Beijing Says, "Enough is enough."
"The Pan Democrats are now between a rock and a hard place, and put themslves there"
The Pan Democratic camp has brought to their door the very thing they feared the most. Their cocked-eyed approach to Hong Kong's political development has now hit 'realpolitik'. Beijing's decision to enact national security legislation directly results from the Pan Democratic's inability to negotiate rationally. The scenes in LegCo over the past two weeks affirm their juvenile, callow conduct. Well, Daddy has stepped in and removed the toy box's keys.
Let's get to the core of the issue. Beijing's biggest fear was that Hong Kong might become a centre for destabilising the nation. With 1.4 billion people to look after, China can ill afford turmoil. Plus, any chaos may spill over into the wider world. Thus, the interests of Hong Kong, with seven million people, are de facto subordinate. That's the hard truth.
How did we get to this situation? To cut a long story short, an attempt to pass Article 23 laws in 2003 failed after massive public opposition. Since then, the issue has been held in abeyance. Then, allied to that, in 2014, the Pan Democrats failed to grasp the opportunity for reform, making 'perfect' the enemy of a practical solution. Since then, things have spiralled downhill: Occupy Central, the Mongkok 2016 CNY riot, and the civil unrest of 2019.
We all know that 'one country, two systems' was an elegant compromise solution that could work if each side recognised the other concerns. That's not happening.
The Chinese insisted that the 1997 agreement include national security laws to safeguard their interests. In simple terms, Hong Kong should not be a base for subverting the government in Beijing. The British agreed to that provision, although the details were left for after 1997.
It's been 23 years since the handover, and we're still deciding on the legislation. In the meantime, Anson Chan, Martin Lee, and Joshua Wong ran to Washington, demanding U.S. intervention. These actions are the very thing Beijing feared.
You can excuse Joshua Wong; he's a young man with issues, which means he may not always comprehend the consequences of his actions. The same cannot be said for Anson Chan and Martin Lee. As seasoned political operators, they've elected to inflame sentiment.
Following the events of 2019, with Hong Kong tittering on anarchy and the recent shenanigans in LegCo, Beijing lost patience. I'm told behind-the-scenes talks to broker a settlement broke up months ago. Having slammed the door on negotiations, the Pan Democrats adopted a policy of filibuster and disruption.
Pro-establishment politicians are not blameless. They failed to reign in the filibuster, wobbling and prevaricating in LegCo. At the same time, Chief Executive Carrie Lam proved incapable of breaking the impasse.
The emergence last year of an independence movement at the core of the violent protests was ominous. At the forefront of this movement are kids with underdeveloped frontal cortexes, and thus impulsive by nature, who took to the streets to confront the police. With little ability to grasp the outcome of their actions, these kids are now paying the price with jail terms, careers ruined, and families in pain. Meanwhile, the failure of the Pan Democrats to condemn the violence, the killing and the mayhem is a stain on their reputation.
The timing of Beijing's move is astute. The Pan Democrats could likely win in September's LegCo elections, which would rule out Article 23. Further, the distractions of COVID-19 and a weakened U.S. president provide a window of opportunity. Added to that, Hong Kong is a city of extreme hypochondriacs; thus, the virus might be seen as a more significant threat than national security laws. However, it's anyone's guess.
This morning, social media chatter was its usual bipolar self. Some decried Beijing's decision, and others welcomed it as correcting a failure. The detractors asserted Hong Kong would experience a new wave of emigration. They may be correct, but we've encountered several such waves and brushed off the impact. Many who left before 1997 regretted their decision and sought to return quietly.
Taiwan was open to Hong Kong protesters fleeing arrest action in 2019. Then, once Tsai Ing-wen secured another four-year term, she closed the door to Hong Kong migrants by imposing new regulations. She can ill-afford to have a cluster of hard-core Hong Kong asylum seekers stirring up trouble.
