Posted on 08/18/2019 5:42:15 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
Hong Kong has not yet warranted any call for Beijing to send troops to the city for security purposes amid ongoing protests against the now-abandoned extradition bill, top Beijing adviser and the city’s former justice secretary Elsie Leung Oi-sie said on Sunday.
Leung said on a radio programme that even if the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) in Hong Kong were deployed according to the Basic Law – Hong Kong’s mini-constitution – she did not think the move would damage the governing principle of “one country, two systems”.
Leung’s remark came in light of recent reports that large numbers of armed police had been gathering at Shenzhen Bay, near the Hong Kong border. The reports sparked speculation and concern Beijing might deploy paramilitary troops to the city to crack down on protests that have been continuing for more than two months.
“Article 18 [comes into effect when the situation in Hong Kong] ‘endangers national unity or security’, which would be when people are not only promoting Hong Kong independence, but are taking up arms in an attempt to separate the city from China,” Leung said.
“That would be a state of war. But what has been happening in Hong Kong so far is more an issue of public order than of national security.”
Article 18 of the Basic Law provides that in the event of the standing committee of the National People's Congress declaring a state of war or a state of emergency in Hong Kong, the central government may issue an order applying relevant national laws in Hong Kong.
The protests in the past two months arose from opposition to the bill, which Chief Executive Carrie Lam Cheng Yuet-ngor has since said is dead and which would have allowed the city to send criminal suspects to mainland China, as well as other jurisdictions it didn’t have an extradition agreement with.
Leung added that though some people labelled the protests in Hong Kong a “colour revolution”, she thought that point had not yet arrived.
“Some actions are quite close to subversion but there has yet to be an attempt to topple the Chinese government or the Hong Kong government,” she said.
Beijing’s Office of Hong Kong and Macau Affairs has held three press conferences since protesters defaced the national emblem at the liaison office in Sai Wan in late July, and condemned such actions as challenges to national sovereignty and one country, two systems. However Leung said those were minor acts.
“Insulting the national emblem and the national flag is indeed challenging the central government’s authority but all these are petty actions that will not really affect Hong Kong’s security,” Leung said.
“The protesters shouldn’t do that but neither should a state of emergency be declared just because of these people.”
The Basic Law’s article 14 also stipulates that the Hong Kong government can ask Beijing for assistance from the PLA garrison in the city to maintain public order.
In such an eventuality, according to Leung, the one country, two systems principle would not be breached. “Military forces stationed in Hong Kong are bound by both national and Hong Kong’s law, including the garrison law; therefore, one country, two systems won’t simply end because troops are deployed,” Leung said.
Meanwhile, Ronny Tong Ka-wah, a non-official member of the Executive Council, said on Saturday that Lam could make laws to temporarily ban all demonstrations by declaring a state of emergency under the Emergency Regulations Ordinance. But he worried that such a move would bring Beijing one step closer to sending troops to Hong Kong and make local governance more difficult.
Tong added that his think tank and political group Path of Democracy had proposed setting up a “truth and reconciliation commission”, which aims to promote social recovery and suggest an amnesty list to Lam. He said it could serve as an alternative to protesters’ call for the setting up of an independent inquiry into the police’s use of force.
Protesters have also demanded the exoneration of more than 700 people arrested since the movement started on June 9.
Secretary for Justice Teresa Cheng Yeuk-wah said on Sunday before leaving on a business trip to Shanghai that she and the Director of Public Prosecutions would not take any political factors into account when deciding whether to press charges or not.
“Prosecutorial decisions by the Department of Justice do not kowtow to anyone and are not subject to any form or pressure,” Cheng said.
When asked why the justice department had yet to charge anyone arrested in relation to an indiscriminate attack against passengers in Yuen Long MTR station on July 21, Cheng said she would not comment on individual cases and prosecution work depended on the case’s complexity and the amount of evidence.
A legal source said it was still premature to say if the justice department could press charges in the Yuen Long case, as the relevant documents had not even reached the department. This meant no decision had been made. One of the difficulties, as the Post understood, lay in the fact the men involved were not arrested on the spot on the evening of July 21.
Top prosecutor David Leung Cheuk-yin previously declined to comment on whether Cheng was personally involved in any decision to prosecute. But the Post understands that each prosecution surrounding recent protests must go through Cheng herself.
Protesters took to the streets on Sunday afternoon at Victoria Park in Causeway Bay for another mass rally to press the government to respond to their demands.
People of Hong Kong are making it clear they don’t want Beijing puppets running Hong Kong.
RE: People of Hong Kong are making it clear they don’t want Beijing puppets running Hong Kong.
Sure, but they don’t have to deface public property, occupy the airport and paralyze Hong Kong’s economy to make their point. You lose the moral high ground doing that. What they need is a leader like Gandhi or Martin Luther King Jr.
“Sure, but they don’t have to deface public property, occupy the airport and paralyze Hong Kong’s economy”
You might as well be the MSM or ChiCom propaganda.
Non-violent protest only works in a society where the powers that be have some moral compunction against killing you.
