01 point of view
Written by: Review Editor
2020-05-24 08:00
Last update date: 2020-05-24 08:00The National People's Congress announced that the agenda for this year's meeting included the establishment of the "Hong Kong version of the National Security Law" for Hong Kong, which was included in Annex III of the Basic Law by the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress. It is directly exercised in Hong Kong and is equivalent to casting a heavy political shock to Hong Kong. According to the disclosure of "Hong Kong 01", the "Hong Kong version of the National Security Law" will include the four major items of subversion of state power, division of the country, the implementation of terrorist activities and intervention by external forces. It does not fully contain the content of Article 23 of the Basic Law, nor is it intended to Article 23 legislation.
The news came out on the afternoon of Thursday (21st). The convener of the democratic conference, Chen Shuzhuang, responded that night by denying that the central government's decision was equivalent to "one country, one system", and the practice was "unwise" and did not learn the anti-article 23 of 2003 and the anti-repair last year Examples of "lessons". The Democrats held another press conference on Friday (22nd) morning, with the slogan "Central speculation" opposed to the legislation.
When the social and democrats criticize the "centralization of speculation", it really makes people reflect on the meaning of "centralization of speculation". During the period of anti-amendment, the word "scramble" in the mouth of the "scramble speculation" refers to forcing the Hong Kong government and even the central government to compromise. The subject of the "scramble speculation" is the demonstrators, threatening Hong Kong's economy and unique status. Imagine that the government or the mainland will be afraid of being "sponsored" and be "common to all."
From active to passive
Now that the Central Government has launched the "Hong Kong version of the National Security Law", it is undoubtedly an undesirable step for the Central Government and Hong Kong. However, the social and democratic parties criticized the "Central speculation" and the subject has become the Central Government. "perish together". If the central government really takes the initiative to speculate, does it mean that the demonstrator's original "speculation theory" was simply not established? This is because the central government does not fear "scramble" for the benefits it considers important, such as social stability. In fact, including us, there has always been a voice in the community reminding Hong Kong that it should not appeal to the "marginal strategy" to bring the relationship between Hong Kong and the central government to a tense situation. This is because under the sovereignty of "one country", the central government can always exercise sovereignty in Hong Kong, including the enactment of laws and implementation in Hong Kong. As a netizen, "Lanchao" may be a joke for a while, and it has become a political slogan or even a social movement policy. The ending may be a situation that everyone does not want to see-"self-hype".
For Hong Kong to be prosperous and stable, "one country, two systems" must be stable and far-reaching, and all parties should not support "scramble". Democrats cannot challenge the bottom line of the central government, and politicians of all factions should not use the struggle as a guideline to push Hong Kong into tears. As a matter of fact, not many people in Hong Kong society really have the meaning of "grabbing speculation", but rather hate "grabbing speculation". Today, accusing the other party of "sponsoring speculation" is to some extent shirk their responsibilities. It is similar to US President Trump and the Republican Party's reliance on others to protect themselves.
Marginal strategy is not good for Hong Kong
Strictly speaking, traditional democratic politicians do not have much role in the rise of Hong Kong's independent thought and anti-revisionist movements in recent years, but just follow the trend. However, democratic politicians have always been ambiguous about the proposition of Hong Kong independence, and eventually "not cut off" defaulted in violent demonstrations. Coupled with the fact that some politicians are really naive enough to think that they can solve Hong Kong's political problems by lobbying in the United States, this is a panic that the pan-Chinese people have ignored regardless of the red line emphasized by the central government many times.
We tirelessly say that the "Hong Kong version of the National Security Law" is for the Mainland to help Hong Kong to legislate, and it may even have a mainland authority to supervise law enforcement, which is not a good result for Hong Kong and "One Country, Two Systems." Today, we have to "take the course" in this way. The naive political game of democratic politicians really has to bear certain responsibilities. Democrat politicians have been following the line in recent years. For example, for the ambiguity of the Hong Kong independence forces in society, "no cut off" defaults to violent demonstrations, and even does not know or deliberately ignore political lobbying in the United States. Hong Kong has been struggling for too long. If people from all walks of life truly want Hong Kong in the future, they should retreat from the cliff, regain pragmatism, actively use flexible space within the framework of "one country, two systems", and strive for even greater play.
[Hong Kong version of the National Security Law] Twenty-three years of government inability to harm Hong Kong
[Hong Kong version of the National Security Law] The castle game in the sky is a complete loser
01 point of view
Hong Kong version of the National Security Law, One Country, Two Systems