinese support and in this case overwhelming number support this action. If Chinese National in Hong Kong (i.e. Hong Kongers) are in doubt can do China countrywide survey and understand the national pulse.

> who don’t have second passports.

Live the way minority live in most commonwealth democratic countries. Unless these minority go out to fight till end (like Kashmiris are fighting Indian government unilateral actions), which I doubt any is willing to do, my guess is most can look for asylum as option in countries which support their cause, I believe Taiwan already offered (only risk is their founding fathers also consider Taiwan as one China, so may be it might lead to conflict in future).

Reply on news.ycombinator.com