Activists in Fukushima protest against discharge plan
Save the oceans: Ho Sin Leng, 13, adding her signature to the ‘Raise Your Voice, Stop the Discharge of Nuclear Wastewater into the Ocean’ mass petition event at the Nirvana Memorial Garden in Semenyih. — ART CHEN/The Star
Unknown impact on human health, marine life and the environment concern many
HULU LANGAT: As Japan began to release contaminated wastewater into the Pacific Ocean last Thursday, voices of concern among Malaysians are being heard.
A large number of them have shared their reservations about the scheduled discharge of 1.3 million tonnes of wastewater from the Fukushima nuclear plant despite assurances of safety from the Japanese government and scientists including the International Atomic Energy Agency.
A 9.0-magnitude earthquake in 2011 had triggered a tsunami that hit three reactors of the plant located about 250km north of Tokyo.Malaysians are worried about the effects the water release – to be conducted in phases over the next 30 years – would have on human health, marine life and the environment.
Among those who are strongly against Japan’s action is philanthropist Tan Sri David Kong Hon Kong, who is also Nirvana Asia Group founder and executive chairman.
He said the released radioactive substances could spread and “cast a long shadow over the entire world”.
“Since this is the first large-scale release of nuclear wastewater in the world, the extent of its harm is unknown, and no one can guarantee its safety,” he said.
He also questioned the long time frame needed for the wastewater release, saying that it showed there were concerns and uncertainties about its possible effects on humanity.
Kong was present at the launch of the “Raise Your Voice, Stop the Discharge of Nuclear Wastewater into the Ocean” mass petition event held at the Nirvana Memorial Garden in Semenyih, Selangor, yesterday.
It was held concurrently with the company’s annual Zhong Yuan enlightenment ceremony, an event to remember the ancestors, advocate filial piety and pay tribute to the departed.
Kong said the petition has so far received tens of thousands of signatures from Malaysians spread across three huge banners.
He called on more Malaysian companies and individuals to speak out against the matter.
“Being in business does not mean we don’t care. We have our social responsibilities to fulfil. Furthermore, the world is still grappling with the hardship and disarray caused by the pandemic.
“This time, everyone should unequivocally protest the release of nuclear-contaminated water into the ocean to prevent the world from another crisis,” he said.
Kong added that Japan’s action runs contrary to the environmental, social and governance (ESG) principles that are growing in importance and prominence in the country and the rest of the world.
“I call upon everyone and all corporations to participate in this and petition the Japanese government to stop the wastewater release,” he said.
Kong said more petition zones will be put up by his company at its upcoming enlightenment ceremonies at other locations.
They include Nirvana Center Kuala Lumpur on Sept 2 and 3, Nirvana Memorial Park in Klang on Sept 3 and in Shah Alam on Sept 9 and 10.Kong said all the signatures collected will be handed over to the Japanese Embassy in Kuala Lumpur.
In the face of the Japanese government's determination to proceed with this action, we need to employ even more sophisticated fighting skills, firmly understanding the purpose and cause we are defending. We must always stand on the high ground of international justice, rendering Japan's political tricks useless.
The Japanese government, which arbitrarily started dumping nuclear-contaminated wastewater into the sea recently, is employing a combination of PR stunts ...
Japan, which is considered to have a typical "honor culture", not only has no sense of guilt in the issue of discharging nuclear-contaminated water into the sea, but even demands that others accept the largest marine ecological pollution event in human history caused by Japan, saying "there should not be an excessive reaction." Who is being "hypocritical" and using double standards?
In order to prevent any impact caused by Japan's dumping of Fukushima nuclear-contaminated wastewater into the Pacific Ocean, more countries, especially those in the Asia-Pacific like China, Thailand and Russia, are taking actions, including strengthened testing of aquatic products imported from Japan, while more people and organizations from South Korea and the Pacific Island countries are voicing their opposition and concern over Tokyo's decision.
The Chinese Foreign Ministry announced the first wave of countermeasures against the US on Monday since the US passed and signed the so-called Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act and continued its interference in China's domestic affairs in the city.
The move includes suspending visits of US warships and aircraft to the city and sanctioning multiple US-headquartered non-governmental organizations, including the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) and Human Rights Watch. Chinese experts said that some US diplomats at the US Consulate General in Hong Kong and Macao who have connections with the targeted NGOs could be expelled as these organizations' activities in Hong Kong could be deemed illegal in the future.
From a logistic perspective, suspending visits of US warships and aircraft will force US military forces to find other ports in the region for resupply, which could cost more, experts noted.
