No reason for Beijing to send troops to Hong Kong to deal with protests, says former justice sec.

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.

ifinnegan, please be reasoned.

Would we allow protesters to occupy an airport of ours shutting down all departures?

The answer is no. You know it is no, so why are you refusing to reason here?

On top of this, you ignore that fact to trash me for being a Chinese government mouthpiece.

No, I am a man of reason, and I’m willing to come down fairly on an issue.

If I were coaching a Conservative function, I would demand that they not commit an act that would leave the police or government no choice but to arrest them and prosecute them for cause.

You don’t play into the hands of your enemies.

“Would we allow protesters to occupy an airport of ours shutting down all departures?

The answer is no. You know it is no, so why are you refusing to reason here?”

I’m curious who you think said “occupying an airport and shutting down all departures” would be allowed?

You make zero sense.

Whatever argument or point you are making is incoherent.

You just keep saying the same thing over and over.

My point all along has been that they screwed up by occupying the airport and shutting down all departures.

You reacted by saying I was a mouthpiece for Beijing.

You can’t have it both ways.

Either you agree that was a mistake and side with me, or you refuse to side with me and leave the impression you don’t think it was a mistake.

I’ve told you clearly I support their peaceful protests to no avail. You still said I was a mouthpiece for Beiging.

Now you’re trying to act as if I am the problem.

Read the thread over if you need to.

“My point all along has been that they screwed up by occupying the airport and shutting down all departures.”

You’ve said that over and over and over.

Some demonstrators agreed with you and held a sign saying they were sorry and it was a mistake and due to being over zealous.

It hasn’t hurt the movement or support for it at all.

There was just another huge weekend demonstration where all of Hong Kong people from all walks of life come out and gather and walk through the streets.

Okay, then you do think it was wrong.

Wow, after what four or five hours, you’ve finally figured that out?

Thanks.

It was a dumb thing to do, and allowed the military to take the upper hand entering Hong Kong.

Well, I’m sure you think the mainland military being there is a real plus.

“was a dumb thing to do, and allowed the military to take the upper hand entering Hong Kong.”

Lol.

This is where you’re off the rails. (And sound like ChiCom propagandist doomsayers).

You’re kind of divorced from reality and obsessed.

And by the way. Try to focus.

Answer this question you ignored:

I’m curious who you think said “occupying an airport and shutting down all departures” would be allowed?

So far all you’ve demonstrated here is that you have zero analytical skills.

When these protesters kept it peaceful in the streets, the government allowed them to do it. The military stayed out of Hong Kong

As soon as they shut down the departures area of the airport, the Chinese military moved in.

You state that I keep mentioning this, but you have yet to express any perception that the military being on Hong soil might be bad in any way.

As I continue to explain to you why overplaying their hand at the airport was a bad idea, all you’ve got are insults and nonsense to respond with.

“When these protesters kept it peaceful in the streets, the government allowed them to do it.”

Actually you’re wrong about that.

Anyhow, you like to beat a dead horse.

One that’s not even dead but simply walked past you.

“As soon as they shut down the departures area of the airport, the Chinese military moved in.”

You’re out of your mind. Do you know anything about this topic?

‘I continue to explain to you why overplaying their hand at the airport “

That’s all you ever say.

You’ve trashed me for saying it was a very bad move to occupy the airport and give the military a reason to move in. You went so far as to say I was acting as the mouthpiece for Beijing. Now you’re trying to deny the implications of your own arguments.

Why did you get upset when I said it was a bad idea to occupy the airport, if you didn’t think it should be allowed?

I had to force out of you the admission that it was a lousy idea that wouldn’t be allowed.

Yes, do try to keep up.

Seriously, you got angry with me for saying the occupation of the airport was a bad idea.

I had to badger you on that point before you finally agreed it wouldn’t be allowed.

You now finally agree with me on that point, still haven’t apologized, and are still trying to spin it like you weren’t acting like a loon on this thread.

You started slandering people from the first few posts on this thread when they said the takeover of the airport was a rotten idea.

I’m not the only guy you accused of being a mouthpiece for Beijing.

You should be ashamed of yourself.

Here you are starting another day trying to blame others.

It’s not working for you.

We all support the freedom fighters there, but when someone you want good things for does something incredibly stupid, it really bother us.

Didn’t bother you at all.

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.