Beijing says enough is enough!

"The best outcome would be Hong Kong to enact the legislation after due scrutiny, however the Pan Dem's slammed that door shut"

The Hong Kong Pan Dem camp has brought to their door the very thing they feared the most. Their cocked-eyed approach to Hong Kong's democratic development has now hit 'realpolitik'. Beijing's decision to enact national security legislation is a direct result of the Pan Dem's inability to negotiate rationally.

The scenes we've seen in LegCo over the past two weeks are an affirmation of their juvenile, callow conduct. Well, Daddy has stepped in and taken away the keys to the toy box. 

Let's get to the core of the issue. Beijing's biggest fear was always that Hong Kong might evolve into a centre for destabilising the whole 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, you wonder, did we get to this situation. 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 Dem's failed to grasp the opportunity for democratic reform, making 'perfect' the enemy of a practical solution. Since then, things spiralled downhill; Occupy Central, the Mongkok 2016 CNY riot and the civil unrest of 2019.

We all know that ‘one country, two systems’ was always a compromise solution that nonetheless has a certain elegance. It could work if each side recognised the other concerns. I’m afraid that's not happening. 

To safeguard its interests, the Chinese insisted that the 1997 agreement included national security laws. In simple terms, Hong Kong should not be a base to subvert the government in Beijing. The British agreed that provision, although the detail was left for after 1997.

It's 23 years since the handover with Hong Kong nowhere near agreeing on legislation. In the meantime, the likes of Anson Chan, Martin Lee and Joshua Wong went running to Washington demanding a US intervention. These actions are the very thing Beijing feared.

You can excuse Joshua Wong, after all, he's a young man with issues. This means he may not always comprehend the consequence 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 teetering 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 Dem's 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 must have rattled the windows at Zhongnanhai. Kids with underdeveloped frontal cortexes, and thus impulsive by nature, took to the streets to confront the police.

With little ability to grasp the possible outcomes, these kids are now paying the price with jail terms, careers ruined and families in pain. Meanwhile, the failure of the Pan Dems 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 Dem's could likely win a large victory in September's LegCo elections. That would rule out Article 23. Further, the distractions of Covid-19 and a weakened US 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. This may mute any response, although its anyone's guess.

This morning the social media chatter was its usual bipolar self. Some decried the decision of Beijing and others welcomed it as correcting a failing. The detractors asserted Hong Kong would experience a new wave of emigration. 

They may well be right, but we've encountered several such waves in the past and brushed off the impact. In any case, many of those who left before 1997 regretted their decision and sought to return quietly. With anti-China sentiment on the rise overseas, the welcome mat is missing. 

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, the Pan Dems are now between a rock and a hard place. They can shout and bleat all they like, or take to the streets again. It won't matter. Their tactics backfired and gave us the result we didn't want, because the best outcome would be Hong Kong to enact the legislation after due scrutiny. 

​Many of us warned of such an outcome if the Pan Dems continued with their myopic relentless anti-Beijing mindset. And so it's come to pass.