The Chinese Foreign Ministry announced the first wave of countermeasures against the US on Monday since the US passed and signed the so-called Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act and continued its interference in China's domestic affairs in the city.
The move includes suspending visits of US warships and aircraft to the city and sanctioning multiple US-headquartered non-governmental organizations, including the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) and Human Rights Watch. Chinese experts said that some US diplomats at the US Consulate General in Hong Kong and Macao who have connections with the targeted NGOs could be expelled as these organizations' activities in Hong Kong could be deemed illegal in the future.
From a logistic perspective, suspending visits of US warships and aircraft will force US military forces to find other ports in the region for maintenance, which could cost more, experts noted.
Chinese Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Hua Chunying said at a routine press conference on Monday that China would suspend its reviews of applications made by US military aircraft and naval vessels to make port calls in Hong Kong after US President Donald Trump signed the so-called Hong Kong act, which allows Washington to impose sanctions on individuals over alleged human rights violation in Hong Kong.
Hua said China will also sanction NGOs including NED, the National Democratic Institute for International Affairs (NDI), the International Republican Institute (IRI), Freedom House and Human Rights Watch for their "horrible activities in the months-long turmoil in the city."
"A great amount of evidence proving that these NGOs have supported anti-China forces to create chaos in Hong Kong, and made utmost efforts to encourage these forces to engage in extreme violent criminal acts, and also hyped separatism activities in Hong Kong," she said.
"They have a huge responsibility for the current chaos in Hong Kong, and deserve to be sanctioned and pay the price."
"NED is a notorious organization that plays a major role in funding color revolutions and training political activists worldwide to create trouble for many non-Western states," said Lü Xiang, a research fellow on US studies at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences in Beijing.
"The NDI and IRI are two organizations that mainly receive funding from NED, and the NDI follows political line of Democrats, while the IRI follows Republicans. Sanctioning these two NGOs sends the message that the two major parties are being targeted for initiating and passing the Hong Kong act," said Diao Daming, a US studies expert at Renmin University of China.
A masked rioter is standing out among his group in a standoff with police outside the Hong Kong Polytechnic University, November 17, 2019. Photo: Xinhua
Expulsion from HK
On questions as to what extent China can sanction these NGOs, Chinese experts said that due to the "one-country, two systems" policy, these organizations are allowed to operate in Hong Kong without restrictions, but since they are using this to harm China's national interests, their activities and cash flow in Hong Kong could be frozen.
Diao said "These NGOs could be identified as illegal organizations, so not only their personnel, but US diplomats at the US Consulate General in Hong Kong and Macao could be affected."
Staff member of those NGOs will be restricted from entering Chinese territory, including the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (HKSAR), and those NGOs' operations in HKSAR will also likely be limited, said Fan Peng from the Chinese Association of Hong Kong and Macao Studies.
Fan said that imposing restrictions on those organizations' operations hits external forces to the very core and helps to ward off their influence in Hong Kong, as those organizations support the rioters.
If the US government uses the authorization provided by the US Congress to conduct further interference in Hong Kong, China will surely raise its retaliation, Lü said.
China could investigate US diplomats connected to the listed NGOs, or even directly involved with their local funding targets and provided training and assistance, and these diplomats could be expelled if they don't stop making trouble in the city, Diao noted.
Military ties harmed
China, in the past, allowed the US vessels and aircraft to visit and resupply in Hong Kong since the coastal city is a perfect port in the West Pacific region, and serves as a strategic hub. But now, due to US intervention in the Hong Kong situation, US military forces will lose their right to use this hub and need to spend more resources to get supplies in other ports in the region, Chinese experts said.
Song Zhongping, a military expert and TV commentator, told the Global Times on Monday that whether China allows US warships to conduct port visits in Hong Kong has been a barometer of the two countries' political and military relations.
Now that China has decided to suspend the port visits, it means China and the US have suffered a significant decline in political and military ties, which have been caused by US violations of China's sovereignty and interference in China's internal affairs, as it is challenging the one-China principle by publicly supporting Hong Kong secessionists, Song said.
A US warship port call to Hong Kong now will send a very wrong signal to Hong Kong rioters, and China is absolutely right to turn down visit requests, take resolute action and counter the US for its provocation, Song said.
The US Senate on Tuesday unanimously passed the "Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act," a move that seriously tarnished sacred terms like "human rights" and "democracy." The bill's real title should be "Support Hong Kong Violence Act" as it has overtly taken sides with rioters who are destroying the rule of law in Hong Kong. And it has targeted the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (HKSAR) government and Hong Kong police, who are struggling to prevent chaos from turning into anarchy.