What is clear is that the Pan Democrats are now between a rock and a hard place, and put themslves there. They can shout and bleat all they like or return to the streets. It won't matter. Their tactics backfired; they had no strategy and no endgame. Many of us warned of such an outcome if the Pan Democrats continued with their myopic, relentless anti-Beijing mindset.
And so it's come to pass.
May 2020
Let's get to the core of the issue. Beijing's biggest fear was that Hong Kong might become a centre for destabilising the nation. With 1.4 billion people to look after, China can ill afford turmoil. Plus, any chaos may spill over into the wider world. Thus, the interests of Hong Kong, with seven million people, are de facto subordinate. That's the hard truth.
How did we get to this situation? To cut a long story short, an attempt to pass Article 23 laws in 2003 failed after massive public opposition. Since then, the issue has been held in abeyance. Then, allied to that, in 2014, the Pan Democrats failed to grasp the opportunity for reform, making 'perfect' the enemy of a practical solution. Since then, things have spiralled downhill: Occupy Central, the Mongkok 2016 CNY riot, and the civil unrest of 2019.
We all know that 'one country, two systems' was an elegant compromise solution that could work if each side recognised the other concerns. That's not happening.
The Chinese insisted that the 1997 agreement include national security laws to safeguard their interests. In simple terms, Hong Kong should not be a base for subverting the government in Beijing. The British agreed to that provision, although the details were left for after 1997.
It's been 23 years since the handover, and we're still deciding on the legislation. In the meantime, Anson Chan, Martin Lee, and Joshua Wong ran to Washington, demanding U.S. intervention. These actions are the very thing Beijing feared.
You can excuse Joshua Wong; he's a young man with issues, which means he may not always comprehend the consequences of his actions. The same cannot be said for Anson Chan and Martin Lee. As seasoned political operators, they've elected to inflame sentiment.
Following the events of 2019, with Hong Kong tittering on anarchy and the recent shenanigans in LegCo, Beijing lost patience. I'm told behind-the-scenes talks to broker a settlement broke up months ago. Having slammed the door on negotiations, the Pan Democrats adopted a policy of filibuster and disruption.
Pro-establishment politicians are not blameless. They failed to reign in the filibuster, wobbling and prevaricating in LegCo. At the same time, Chief Executive Carrie Lam proved incapable of breaking the impasse.
The emergence last year of an independence movement at the core of the violent protests was ominous. At the forefront of this movement are kids with underdeveloped frontal cortexes, and thus impulsive by nature, who took to the streets to confront the police. With little ability to grasp the outcome of their actions, these kids are now paying the price with jail terms, careers ruined, and families in pain. Meanwhile, the failure of the Pan Democrats to condemn the violence, the killing and the mayhem is a stain on their reputation.
The timing of Beijing's move is astute. The Pan Democrats could likely win in September's LegCo elections, which would rule out Article 23. Further, the distractions of COVID-19 and a weakened U.S. president provide a window of opportunity. Added to that, Hong Kong is a city of extreme hypochondriacs; thus, the virus might be seen as a more significant threat than national security laws. However, it's anyone's guess.
This morning, social media chatter was its usual bipolar self. Some decried Beijing's decision, and others welcomed it as correcting a failure. The detractors asserted Hong Kong would experience a new wave of emigration. They may be correct, but we've encountered several such waves and brushed off the impact. Many who left before 1997 regretted their decision and sought to return quietly.
Taiwan was open to Hong Kong protesters fleeing arrest action in 2019. Then, once Tsai Ing-wen secured another four-year term, she closed the door to Hong Kong migrants by imposing new regulations. She can ill-afford to have a cluster of hard-core Hong Kong asylum seekers stirring up trouble.
What is clear is that the Pan Democrats are now between a rock and a hard place, and put themslves there. They can shout and bleat all they like or return to the streets. It won't matter. Their tactics backfired; they had no strategy and no endgame. Many of us warned of such an outcome if the Pan Democrats continued with their myopic, relentless anti-Beijing mindset.
And so it's come to pass.
May 2020
Copyright © 2015