• wethepeopleofhk

It's happening before our eyes

Hong Kong (HK) is now an independent colony belonging to totalitarian Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and is NOT part of China:

+ There is no ICCPR freedom of movement of the people of China into HK;

+ CCP is the illegitimate one-party ruler of China under its self-annointed 'People's democratic dictatorship';

+ CCP is in breach of the Joint Declaration that it signed in respect of the future of Hong Kong (HK).

CCP knows it is weak and feels insecure, otherwise it would not have killed off 'HK the golden goose'! HK represents a challenge that could undermine its governance of the rest of China.

HK is already a burden to CCP! : CCP is signalling that mainland Chinese CCP members will take over HK politics and governance throwing out HK elites and HK pro-Beijing supporters.

There is no viable CCP strategy for long term HK stability and prosperity : Leading Japanese online brokerage SBI is leaving HK because of the 1 July 2020 national security law which CCP used to annex HK.

Cadres of CCP talk in an over-inflated manner about there being a "grave security threat", and "foreign forces" infiltrating HK - but provide no evidence of substance to justify the destabilising impact of legislative changes CCP has brought to bear on the SAR.

Although the CCP is continuing with its breach of the UN international treaty, HK's Joint Declaration and with its violations to HK people's human rights in front of everyone's eyes here and abroad, it does not make it any more palatable nor legal!


CCP please answer the following UN letters sent to you:

Please read our blogs:

HK people's innovations are changing the world for the better!

Communist Hong Kong dumped: ranked 107th freest economy in the world

Hundreds protest as HK locks up 47 democracy activists and politicians

The words of the Courageous

CCP and Bauhinia Party will not suceed long term in controlling HK!

Further references:

Apple Daily 9 March 2021 'China’s rubber-stamp parliament to rubber stamp poll reform Thursday: pro-Beijing delegate'

Apple Daily 9 March 2021 'Behind the Curtain: Hong Kong government frets about disqualification by Heritage Foundation'

Apple Daily 8 March 2021 'Carrie Lam thanks CCP for steering electoral vetting, finds Beijing loyalists democratic'

Project Syndicate 8 March 2021 'Why China’s Hong Kong Crackdown Could Backfire'

China turns its back on Hong Kong loyalists

Inversezone 7 March 2021 (from FT)

China’s staunchest supporters in Hong Kong say they have been left out of decisions regarding changes to the territory’s electoral system.

Analysts said this was due to Beijing’s frustration with the city’s elite inability to quell anti-government sentiment in the city that exploded during pro-democracy protests in 2019.

Beijing has traditionally relied on a loose network of pro-Chinese lawmakers, tycoons and advisers to its parliament to help rule Hong Kong, wire its messages and serve as a sounding board for new ideas before they are deployed.

But Chinese officials are making sweeping changes to Hong Kong’s electoral system without consulting many of the city’s loyalists. Instead, Beijing turned to its newly settled mainland representatives in the city and selected older politicians for advice.

The changes, under which Beijing will further increase its control over who qualifies to be a lawmaker in Hong Kong through a new control system, were announced at the week-long annual meeting of the National People’s Congress, China’s parliament. At the opening session on Friday, Wang Chen, an AFN vice president, said Hong Kong’s electoral system presented “loopholes and loopholes” that could allow “anti-Chinese forces” to take over. control of the city.

Regina Ip, a staunch pro-government lawmaker who recently backed China’s internationally condemned Xinjiang policy, suggested it was irrelevant and that Beijing was changing who it listens to.

[The Chinese government] are not sure they have full control of the elite [and] Beijing does not fully trust election committee tycoons after 2019

“I am not aware of any thoughts on the part of officials in Beijing. . . maybe they consulted the best, most trusted advisers, ”Ip told the Financial Times. “The old consultation strategy [with Hong Kong elites] did not end well, it did not produce the results that Beijing wanted.“

An executive board member who advises Carrie Lam, chief executive of Hong Kong, said he didn’t think any board member saw a plan for the reforms a month before their announcement.