The core of the new US bill is to oppose HKSAR government's efforts to stop violence, end chaos as well as to prevent the Chinese central government from saving Hong Kong under any circumstance. The most prominent clause subjects the city to an annual review for its special trade status, which would strip Hong Kong of the status.
Some opposition figures in Hong Kong stupidly kowtow to Washington and express their gratitude for US support for the radical protesters' "democracy struggle." But if the US imposes economic sanctions on Hong Kong, all Hong Kong people will have to bear the consequences.
Once the bill is signed by the US president, subtle changes will take place in Hong Kong's international business environment, because of the uncertainties caused by the US. American investors in Hong Kong will panic, and the city's geoeconomic status and function will be reevaluated.
Some may expect this to deter Beijing. Such thinking is naïve. Hong Kong is in a mess, but the country hasn't intervened so far.
Instead, the Chinese central government encourages the city to stop violence and end chaos under the leadership of the HKSAR government, solve the conundrum under the framework of the Basic Law and not use the provisions of the Basic Law for emergency situations.
However, if the chaos continues, even paralyzes the city and destroys ordinary people's lives, how can the central government not intervene?
Passing the act is the US attempt to disrupt the People's Republic of China's governance over Hong Kong, weaken the HKSAR government, and compel the police to be afraid of cracking down on radical rioters in accordance with the law.
The US is hoping that Hong Kong falls into disorder for a long time. If we take this US bill seriously and shrink from tackling riots, Hong Kong will suffer from an accelerated collapse of the rule of law and be erased from the modern world.
Hong Kong has long acted as an interface linking China and the West. The US move will undermine that function of the city. But no matter what challenges Hong Kong will have to face, it will be far better than what it faces now: Streets are full of roadblocks; subway stations are burned; schools cannot re-open; and many businesses are forced to stop.
If riots continue, Hong Kong is doomed. The threat from the US is much less than the damage the city is currently suffering.
What the bill brings is not fear, but anger. People see certain US politicians' malice against Hong Kong and the entire China between the lines.
It is believed that with the central government's support, Hong Kong will resolutely reject the US threat. Hong Kong's special trade status is entitled by the Basic Law. The US attitude does not represent the international community's. Hong Kong's future is bound to that of the entire China, instead of the US.
Strong words: Yang said the passage openly
supported protesters and radicals in Hong Kong and completely exposed
the hegemonic nature of some politicians in the United States. — Reuters
US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo: "I was the CIA director. We lied, we
cheated, we stole. We had entire training courses. It reminds you of the
glory of the American experiment."
Pompeo said this at an event at Texas A&M University on April 15, 2019. Here is the official State Department transcript:https://www.state.gov/secretary/remar....
Losing ground: China’s spectacular rise has
affected Hong Kong’s thriving financial services industry, along with
development of port services. - Reuters
https://youtu.be/elH1PrASTAU
TWO generations ago cheap goods from Hong Kong were labelled simply “Made in Hong Kong,” but their poor quality soon made that embarrassing.
For marketing reasons they were then labelled “Made in the British Empire” or “Empire Made.” Britain, home of the First Industrial Revolution, was better regarded than any Far Eastern outpost.
However, manufacturing could never suffice for Hong Kong’s economy because of limited land and rising property prices.
Enter the space-efficient financial services industry, along with development of port services. Then a generation ago Hong Kong began to face its biggest challenge: China’s spectacular rise.
But if Hong Kong would be part of China again, wouldn’t it also enjoy the mainland’s rising fortunes?
Hong Kongers always had a problem with the first part ever since Britain’s takeover in 1841.
From the late-1970s the West was all for China’s “opening up” policies. Hong Kongers looked across the water to see Shenzhen’s phenomenal rise from old market town to bustling modern metropolis.
Shenzhen had twice Hong Kong’s population and a much faster rate of development. As just one cog in China’s production behemoth, Shenzhen soon buried Hong Kong’s prospect as a manufacturing centre.
In global references Hong Kong-Shenzhen-Guangzhou is the world’s biggest productive mega region, demographically twice the size of the next biggest in Nagoya-Osaka-Kyoto-Kobe.
But Hong Kongers still regarded themselves as a breed apart from the mainland – a “Made in the British Empire” attitude dies hard.
Surely Hong Kong still had superlative status as a leading port and financial services centre?
Not quite, especially when Shanghai would soon outclass it on both counts.
Hong Kong slipped to fifth place among the world’s busiest container ports. Among the world’s Top 10, six are now on China’s mainland.
The Shanghai Municipality’s population is 3.5 times Hong Kong’s, with an area 5.7 times as large, meaning a more relaxed population density of just 62% of Hong Kong’s.
