Hong Kong Is a Work in Progress

Communist China agreed to a separate system of autonomy in HK, then reneged. It has promised the same to Taiwan, but the 24 million democracy-loving citizens of that beautiful island reject it (85%). HK was the test China failed. The Communists say ‘we Han are one family that must be reunited’ even though they never governed Taiwan. Way back in the day the Qing emperor disavowed owning or ruling Taiwan to American and Japanese diplomats that wanted compensation for shipwrecked sailors murdered by Taiwan aborigines. He said Taiwan was “ungovernable” and “independent” of China, not his responsibility. True then and true today. The CCP (not the Chinese people) are covertly and overtly trying to destroy that democracy using every tactic but military invasion, for now. Some presidential candidates appear like Hong Kong’s Carrie Lam, eager to bow to Beijing if elected. And they have Beijing’s support.

It's unifying yes an no. Good luck!

Let’s face it, Hong Kong is going to be integrated into China and could be a key city in the Pearl River Industrial region. China will never give Hong Kong independence, nor will it continue to recognize it as a separate administrative area. Competition from Shenzhen and Guangzhou means less economic opportunities for Hong Kongers. The old Hong Kong is disappearing before our eyes and will never return to past glory as the Economic window to China and the Financial center for the Asia/Pacific region. In 2047, Hong Kong will be just another city in South China. Maybe, that’s the way it should be, after all, the Island was separated from China in 1842 by the British Opium traders who were the equivalent of modern day Mexican drug cartels.

Yes, you're right Regina...it IS a work in progress. The CCP in Beijing is working very hard to force the progress in making HK just another mainland city to pillage tax monies from for the enrichment of the "leaders". All with the too eager complicity of HK's "pro establishment" kow-towers. Answer me WHY the "leaders" of the SAR choose to ignore, with glee, actual daily life issues for the citizens of HK?? Your sycophancy is much too glaringly obvious.

Mr Ip leaves out the over-riding issue: He praises the One Country/Two Systems as laid out in the Basic Law as the way to go, without pointing out the problem: It is the Communist Party in Beijing that is NOT following the Basic Law and One Country/Two Systems, but instead, increasingly, only 'One Country under CCP/Xi". By ignoring the entire issue on which the protests are based- by refusing to even acknowledge its existence- he plays right into the CCPs hands. He is, in essence, one of the 'useful idiots'.

Ms. Ip is the founder of the New People's Party, a staunchly pro-Beijing conservative party. Thus I'm not surprised to hear her refer to violent protests, but little violence occurred in spite of the words spoken by pro-Beijing people who called some vandalism violent, but these were actions directed against property, not people. And the youth who broke into the LEGCO council even left money to pay for the sodas they drank there. The violence we have seen in recent Hong Kong political demonstrations has been limited for the most part to the actions of the police against the demonstrators. Come on NY Times, do a better job of identifying who is writing the op-ed pieces.

Readers should understand that the New People's Party, of which Ms. Ip is Chair, is a pro-Beijing party. This stance (supporting greater rapprochement with the mainland, and trusting them to be faithful stewards of Hong Kong's civil liberties) is definitely not uncontroversial on the island. The idea that Hong Kong's culture is "dangerously rebellious" might also raise a few eyebrows. In particular, I would also argue that the onus is not on Hong Kong's leadership to "convince" the mainland of anything (insofar as they can be convinced.) The onus is on Beijing to honor its agreements. There are standing treaties, laws, and obligations which commit the Communist Party to respecting the freedoms of Hong Kongers. Will they be broken? Deng Xiaoping said during the handoff that China would prove herself by her deeds, and not her words. We're still waiting for the proof.

"(The fugitive offenders bill) included strong safeguards against arbitrary surrender of suspects." is anything but. In fact, the Hong Kong Bar Association issued a press release (6/6/19) in response to the revised Bill clearly stated: "..these safeguards depend entirely on the goodwill of the requesting state. They do not have the force of law. Neither the person surrendered nor the HKSAR can do anything to compel observance." I am not a legal profession, but when the lawyers are telling you there is no legal safeguards, I tend to believe them.

"Work in progress"? More like "Colonization in process". There has been no progress in reinforcing the one country two systems model because they are diametrically opposed and a threat to the (understandably) paranoid leadership of the Communist Party of China. If you really believe two systems can co-exist then start by offering an olive branch by removing the extradition legislation, taking measures to reinforce the independence of the HK courts and removing the 6,000 strong garrison of People's liberation army from Hong Kong soil.

The reality is most of the pro Beijing elite and the family members of Mrs Carrie Lam hold British Passport or the passports of the USA and Canada. If they trust the legal system of mainland, please give up their Western democratic countries' passports as " traveling document - quotes from Carrie Lam "and have HKSAR passport instead. As a chief executive of HKSAR does not realize what a passport stand for, should people trust the extradition bill she proposed to pass?

Tough to be patient and understanding when Mainland China is run by ruthless dictators for whom compromise is a foreign concept.

What most people seem to be missing here, is what's going to happen in 2047. Hong Kong does not want to be assimilated into China, as one nation in 2047. These protests are showing the Chinese communist government the youth won't allow Hong Kong to assimilate and melt into communist China.

One may notice the word "consultation" in the Declaration and the Basic Law as quoted in this article: "shall be selected by election or through consultations held locally and appointed by the Central People’s Government." Of course what is the meaning of "consultation" is unclear, nor is who get to participate in the "consultation" process. If the "consultation" is to be done among the members of the Standing Committee of the CCP then there is only "one country" and no "two system". For those who pay attention to such things there is a "Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference" which is a leftover of an organization by the same name during the negotiation between the KMT and the CCP before 1949. Only God knows where and how those members came from. Mainland China of course places its emphasis on that word. As to "two system" it is guaranteed only for 50 years after which the mainland can do whatever it wants with HK. To imagine that it has any "economic and political influence over mainland China", as claimed, is unrealistic. HK has never had such an outlandish influence except when the mainland chose for isolation from the world. And I suspect, under the best circumstance, HK will always be like that. In that sense the protester with whom I sympathize are fighting a losing war even if they win all battles.