A pro-establishment lawmaker said he and many of his colleagues were excluded from a February symposium in Shenzhen on electoral changes attended by new officials, “old guard” politicians such as Rita Fan, a former representative in the Chinese legislature and a few businessmen.

“What the central government is determined to create are not rubber stamps or loyal garbage, but righteous patriots,” wrote Tian Feilong, director of the China Association of Hong Kong and Macau Studies – a semi-official think tank on the mainland in Beijing – in Ming Pao, a Hong Kong newspaper.

In his first major intervention since taking office, Xia Baolong, the Beijing bureau chief who oversees Hong Kong and Macau, said the central government should take charge of the changes, rather than Hong Kong officials.

The reforms would increase Beijing’s already important role in Hong Kong politics. China can already determine who is elected chief executive because the candidate is chosen by a committee heavily weighted in favor of the pro-Beijing camp of the financial center and the tycoons who have traditionally backed the government.

Opposition parties had at least a chance of winning a majority in the city’s legislature, but authorities have disqualified or are prosecuting opposition politicians.

Ho-Fung Hung, professor at Johns Hopkins University, said China did not want to take the “slightest chance” that the elections did not go their way.

“[The Chinese government] are not sure they have full control of the elite [and] Beijing does not fully trust the election committee tycoons after 2019, ”said Hung, referring to pro-democracy protests that year.

The city was promised a high degree of autonomy upon the transfer from the United Kingdom in 1997. Electoral changes, however, would increase the pace of Beijing’s direct interventions in Hong Kong affairs, which began with the imposition of a tough national security law last year.

Jasper Tsang, a founding member of Hong Kong’s largest pro-Beijing political party [DAB], said the last time he was consulted by Chinese officials was after the law was introduced. “I am not sure of the difference [the consultation] done, ”he said.

CY Leung, a former managing director of Hong Kong and vice chairman of the mainland’s main political advisory body, is one of China’s strongest advocates in the territory, but said he had not attended any sessions, official consultation on electoral reforms.

Taken by surprise by the force of pro-democracy protests in 2019, Beijing expressed its displeasure at the lack of warning from replacement of officials which represented the central government of the city.

Some of its new members are known to have reshuffled the wayward provinces. Luo Huining the new head of the Beijing Central Liaison Office has rooted out corrupt officials in Shanxi Province.

Two pro-Beijing politicians from Hong Kong told the FT that mainland officials appointed to the liaison office were keeping a distance from the city’s traditional elites.

“I think Beijing would like to have new blood,” said Lau Siu-kai of the China Association for Hong Kong and Macao Studies.

To this end, China has expanded its official presence in the city with a new Department of National Security Hong Kong Island based office. “[Carrie Lam, Hong Kong’s leader] will govern day to day, but the office is like a big brother with its arm around its shoulder, ”a government official said.

Leung suggested that Hong Kong’s lawmakers and elites should accept Beijing’s greater role in city affairs. “[Hong Kong] is local government after all, ”he said. “We are not Singapore.” Source link

Cunning good-for-nothings|Lau Sai-leung

Apple Daily 9 March 2021 (format added)

After the 2.28 mass round-up, a show of gruelling trials was put on to awe the pro-democracy camp and Hong Kong people. A layer of unauthorized construction - a mechanism for vetting candidates for their qualifications, for which the Election Committee is responsible - is to be added to the existing electoral arrangement.

What’s more, a retro dish was served up: “indirect election”, for which the Election Committee is responsible as well. As regards the composition of the Election Committee, seats for District Council members authorized by public opinion are allocated to members of CCP (Chinese Communist Party)’s peripheral organizations.

Hong Kong is then put under overall direct jurisdiction by the CCP. The major hindrances - the pro-democracy figures - are already eradicated, irrespective of whether they have disbanded, withdrawn from a party, gone into exile or been thrown in jail.

The purge of the civil forces can be put on hold for a while. Meanwhile, however, the spearhead of party-run media is targeted at the AOs (Administrative Officers)’ party. Tian Feilong from one of the Mainland think tanks pointed out that patriots are not supposed to play as rubber stamps, and “loyal good-for-nothings” are to be ditched. It seems that the denunciation against the AOs’ party will be followed by criticism of and struggle against the “loyal good-for-nothings” among the pro-establishment camp.