Shanghai’s 2018 nominal GDP was US$494bil (RM2.04 trillion), which was 136.1% of Hong Kong’s. Even Shenzhen is catching up with Hong Kong, falling short by just 3.3%.
Business is Hong Kong’s business, but the mainland is doing better in both performance and prospects.
The Hong Kong stock market is not necessarily stable. Since the 1960s it has experienced a dozen market crashes.
Shanghai’s Stock Exchange market capitalisation of US$5.01 trillion is larger than Hong Kong’s by 26.5%. Hong Kong’s exceeded Shenzhen’s by only 12.8%.
Hong Kong as business enclave has been eclipsed and outdone by the mainland. At the same time its future increasingly depends on the mainland.
Since 1997, Hong Kong dropped from representing 20% to just 3% of China’s GDP.
For China today Hong Kong is just another Chinese city, meaning it is dispensable. Shenzhen and the rest of the mainland do not need a nettlesome Hong Kong for China’s continued rise.
Hong Kong protesters have committed at least a dozen strategic errors.
One, they assume Hong Kong is essential to the mainland’s future when only the reverse is true. There is no equivalence between Hong Kong and the mainland in any way that works for Hong Kong.
Two, protest appeals to mainlanders for support mistakenly attempt to rekindle the spirit of Tienanmen Square protests a generation ago. Those protesters are now part of the system in a prosperous new China, actively engaged in business or government. Their original 1989 complaint of corruption in high places is keenly addressed by Beijing.
Three, attempts to solicit mainlanders’ support are badly confused with prejudice against them. Within days of trying to spread the protest message to mainlanders in July, protesters attacked mainland traders, shoppers and tourists.
Four, protesters violently attacked police personnel, alienating many Hong Kongers including most protesters. It signalled a slide towards civil disorder.
Five, vandalising the Legislative Council building established illegal conduct and further alienated everyone else.
Six, more violence was targeted at the liaison office when sympathisers had thought protesters would never do that. It confirmed the criminality discrediting the protests as a whole.
Seven, besides disrupting traffic and commerce, harassing passengers at the airport and train stations. It did nothing to promote their cause to the general public but quite the opposite.
Eight, protests did not subside even after Hong Kong’s Executive backed down on the extradition Bill. It revealed the unreasonable nature of the protests.
Nine, no protester had demanded democracy for Hong Kong in 156 years of British colonial rule. If they had, they may have a legitimate basis for demanding democracy today.
Ten, it was foolish to unfurl the Union Jack and call for reverting to British rule. Seeking the denial of democracy by a foreign hand exposes the hypocrisy of the protests.
Eleven, it was foolhardy to unfurl “Old Glory,” calling for US intervention during a US-China trade war. With trade a major basis of Hong Kong’s survival, it was politically suicidal.
Twelve, protesters fail to understand that no other country can or would do what is necessary to boost Hong Kong’s fortunes. Only the mainland can do that if it wants to.
Young protesters still to find employment amid poor conditions and rising costs may think they have legitimate grievances.
Yet all the solutions – more investment, better job prospects, even improved governance – can come meaningfully only via the mainland.
Beijing can deploy troops to Hong Kong, but to what end?
Hong Kong’s worst punishment is getting exactly what the protesters want – isolation. That will leave it further behind as the mainland prospers, surging ahead.
Hong Kong can stew in its own juices until tender. Beijing may let the anger fester and rot until then.
Hong Kong’s strength as money-making hub is also its weakness. Its stock market can crash again, which can also send a message to Taiwan.
Hong Kong tycoons are already looking for more places abroad to stash their fortunes. Without decisive mainland investment, the economic enclave can die a natural death.
What’s left of Hong Kong’s Establishment will then surely discipline rowdy mobs. The triads have already shown leadership here, symbolising the decline.
By Bunn Nagara, a Senior Fellow at the Institute of Strategic and International Studies (ISIS) Malaysia. The views expressed are entirely the writer’s own.
China urges UK officials to stop making wrong remarks on Hong Kong
https://youtu.be/BHdWP-8_OF4
The Chinese way of ruling
https://youtu.be/BPV8mBAiuZ0
Graffiti reading ‘Cancel Functional
Constituencies’ is seen on lawmaker desks after protesters entered and
vandalised the chamber of the Legislative Council building in Hong Kong
in the early hours of July 2. — Photos: Bloomberg
LAST Monday, I watched the live telecast of protests in Hong Kong in horror as hundreds of protesters forced their way into the Legislative Council building, ransacking the chamber and defacing the emblem of the Hong Kong Government.