I think the point is, we would roll in law enforcement or the national guard if we had to, if LAX was occupied by protesters.
You have to get them to attack you when you’re peaceful.
If you give them a valid reason to come after you, you loose your high ground.
Sorry to be snarky but that’s the ill informed narrative.
How long have these protests been going on?
How many people have taken part?
How many incidents of vandalism have taken place? (There’s been no violence). How many people were involved? Who are the people doing it? What was the vandalism?
When 100’s of thousands up to a million people gathered on numerous occasions in public spaces and proceeded through the city with signs and banners saying they want their freedom, as promised, singing hymns and Broadway songs and even the US National Anthem, how much violence, vandalism or destruction has there been?
What about garbage and debris left over?
Answer these questions and you’ll see the media, and ChiCom, false narrative that exaggerates and focuses only on small aspects of this mass movement.
Ok, I do see property being defaced and the airport being occupied. You are not the MSM, so, tell me... who are the people doing this then?
And please tell me your reliable source for your answer. This is NOT a trick question. I really want to know.
“who are the people doing this then?”
Very small subset of all the people who’ve demonstrated over the past Years and recent months.
Who they are is a question. Are they part of the actual movement? Or are they opportunist youth who see a chance at holliganism? Are they agents trying to stir up trouble?
No one knows. I’d say maybe a mix. And what damage they’ve done has been way less than our leftists do in a day when there’s one of those WTO or G7 meetings here or in Western Europe.
The point, though, is these are few and far between incidents that pale in number compared the the number of Hong Kongers who’ve participated and the number of demonstrations that have taken place.
This is why it is a false narrative to present what vandalism has occurred as representative or even of any real significance in the overall movement.
As far as the airport, it’s very questionable that it needed to be shut done because a bunch of teenagers and twenty-somethings put up posters and handed out pamphlets for travelers to see.
I think shutting it down was a counter strategy on the part of the communists for optics, as our creepy media call it.
“What they need is a leader like Gandhi or Martin Luther King Jr.”
If either one of them had tried their non violence thing against the ChiComs they’d both be forgotten unknown corpses rotting in a ditch someplace.
L
[If either one of them had tried their non violence thing against the ChiComs they’d both be forgotten unknown corpses rotting in a ditch someplace.]
Sure there is. To kill people. To shed blood.
Like I said and you so meticulously pointed out, the protests were massive and going in the right direction.
Then some idiot came up with the bright idea to occupy and shut down the international airport. GAME OVER!
I’ve seen people propose the idea that sleeper Chinese agents may have pushed that idea forward. Hey, it was a golden gift from whoever, either intentionally or just a very stupid calculated risk that cost them all the momentum.
We would not allow a group to close down LAX. No country would allow that sort of thing.
When China acted, other nations were in full agreement. The last thing they wanted was their major airports occupied as in a fad of sorts.
Putting that down, did them all a favor.
It’s a real shame the protesters went this route, because this will now be the focus, not all the other peaceful protests.
To quote a general, don’t get stuck on stupid.
Sorry, but it fits with your obsessive comments.
One could argue that shutting down the airport is the most important thing they did so far.
One can argue anything they like. It doesn’t matter. It’s what the perception of other governments is.
You tell me which government around the world would take a pass on opening up their international airport if it was occupied, even by well meaning people.
Sure you and I recognize the protesters have a legitimate beef. When they occupied the international airport in Hong Kong, that legitimate beef became second tier.
If you, I, and thousands of others occupied LAX even if we had a legitimate beef with our government, do you think our government would let us get away with it?
Our legitimate beef would become a secondary issue. Opening up the airport would be the primary issue once it was occupied.
Now, if the Chinese open fire on unarmed protesters in the airport, that would swing it back in favor of the protesters. The cost to the protesters would be very high for that.
It would prove their charges that the Chinese government was very oppressive though.
Just because I argue that the occupation of the airport was a tactical mistake, it doesn’t mean that I don’t agree with the protester’s goals.
The Red Chinese can not let the Hong Kong People have a victory of any kind. It will be the end of Chicom rule. They must crush the revolt or it will, in time, be the end of Communist Mandarin Rule. They have little choice. Democracy is like a disease that will kill China’s One Party Rule. This might be the beginning of the end of China’s powerful state.
You’re harping on it like a concern troll.
These guys are literally fighting for their freedom from communist tyranny.
I’m going to support them.
You don’t want to admit I’m right. That’s fine.
No nation on earth would allow protesters to occupy and shut down a major airport without reacting.
You can deny that reality in perpetuity, it still won’t change that reality.
If you want to label me something negative for addressing that mistake, go ahead. It won’t change it from being a mistake.
The issue was one of extradition, and other freedoms from a heavy handed central government in Beijing, something most people and governments could support.
They change it to one of an airport occupation and the shut down of all departing flights, something most people and foreign governments couldn’t support.
If you think that was a good move, I think you’re sadly mistaken.
You sound like Beijing mouthpiece.
Yes, they’re doomed. Never can withstand the mighty forces of order imposed by the benign and wise Chinese Communist Party.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.