Mark Pinkstone/Former Chief Information Officer of HK government
Six years after the bloody riots in Hong Kong, China hawk, The New York Times (NYT), is still calling the incident a “peaceful demonstration for democracy.”The world was a witness as television networks from every country flashed vivid scenes of bloody clashes between the police and rioters. There was no denying the fact they were anything but full-blown riots.
The June 30 issue of the newspaper carried a special report by stringer Tiffany May reporting from Hong Kong that three activists were still “paying the price” for demanding democracy in the Special Administrative Region (SAR). But the world’s witnesses know better: Democracy was hardly an issue. May painted a picture of the trio facing hardship after release from prison where they served various sentences for rioting. They had trouble finding jobs and lost many friends, their life had become a void.
At the time of the riots in 2019, Hong Kong had a fully elected legislature (50 per cent by geographic constituencies and 50 per cent by peer-based functional constituencies), the president was elected from among its members and the SAR’s Chief Executive was elected by a 1,500 strong electoral committee. [The US president is elected by only 500 electoral committee].
So, democracy could hardly be an issue for the riots, except for the NYT and other western media which needed the catchphrase to justify their support for the rioters. After all, they could not be seen to be supporting cold blooded rioters who had an ulterior motive to overthrow the government, which was their ultimate aim.
Ms May said in her essay that her chosen unnamed three had joined the protests “hoping for more democracy.” The only step further in the democratic movement for Hong Kong is universal suffrage – one man, one vote for the entire legislature – and that is already enshrined in the SAR’s Basic Law. It is coming, it’s just a matter of time.
Hong Kong has been very vulnerable to foreign influences ever since the handover in 1997. It thrives on a unique formular of one country, two systems ( a bastion of capitalism in a communist regime). And it is against the principles of the US’s call for universal democracy.
Capitalism and communism are a contradiction of terms it argues and therefore cannot succeed. But that is why it is unique and after 28 years, the formula is working. Hong Kong is as successful today as it was in pre-1997 under British colonial administration.
It is successful because the people of Hong Kong want it to succeed. And it is absolutely necessary for it to succeed for China to fulfil its obligations to resume its administration of Taiwan. But it is not in the interests of the US to see China embrace democracy, while maintaining its communist ideology, as part of its family. The pragmatic attitude of China is a positive step towards world peace and the propagated threat of communism dominating the world does not exist, except in the mind of the US.
For the US to halt the progress of China’s growing position in the world, it needed a Chinese scapegoat to fail, and Hong Kong was the target. Through its various spy agencies, the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), and the CIA, the US infiltrated Hong Kong’s gullible lawmakers, workers and youth to create mayhem. And through the Five Eyes intelligence network (US, UK, Canada, Australia and New Zealand), it convinced world leaders that democracy was not working in Hong Kong.
In fact, since the upheavals, the legislature has been expanded to include greater elected members from 70 to 90 seats to voice their concerns when vetting government actions. The new members replaced those who were ousted because of their influence by the NED.
The NYT activists have only themselves to blame for their loneliness. They chose the path laid out by foreign forces to change the direction of Hong Kong. But it was the wrong path and, like all criminals, they had to pay the consequences for their actions.
Mark Pinkstone
** The blog article is the sole responsibility of the author and does not represent the position of our company. **
Ninety legislators will be sworn into office this week, 35 of whom will be taking the oath of office for the first time. It will be a combined act of patriotism, a far cry from the swearing in ceremony in 2016 when four potential lawmakers created their own oaths advocating self-determination and were subsequently disqualified from office.
The western media, including some in Hong Kong, brand “patriotism” as a bad thing for Hong Kong, inferring that there is no “opposition” in the legislature. But they are wrong. The legislators have their own mind and will vote according to their conscience.
Four pieces of legislation proposed by the government have not passed the test and were voted out while many others were heavily debated by the legislators. Regardless of what London’s Guardian newspaper and others say, Hong Kong does have a meaningful opposition.
It is unfortunate that the local Democratic Party, seen by the west as the “opposition,” did not field any candidates in the recent elections and eventually closed down. The choice was theirs and their recent actions indicate they did not intend to follow the rules of the council.
The Legislative Council is a place where lawmakers are elected to serve the people, not to use it as a platform for subversion as had happened in the past.
In 2017 four lawmakers – Long Hair Leung Kwok-hung, Nathan Law, Lau Siu-lai and Edward Yiu – were stripped of their seats for failing to take their oaths of office in a “sincere and solemn” manner. They used props and amended the oath to suit their purpose. Others followed, including student Agnes Chow who also failed taking the oath of office but later jailed on subversion charges. The quartet’s disqualification followed the highly publicized ousting of two localist lawmakers, Baggio Leung and Yau Wai-ching, whose oath-takings involved anti-China banners and usage of derogatory wartime slurs for China.
Together, the quartet had mustered 185,727 votes in the 2016 elections and their selfishness left their followers void of leadership. Their actions were that of self-interest, to achieve their own hidden goals, and not to serve the people who put them in the seats of power. They abused their positions.
Obviously foreign forces had infiltrated the legislature and political unrest ensued as attempts were being made to unseat the base of Hong Kong’s parliament. In July 2020 the government announced that the nominations for 15 candidates were declared invalid due to their objection to the national security law or were sincere in statements involving separatism. And on November 11, 2020, Dennis Kwok, a founding member of the Civic Party and a representative of the legal profession in the council, was accused of delaying the legislative proceedings and passage of bills and was subsequently disqualified along with follow lawmakers Alvin Yeung, Kwok Ka-ki and Kenneth Leung. Just hours later 15 fellow lawmakers resigned in protest.
Kwok was later charged with collusion and fled to Canada and then to the US with a HK$1 million bounty on his head.
The festering germ of dissent even spread to the local district councils who also used their positions to undermine the government.
It had to stop and in March 2021, the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress (SCNPC) approved changes to the Hong Kong’s electoral system allowing only patriots to serve the government and the people of Hong Kong.
What publications like Hong Kong Free Press, The Washington Post, London’s Financial Times etc. don’t understand is that Hong Kong is a target by the five-eyes network of spies and clandestine operators, led by the US and including Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the UK. The ultimate target is, of course, China. By crimppling Hong Kong and especially its law-making process, it can crimpple China and hamper its progressive growth.
These publications will continue to use Hong Kong “Patriots only” legislature as a slur, not as a compliment. It’s in their DNA to be anti-Hong Kong/China. They are the vehicles of the west to bring discord to Hong Kong with total disregard to fact.
But “patriots only” apply to every democracy in the world. No place could be more patriotic than the US where the stars and stripes (the US flag) hang from the porches of almost every household. And legislators in all democracies have to swear allegiances to the country and their constitution. And like Hong Kong, they are vetted to ensure their allegiances are true to the country before standing for election.