July 1 marked the 22nd anniversary of the handover of Hong Kong to China in 1997, when British colonial rule and humiliation ended, but it turned out to be one of the city’s darkest days.Protesters were seen waving large Union Jack flags in the middle of the chamber, searching for documents and destroying computers. Watching the TV footage was worrying and mind-boggling. Western media, including CNN, reported that there was no leader – but to me, the chaos seemed organized.
Hong Kong, which had been under British colonial rule for 155 years before 1997, is now under the jurisdiction of China. Hence, the display of the British flag lent credence to Beijing’s accusation that Britain was one of the Western forces behind the series of protests in Hong Kong.
In vandalising the building and its interior, protestors showed a complete disregard for the rule of law – the core value of keeping public order in this international financial centre.I continued to monitor the news on various international news channels until past midnight, when the armed police finally moved in in heavy trucks to clear the rioters. A key reason the police stayed away from confronting the rioters was due to a directive from China’s President Xi Jinping to Hong Kong Chief Executive Carrie Lam that “there must not be blood”, according to local newspaper Apple Daily.
Before marching to the Legislature on Monday, protestors had already taken to the streets previously in an attempt to disrupt a flag raising ceremony carried out by officials of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (as Hong Kong is formally known under China’s rule), but they left after a scuffle with the police that left many hurt.Peaceful pro-democracy street marches on July 1 have been an acceptable annual routine ever since the 1997 handover. This year, however, the situation was tense due to massive demonstrations in earlier weeks against the tabling of an amendment Bill to Hong Kong’s extradition law.
The Bill was first proposed by the Hong Kong government in February 2019 in response to a 2018 murder of a woman by her boyfriend while the Hong Kong couple was visiting Taiwan. Since Hong Kong has no extradition treaty with Taiwan, which is part of China, the Hong Kong boyfriend could not be sent to Taiwan to face the law.
The Bill, based on United Nations model used in the West, is meant to target fugitives suspected of one or more serious crimes. But it rules out targetting people based on political and religious grounds. In essence, the Bill is meant to prevent Hong Kong from becoming a sanctuary for fugitives and criminals.
However, anti-China activists have argued that this Bill will facilitate the sending of suspects to Beijing, whose law is harsher. They say it will destroy the Western rule of law and freedom now enjoyed by people in Hong Kong.
This wider interpretation has spread fear among ordinary residents, who are grappling with the high cost of living and housing in Hong Kong. The main objective of the Bill seems to have been overlooked completely.
Among the vocal protestors are pro-democracy activists, advocates of Hong Kong independence, China critics and dissidents, opposition politicians, and people who conduct shady commercial deals and crimes on the mainland. Also unhappy with this Bill, according to several YouTube narratives, are Taiwan and foreign governments with regional intelligence headquarters in Hong Kong who fear being rooted out from this centrally located “paradise” which gives them much needed “immunity”. Perhaps this is the reason why Western forces have been supportive of the protests.The upheaval has forced Lam to suspend tabling of the Bill.
On June 10, as protests were fast gathering momentum, the state-owned Global Times said in an editorial that, “Some international forces have increasingly collaborated with the opposition in Hong Kong.... Washington has been particularly active in meddling in Hong Kong affairs, and some radical opposition members in Hong Kong are (working) hand-in-glove with the US,” it said.Global Times reported that two opposition groups visited the US in March and May to notify the Americans about the amendment to the extradition law.
After these visits, US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said the Bill threatens the rule of law in Hong Kong. The British and Canadian governments also issued a joint statement disapproving of the Bill.
Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi has, on several occasions, publicly warned foreign forces not to meddle in Hong Kong’s affairs.
The violence of the July 1 protests may have embarrassed Westerners who support Hong Kong demonstrators. But some attributed the violence to a lack of response from the government to opposition demands.
Despite widespread condemnation of the July 1 crimes, US House Speaker Nancy Pelosi claimed that the Hong Kong protesters “have inspired the world” and their courage should not be ignored.
Britain’s Foreign Secretary Jeremy Hunt tweeted on Monday: “... want to stress UK support for Hong Kong and its freedoms is unwavering on this anniversary day. No violence is acceptable, but HK people must preserve their right to peaceful protest.”
The next day Hunt warned Beijing that the Sino-British Joint Declaration, signed in 1984 and setting out the terms for Hong Kong’s return to Chinese sovereignty, was “to be honoured ... and if it isn’t there will be serious consequences”.
As stated in the Joint Declaration and under the “one country, two systems” principle, socialism practised in mainland China would not be extended to Hong Kong. Instead, Hong Kong would continue its capitalist system and way of life for 50 years after 1997.