Hong Kongers’ distrust of mainland China’s legal system is not a weakness being exploited by opportunists. It is the very reason why one million people are in the streets. Their voice is clear and powerful. They don't trust China to respect and protect their interests.

In China, there are invisible, not so glorious, red lines that the communist party never allows one to cross. The young, however, are too idealistic - and possibly too self-assured - to sense the presence of these red lines. Thirty years ago the students who gathered in Tiananmen Square crossed one of these red lines and both them and China paid an extremely high price for it. They brought into the square a mock-up of the Statue of Liberty. And, by doing that, not only they expressed their disillusion with the communist system, but declared where they want to take the country. That alarmed the Communist Party. The party high brass felt threatened and reacted by sending in the tanks. Arguably, if the students in the Tiananmen Square have not gone too far, they could have negotiated a host of social reforms that today 1.3 billion Chinese are still deprived of. May be those who head the on-going Hong Kong protests could reflect on what went on in the Tiananmen Square case and learn some lessons from it. I believe the protesters are now in a position to force a few major concessions from Beijing. But, if they go too far and cross one of those invisible red line, Beijing will react by using military to seize control of the situation. In that case, not only the protesters have no chance of wining new social/political reforms, but they could lose some they already have. After all, we are talking about a chicken in the hand, as opposed to a phoenix in the bush.

Hong Kong's quasi-democracy and Chinas communism, are not compatible. One country two systems is an oxymoron. You're either evolving into a democracy or evolving into a communist nation.

Why celebrate an end to British freedom and rights? Giving any power, even if not yet total, to the dictator in Beijing erodes the freedom of Hong Kong.

Work in progress indeed. China should strive to perfect the Hong Kong model -- local self rule and central control -- and then replicate it throughout China eventually. The party elites holding on to the executive power with the legislature representing people and independent courts arbitrating the two is a workable model. One could even argue that is a superior model over the western-style democracy where the center sometimes does not hold and succumb to populism and demagoguery leading to disaster. The country of the size of China just can't afford that.

"But many Hong Kongers’ distrust of mainland China’s legal and judicial system is so deeply rooted that opponents of the legislation were able to stir up widespread fears that it could be used to send people in Hong Kong to the mainland to face phony charges without the protection of due process." This sums up her position: it's the HK'ers fault for not having faith in China's legal system.

Regina Ip is more than a member of the Legislative Council. As Secretary for Security in the Tung Chee Hwa administration, she led the initiative to pass national security legislation, which would have made Hongkongers vulnerable to the mainland's ever-flexible definitions of subversion. The resulting mass demonstration on July 1, 2003 drove Ms. Ip from office in disgrace. She subsequently resurrected her political career as a Legco representative and as a member of the Hong Kong government's Executive Council, which is substantially a rubber stamp for policy proposals that are increasingly dictated by the Liaison Office (the PRC's office in Hong Kong). Since her political reemergence more than a decade ago, Ms. Ip has made it blatantly obvious that she wants to assume the office of Hong Kong's Chief Executive. To date, Beijing has not deemed her suitable for that role, but in the present environment, with current CE Carrie Lam's reputation damaged beyond repair, she sees a new window of opportunity. In this article, she is attempting to tell her masters in Beijing that she alone is capable of salvaging Hong Kong's relationship with the Chinese Communist Party. The problem is that her past words and actions demonstrate clearly that she is not entitled to the trust of Hong Kong citizens. She has been and continues to be a divisive influence in Hong Kong politics, and she has made it clear on many occasions that her sympathies are tilted in the direction of Beijing.

We who know almost nothing about the issues, the desires, or even the laws concerning the people of Hong Kong simply assume that the city, city-state or whatever, exists in an unstable equilibrium. That is, larger forces than internal interests are likely to swallow it up. To mainland China, it is a plum, ripening on the tree, but destined for the picking. To countries entwined with its economic presence, it is important as is, but eminently replaceable. Right now, the erratic policies of my country tug in several directions and are totally unpredictable. My ignorant suspicion is that the will and desire of its residents, the transient and mutable hybrid law supposedly operating, do not and will not define Hong Kong’s future. Like California and ‘the next big’ earthquake, the future is opaque, but probably not nice.

This piece conveniently ignores the fact that HK will be completely turned over to the Chinese government in 2047, after which all rights and laws under the “two systems” approach will disappear. The erosion of rights is a harbinger of what’s to come. Residents of HK are not fools, and neither is Taiwan.

"But the onus remains on the leaders of Hong Kong to convince the Chinese authorities of what is best for the city" This says it all. When legislators are appointed, not elected, they will obviously cozy up to the people who have appointed them and do their bidding. We know who "the people" are - officials from the mainland who are trying hard to subvert freedoms in Hong Kong so it looks more and more like the mainland. Hong Kong citizens enjoy both economic freedoms as well as freedom of expression, freedom of association, and many other freedoms denied to the mainland citizens. This obvious example next door may upset the people of mainland China who have so far accepted the model that Chinese Communist Party has favored, namely capitalism without democracy. So the appointed legislators in Hong Kong must slowly take away freedoms in the city so that its example does not cause an uprising on the mainland.

For the system to work, the mainland government has to want it to work.

Passing around millions of people like global game pieces is at the core of this issue. But who could have predicted that colonizing would eventually cause such problems? My honest question is how much of this "two systems" narrative is being stirred up by Hong Kong's wealthy to protect their economic interests?