Disintegration of pro-democracy camp doesn’t make pro-establishment camp capable

According to On Contradiction by Mao Zedong, we have to grasp the major contradiction among a lot of contradictions. While the homogeneity of contradictions is conditional and relative, the combative nature of them is unconditional and absolute. I am afraid patriots have not yet understood it, or the pro-establishment figures nowadays have never read it.

What is the major contradiction in Hong Kong? It used to be the conflict between the opposition faction and the CCP before enactment of the National Security Law (NSL).

Since resetting Hong Kong, the CCP has been substantially shrinking the room for the opposition faction to engage in political activities, and capitalizing on the law to cope with the forces of local youths which have been budding in recent years. Tapping into CCP’s way of thinking, one will find that all issues should be looked into from the perspective of “development”, meaning that after winning in the struggle against the major contradiction, the issues would not disappear. After scoring a victory, the patriots, with political resources allocated by the CCP, can feel relieved when taking up the posts of the Chief Executive, LegCo members, Secretaries, Under Secretaries and Political Assistants, and moving up to live in the Mid-Levels West.

Since contradictions are transformable, contradictions that used to be the minor in the past will become the major. That’s why the homogeneity of contradictions is relative, and the combative nature of them is absolute.

With the NSL implemented and the electoral arrangement reset by the National People’s Congress, the major contradiction in Hong Kong will be gone. At the same time, three minor contradictions will become the major contradictions for another wave of struggles. They are the three existing political forces: the AOs’ party, the pro-establishment camp and the commercial circles.

Since the Handover in 1997, the issue of the AOs’ party has been high on the political agenda for Beijing. But in view of such a colossal team - 700 AOs – responsible for running the government, no one has dared to take action rashly. Nevertheless, there have been tactics to whitter down AOs’ power such as the struggle against Anson Chan Fang On-sang, establishment of an accountability system for high-ranking officials and its extension.

The AOs’ party getting more and more domineering has something to do with the pro-establishment camp wanting in people of a high calibre. In those years, Zeng Qinghong requested the pro-establishment figure to “promote their public image and enhance their own calibre”. More than ten years on, there has been just one more bunch of “loyal good-for-nothings” who are incapable of putting forward any political discourse and whose academic qualifications are the laughing stock of Hong Kong.

By the same measure, the figures from the commercial circles, who are just political free riders doing their jobs perfunctorily, do not even live up to the standard of a professional politician, and are only good at being a rubber stamp in the legislature.

How is patriots’ capacity for governance ameliorated after the political room for the opposition camp curtailed? Even if the pro-democracy camp smashes into pieces, it does not mean people like Starry Lee Wai-king and Kwok Wai-keung will become competent all at once. It is after all too harsh to require a political free rider only adept at bringing the skills of a wolf warrior into full play by shouting at the pro-democracy figures to be able to initiate political discourses and platforms, and held accountable to the masses. Even though the aforementioned three forces are beaten, or all of them are replaced by returnees of a high calibre from overseas, it is hardly impossible to assume everyone is red and professional, loyal and capable.

Seeming complicated and intricate, the Hong Kong issue is actually attributable to the ambiguity of authority and responsibility, and no distinction between those meriting rewards and those deserving punishments. It is not the pro-democracy camp that dragged down the quality of governance for Hong Kong for they have never had the opportunity to share the power. The three major forces in power have never been held accountable to anyone, with their authority fragmented. Having no common political belief, they are just a rabble of scoundrels who act upon directives given by the CCP. Being deficient in political energy and engaging in politics merely for personal benefits, they cannot even be reckoned politically allegiant, but just typical sycophantic wage earners who pretend to be working when having a meeting with their boss, and mostly whiling away their time by indulging themselves in beer and skittles.

Though resetting the electoral arrangement this time is an additional safety factor for the CCP, it will run counter to their desire in terms of raising the governance standard.

Doubtful? Look at the first Budget after the opposition camp having been purged!

Click here for Chinese version.

Apple Daily photo

17 views0 comments