In anger, China responded by lodging protests with Britain over Hunt’s warning.
Chinese foreign ministry spokesman Geng Shuang said Beijing had made “stern representations” over the comments, and accused Hunt of still harbouring “colonial illusions”.
“We called on the British, especially Hunt, to stop being overconfident and grossly interfering in Hong Kong affairs. This is doomed to fail,” Geng said.
Hong Kong became a British colony at the end of the First Opium War in 1842. Although it was returned to China in 1997, British and Western influence is still strong.
China’s state media reminded Hong Kong’s citizens of the disastrous consequences of past “revolutions” promoted in many countries by the West. When these countries were in turmoil and needed economic assistance, the Western countries shied away, various media said in their commentaries and editorials.
There were also reminders that the semi-autonomous territory’s destiny is tied to the mainland, and that Beijing has looked after the interest of Hong Kong well.
It is not known whether the arrest of people responsible for the July 1 riots will spark further major protests, but if Lam resigns and the situation gets out of control, Article 18 of Hong Kong’s Basic Law could be invoked to allow China’s military forces to take control, according to an analysis from the mainland.
Article 18 of the Basic Law reads: “In the event that the National People’s Congress decides to declare a state of war or, by reason of turmoil within Hong Kong that endangers national unity or security and is beyond the control of the government of the region, decides that Hong Kong is in a state of emergency, the Central Government may issue an order applying the relevant national laws in Hong Kong.”
“For those people demanding the resignation of Carrie Lam, you had better not allow her to quit, as her stepping down can be construed as Hong Kong being out of control,” says one YouTube commentator, Tey Kok Seng.
Another, Mei Han, says in a video: “Stop the ‘one country two systems’ principle immediately, take back Hong Kong now,” adding that she is organising an online petition that has collected more than 10,000 “support” clicks.
China has been patient with Hong Kong’s demands and protests, but it is also time for Hong Kong’s residents to respect the principle of “one country, two systems” that has brought prosperity and stability to the territory.
During an interview Thursday, British Foreign Secretary Jeremy Hunt still refused to directly criticize the violent protesters who stormed and vandalized the Hong Kong Legislative Council. Instead, he superficially stated that the UK condemns "all violence" and warned China again. He did not elaborate on the "serious consequences" that he previously warned China that it may face, but said the UK is "keeping options open" over China.
Almost all analyses believe Hunt is putting on an air. Nobody believes the UK will send its only aircraft carrier to China's coast. Nor would anyone believe the UK will punish Beijing at the cost of hurting trade with China. The UK has been dwarfed by China in military and trade. Hunt's inappropriate statements make many British people nervous: Will Beijing cancel an order from the UK to warn British politicians?
If China-UK relations deteriorate, will expelling Chinese diplomats become a card for London? This was the way that the Theresa May government used to deal with Moscow when a former Russian spy was poisoned in the UK. BBC reporters asked Hunt about the possibility for expelling diplomats. But it seems more like these BBC reporters, who bully politicians for pleasure, were using the unreliable option to make things difficult for Hunt.
Launching a diplomatic war against China leads to nowhere. European countries will not stand by London on the Hong Kong issue. By worsening diplomatic relations with China, the UK will only isolate itself.
What's important is that Beijing has done nothing wrong on the Hong Kong issue. It is obvious to all that China persists in the "one country, two systems" policy, and Hong Kong's system is different from the mainland's. The Fugitive Offenders Ordinance, proposed by Hong Kong regional government, was a small cause of the unrest. It was politicized and magnified by opposition factions. The situation escalated according to the logic under Hong Kong's system, not that of the mainland. But such storming and vandalizing is not acceptable under Hong Kong's system or any system worldwide.
Instead of blaming violent protesters, Hunt directed his ire against Beijing, which is based on his selfish interests to win the election. Hunt wants to defeat Boris Johnson. In charge of diplomacy, Hunt believes the Hong Kong issue is a chance that dropped into his and the UK's lap. But this is not the 19th century when the Opium War broke out. The UK has gone past its prime.
Hunt knew that Beijing would sniff at his threat of "serious consequences." But he still said it because he needed to play in front of voters. This is political fraud. Hunt obviously believes that the British people can be manipulated like a flock of sheep.
But Hunt's stunt has no good effect. Many British people are more worried whether Hunt's words would lead to "serious consequences" from China. Purpose and ability should match in diplomatic strategy, but Hunt is obviously outwardly strong and inwardly weak. Even the British people think his performance is amusing.
