Friday, 3 October 2014

China Speaks for Hong Kongers, According to HK Basic Law

Democracy is about the Rule of Law, Not the Rule of the Mob. Never mind the size of the Mob Crowd or the loud noise of the Rabble. They have no place in a Democracy when illegal. HK students represent NOBODY ... So why should Hong Kong Chief Executive CY Leung, or anyone, "negotiate" with those who represent nobody? Democracy is in essence about REPRESENTATION.

It is clear that the Hong Kong demonstrators, mostly students encouraged by politicians with their own agenda, do not care about the livelihood and well-being of the rest of Hong Kong, who is really the majority. The Hong Kong demonstrators are fighting only for themselves, NOT for the majority of HK people. They should now keep quiet and listen to the rest of Hong Kong whose families has lost much needed incomes from reduced tourism and disruptions to transportation.  The loss of tourism earnings by 7% must seriously hit the pockets of taxi drivers, retail shop owners, amusement centre operators, tour guides, tour operators, restaurants, hotels and, yes, the parents, uncles/aunties, relatives and siblings of the demonstrators.  The earnings loss will never be recovered.

Never has the abuse of Democratic freedom so blatant.  The inherent right to peaceful protests has been openly misused to riot over unfounded fears about the future.  Nothing is more frightening than to lash out at shadows when believing monsters residing within.   

WHO will speak for those hurt most by irresponsible Hong Kong demonstrators? According to the Basic Law of Hong Kong, it is China who speaks for all Hong Kongers.     

As promised in the Basic Law, the Chinese has planned for "universal franchise" - direct election by HK Electorate - in 2017 for HK Chief Executive. And 2017 would have been a notable milestone for HK Democracy because neither the British nor American enjoy this privilege of Democracy in their election of Prime Minister and President. 

The unfounded fear, whipped up by obviously anti-HK interests, was that only pro-Beijing candidates would be nominated. Never mind that the nearly 2,000-persons Selection Committee would consist ONLY of Hong Kongers, in fact including many who are also protesting. And any strongly pro-HK candidate must want the best for HK, which includes good relations with Beijing. 

In demanding changes to the Hong Kong Basic Law, the HK protestors has seriously misunderstood the nature of the Basic Law which stipulates the basic policies of China towards the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (SAR) created in 1997 upon British return of the island.

Remember that Hong Kong has always belonged to China, who was forced to cede it to the British under the shameful Treaty of Nanjing in 1842 when China lost the Opium War with Britain after failing to stop the British from selling the profitable poison to the Chinese people. It's like the Mexican/Latin American Drug cartels demanding the State of Texas as payment and compensation for American destruction of their lucrative cocaine trade in the American war on drug.

Under British common law, the owner’s right to the return of his “stolen” property is absolute.  And any agreement to abridge or limit such rights by stating conditions for the lawful return of rightful property has no basis in law and therefore unenforceable. Whither the HK Basic Law?   

In any case, the Hong Kong Basic Law was never intended to be "a mini-constitution" for HK since it will only last for 50 years to end in 2047 as already agreed. The idea was for HK to eventually blend in with China over the 50-year period from “one country, two systems” to just “one country”.

It was also further misunderstood that the Basic Law was aimed at "preserving some democratic rights after Hong Kong reverted to Beijing's control” in 1997. Hong Kong people were enslaved living under British colonial servitude, and had no more "democratic rights" than American Black Slaves or Black South Africans under Apartheid.

The Hong Kong Basic Law is a purely domestic legislation deriving its authority from the Constitution of the People's Republic of China (PRC). In fact, Basic Law’s Article 158 specifically vested the power of final interpretation of the HK Basic Law in the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress (NPCSC) which is the highest organ of state whose power is derived from the Constitution of the People's Republic of China. Ergo, YES, the PRC Constitution supersedes the Basic Law of Hong Kong SAR.  In fact, it was the NPCSC who adopted and approved the HK Basic Law on 4 April 1990, and came into effect on Handover Day, 1 July 1997

Essentially, the HK Basic Law, which is the outcome of the Joint Declaration between PRC and the British government on Hong Kong, acts only as the historic interim (50 years) agreement on the rightful RETURN of Hong Kong back to the People's Republic of China.

Some have suggested, wrongly and out of context, a Hong Kong referendum on independence similar to the recent Independence Referendum by Scotland.

Hong Kong is NOT Scotland. Scotland conquered England (plus Wales) in 1603, and UK was formed in 1707 together with Ireland. Unlike Scotland, Hong Kong has always belonged to China, before being ceded by force. Unlike Scotland, the option for Hong Kong independence is not available since she is just a SMALL Chinese city and an integral part of China.
Hong Kong people must accept and learn HOW to live as part of China, not apart. 

Read more:


No comments:

Post a Comment