In a few short years, one minute the UK calls its relations with China the "Golden Era," and the next minute it warns China of "serious consequences." Although these statements are from different administrations and politicians, the UK still shows inconsistency in policy. The country also swung from side to side on Brexit. The UK's politics have become politicians' coffers and plots. They are undermining the UK's image.
Under such circumstances, we should not be too serious when dealing with the UK. Regardless of whether it shows a friendly or an opportunistic gesture, we should remind ourselves this will not be its first or last attitude toward China, and by saying that we mean it will be in a relatively short time, to be specific.
Impractical move: China is generally aware
that the Hong Kong people cannot sustain any form of protest because
rent and bills need to be paid and protests don’t gain a voice, neither
by yellow shirts nor umbrellas. — AFP
The future of the Hong Kong people lies with China but the challenge for Beijing is to make Hong Kongers feel that they are a fundamental part of the Middle Kingdom. -If there is a history lesson that the Chinese can learn from British Malaya in handling the Hong Kong protests, it's that the British administered their colonies well and without the need for any heavy-handed approaches, even they robbed these colonies of their rich minerals.
YOU’VE got to hand it to the British because they are really the masters at the game. Anyone who has studied basic Malayan history would know that officials during colonial times merely identified themselves as advisers.
They were British civil servants, but they called the shots.
Adding insult to injury, the Malay Rulers – as the Sultans were called then – were “led” to believe they still ran the states.
Under British Malaya – a set of states on the Malay peninsula and Singapore under British rule between the 18th and 20th centuries – British colonial officials had the last say on almost everything except religion and customary matters, which they cleverly left to the palaces.
So, in theory, the Rulers held their positions, kept their perks and all royal protocols befitting royalty, but their wings were clipped.
These were the federated states, but in the case of Straits Settlement states, British governors were appointed.
So, the famous Malacca Sultanate, with its rich lineage of Sultans, found itself having a governor, a Caucasian, as did Penang and Singapore.
Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad put it aptly when he said last week in his speech in Britain that “Malaysia is a member of the Commonwealth, but there is nothing much in common with the wealth dominated by certain countries”.
“The British acknowledged the Malay Sultans as Rulers, but the Sultans never ruled. Therefore, when they criticised us as dictators, I don’t think they really meant it,” he said.
There was more. Under British rule in the 20th century, the British introduced repressive laws such as the Internal Security Act (ISA), used against communist insurgents.
Under the ISA, a person could be held for 60 days in solitary confinement and up to two years’ extension without trial.
Despite this, the British told the world, with a straight face, that they taught us, the natives, principles of justice, democracy and fairness, and that we all cried when they abandoned us when the Japanese invaded Malaya in 1941, and when we gained independence in 1957.
Our first prime minister, Tunku Abdul Rahman, kept the law when the Union Jack was lowered in 1957, which marked our independence.
Not many Malaysians are aware that the British imposed the ISA. Of course, during that era, only the radical left-wingers, with communist tendencies, were detained.
One ISA detainee, who was imprisoned under the British and then under the Malaysian government, said: “With the British guards, they would cheerily come every morning and wished the detainees a good day.” That was the difference.
Fast forward to 2019 and the massive turnout in Hong Kong against the controversial extradition Bill, with proposed amendments allowing for criminal suspects to be sent to China, has made international news.
It has prompted concern in Hong Kong and elsewhere that anyone from the city’s residents to foreign and Chinese nationals living or travelling through the international financial hub could be at risk if they were wanted by Beijing.
Basically, Hong Kong residents would rather face HK courts than be deported to mainland China.
Many have no faith in China’s judicial system compared to the British-style HK courts, which inherited the British legal system, and where most of the judges and lawyers are also British-trained.
The HK people can’t be blamed for their anger and suspicion since the international community has read of Chinese nationals being short-changed, or even neglected by the courts in the pursuit of justice.
And we can even read of income tax defaulters, under investigation, being hauled off to undisclosed locations, while dissidents have been taken away, and disappeared without a trace.
This bad press, verified or otherwise, would have scared many people, even though one wonders how many of these HK protesters believe, in their hearts of hearts, that they would ever get arrested and sent to China.
But the irony is that under British rule in HK, like many governments, the British widely used the law as a tool to consolidate control of Hong Kong in the hands of a privileged minority.
Legal expert Richard Daniel Klien wrote that “the British enacted legislation which in some respects instituted two sets of laws – one for the Europeans and another for the Chinese. Laws were passed to ensure no Chinese would live in the most desirable parts of Hong Kong, which the British wished to preserve as their exclusive enclaves.
“In a land in which ninety-eight per cent of the population were Chinese, English was the official language.
“The Chinese language was not permitted to be used in government offices.
“Laws regulating conduct were written exclusively in English, a language which the vast majority of the population could not understand.
“The astonishing truth of the failure of the Hong Kong Chinese to develop a significant pro-democracy or pro-independence movement, while other British colonies obtained independence long ago, testifies to the success of the British laws in accomplishing the goal of continued colonial rule over this land of six million inhabitants.”
MK Chan wrote in a law review report that “to most people in Hong Kong, the preservation of the existing legal system is of crucial importance to the high degree of autonomy the post-colonial Hong Kong Special Administrative Region is supposed to enjoy under Chinese sovereignty according to the “One Country, Two Systems” formula.
“However, this widely shared perception is flawed for one simple reason: the legal system in Hong Kong today has its own serious defects. It is not only alien in origin,” and “markedly different from the legal system in the People’s Republic of China but also defective and inadequate”.
No protest has gained voice, neither through yellow shirts nor umbrellas. And no protests were staged because the British didn’t allow elections during the colonial rule from over a century and a half.
The 1995 Hong Kong Legislative Council election for members of the Legislative Council of Hong Kong was only finally held that year – it was the first and last fully elected legislative election in the colonial period before the nation was returned to China two years later. So much for democracy and freedom.
No HK resident protested that only the white men could hold top posts in government bodies, places where there were many qualified HK civil servants who could speak and write in English better than their superiors.
To put it bluntly, there was not even a squeak – and we know how corrupt the HK police were in the 1970s – about the force being headed by Britons.
To be fair, the British transformed HK from a barren island to an international hub, with a working administration system that has won the confidence of the international community.
However, the responsibility of the British ended in 1997 when HK was handed over to the Chinese. It has lost its right to tell the Chinese what to do.
But what has brought this resentment towards China, from HK Chinese people, and perhaps, even a yearning, for British rule?
Not long ago, it was reported that some localists had taken to thumbing their nose at “China’s heavy-handed meddling” by waving the British flag at football matches, booing the Chinese anthem and chanting “We are Hong Kong! Hong Kong is not China!” in English.
Reports have also surfaced about a small Hong Kong-United Kingdom Reunification Campaign, which angled for a return to British rule but ultimately dismissed as quirky.
Then there are HK people who talk about the “good times” under British rule.
If there is a history lesson which the Chinese can learn from British Malaya, it’s that the Brits administered their colonies well and without the need for any heavy-handed approaches, even as they robbed these colonies of their rich minerals.
Reports of Beijing’s transgressions in the territory, such as the kidnapping by mainland agents of local booksellers, or the National People’s Congress purportedly stepping into local judicial cases, won’t win the hearts of the HK people.
Beijing must put on a softer face and display plenty of patience in dealing with HK. There is really no rush for China, especially with risking an international black eye at a time when it can ill afford to do so.
Yes, China is concerned about how its billion people will react if they see these hot-headed HK protesters abusing policemen.
The lessons from the breakup of the Soviet Union – and the wounded pride and dignity that follows – are always etched in the minds of Chinese leaders.
When CNN and BBC reporters talk about individual rights, they have no idea what Beijing or even the Chinese diaspora think.
But the people of HK must also accept the harsh reality – HK is now China’s sovereignty, and more and more of its independence, or even importance, will slowly fade away.
China doesn’t need HK as much as it used to as a strategic financial hub, because Chinese cities, including Beijing and Shanghai, have even eclipsed the former island nation. No matter how big or how long these protests run for, China knows the HK people don’t have the stamina, because rent and bills need to be paid, and protest sittings on streets don’t last anyway.
And the other blow is the British government’s refusal to grant citizenship to the 3.5 million Hongkongers born there under the British flag.
China needs to work harder on winning hearts and minds, and to make the HK people feel they are a fundamental part of China, and Chinese culture and pride.
HK people have always been independent because they were brought up differently and under different sets of political and legal systems, and that must be understood. There is no need to ramp through any laws, indicating that the HK people are unhappy.
The destiny of the HK people lies with China, and not Britain, but the challenge for Beijing is to make the people of HK feel those sentiments and be proud of it.
And speaking of extradition, let’s not forget that the US is also seeking to get WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange extradited from the UK for alleged crimes under the Espionage Act 1917, of which remains unclear.
He is the first journalist to have the book thrown at him for whistleblowing.
That’s not all. The US wants Huawei chief financial office Sabrina Meng Wanzhou to be extradited from Canada over charges which smell suspiciously like trumped up accusations. - by wong chun wai
We must be highly vigilant of Tokyo's ill intentions: Global Times editorial
