Hong Kong and Beijing officials defend security laws, citing threat of terrorism

[snoop1130]

Hong Kong and Beijing officials defend security laws, citing threat of terrorism

By James Pomfret, Twinnie Siu

 

The Chinese flag flutters at the office of the Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region in Beijing, China May 25, 2020. REUTERS/Tingshu Wang

 

HONG KONG (Reuters) - China’s foreign ministry office in Hong Kong and the city’s security chief on Monday defended proposed national security laws by describing some acts in mass pro-democracy protests last year as terrorism.

 

Several government departments issued statements in defence of the proposal after the biggest protest in the city since the coronavirus lockdown on Sunday.

 

The security legislation, some details of which were announced last week, aims to tackle secession, subversion and terrorist activities and could see Chinese intelligence agencies set up bases in semi-autonomous Hong Kong, one of the world’s leading financial hubs.

 

Pro-democracy activists and politicians say the legislation could erode Hong Kong’s freedoms, guaranteed under the “one country, two systems” agreement under which former colonial power Britain returned the territory to China in 1997.

 

At a briefing for diplomats, foreign business chambers and correspondents, China’s Foreign Commissioner in Hong Kong, Xie Feng, said the laws would only target a minority of “troublemakers” who had posed “imminent danger” to China’s national security.

 

“The legislation will alleviate the grave concerns among local and foreign business communities about the violent and terrorist forces,” Xie said.

 

He declined to clarify specifics of the proposed laws that have stoked concerns, including when the full legislation would be enacted, what specific acts would be outlawed, and whether it would have retroactive effect.

 

Asked whether the security agencies to be set up in Hong Kong would have law enforcement powers, Xie said: “Concerning the details, they are still being deliberated so I’m not in a position to tell you right now.”

 

Hong Kong and mainland Chinese officials have come out in recent days seeking to reassure investors their interests would not be harmed and criticisng protesters.

 

Police Commissioner Chris Tang cited 14 cases involving explosives which he said were commonly used in terrorist attacks overseas, and five seizures of firearms and ammunition since protests began.

 

Secretary for Security John Lee said “terrorism is growing” and harmful activities such as calling for Hong Kong’s independence were becoming more rampant.

 

In scenes evoking memories of last year’s protests, crowds thronged city streets on Sunday, many chanting “Hong Kong independence, the only way out.”

 

Police said they arrested more than 180 people, firing tear gas and water cannon for the first time in months.

 

Calls for independence are anathema to Beijing, which considers Hong Kong an inalienable part of the country. The proposed framework stresses Beijing’s intent to crack down on such acts.

 

Protests are expected to flare again on Wednesday, with the city’s legislature set to debate a bill to criminalise abuse of China’s national anthem.

 

Financial Secretary Paul Chan wrote on his blog that the national security law itself does not affect investor confidence, only the “misunderstanding” of it does.

 

STATUS CONCERNS

 

The United States, Australia, Britain, Canada and others have expressed concerns about the legislation, widely seen as a potential turning point for China’s freest city.

 

Washington is considering whether to maintain Hong Kong’s special status in U.S. law, which has helped it maintain its position as a global financial centre.

 

Several foreign businessmen and diplomats expressed direct concerns towards the proposed law during Xie’s briefing.

 

In Bejing, Chinese foreign ministry spokesman Zhao Lijian accused the United States of “flagrantly interfering” in China’s national security legislation.

 

Taiwan is also considering revoking the special status it extends to Hong Kong due to China’s planned legislation, a move that could make it harder for Hong Kongers to visit and is likely to anger Beijing.

 

Business figures said the legislation could lead to money and talent leaving the city.

 

The Hong Kong Bar Association on Monday questioned the legality of a mechanism Beijing is expected to use to introduce the legislation, which annexes it to the city’s mini-constitution, bypassing public consultation and the legislature.

 

It also raised doubts about the legality of any new mainland agencies in the city as well as whether the independence of the judicial system will be preserved.

 

A Hong Kong government spokesperson said most residents and overseas investors “have nothing to fear” from the new security legislation.

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2020-05-25

 

- Whatever you're going through, the Samaritans are here for you

- Follow Thaivisa on LINE for breaking COVID-19 updates

[YetAnother]

13 minutes ago, snoop1130 said:

defend security laws, citing threat of terrorism

i blow my nose and it is a national security issue; means

NOTHING anymore

Edited May 25, 2020 by YetAnother

[Thrip]

Threats of terrorism from citizens being drowned by water cannons and choking on tear gas is almost laughable. Random criminal acts may be taking place by a few scrotes but the rest are literally fighting for their freedom.

[tribalfusion001]

Disgusting, but what do you expect from the CCP.

[Laughing Gravy]

Not that old chestnut! No doubt 1.4 Billion believe the nonsense.

[car720]

Confuscious say:

 

Act first, defend later.

I am not sure if the expression "plausible deniability" originated in China though.

Who dares wins.

Fortune favours the bold.

 

Let the Americans talk while we move forward.

[Geoffggi]

11 hours ago, snoop1130 said:

At a briefing for diplomats, foreign business chambers and correspondents, China’s Foreign Commissioner in Hong Kong, Xie Feng, said the laws would only target a minority of “troublemakers” who had posed “imminent danger” to China’s national security.

 

Roughly translated as "We will only target the one who will not do as they are told and pledge allegiance to CCP" We are the New  World Order and all must comply.....!!!!!

[Eric Loh]

I am sure the protestors are not duly concerned if they are not terrorists. 

[phkauf]

HK has been in decline for years now and this is the final shove to irreparably destroy what was one of the Freest "countries" in the world. HK was always the foreign gateway to China where one could trust the legal system and not worry about getting harassed or jailed if you cross someone in a business transaction. Capital could flow easily in and out of HK and there was transparency for investments. All of that is now going away despite the rhetoric from the CCP. 

I feel this is part of the CCP's grand plan to elevate their premier cities like Shanghai and Shenzhen to the detriment of HK. The mainlanders feel HK'ers are spoiled rich kids who don't want to play a part in One China, there is also residual dislike of their colonial past. Combined with HK speaking mostly Cantonese and very hesitant to embrace Mandarin. There are major culture clashes coming soon.

China is taking a very hard line on this issue, declaring it an Internal Matter and that other countries not get involved. In the end they will get their way since no country is willing to go to war for HK, but there will be much damage to the economy and society of HK. The West needs to take a stand and make China feel serious pain for this action to prevent them from trying the same with Taiwan. Any move on Taiwan would likely trigger a war and that is in nobody's interest - so China needs to feel some pain here to prevent what will be a much worse problem in the future.

[overherebc]

On 5/25/2020 at 9:05 PM, YetAnother said:

i blow my nose and it is a national security issue; means

NOTHING anymore

Blowing your nose in public and in a supercilious fashion ha! . You should be flogged in public.

????????

[baansgr]

So much for the 50 year agreement made with UK on handover...

[car720]

Taiwan is now making noises about accepting refugees from Hong Kong.

[rkidlad]

On 5/26/2020 at 9:11 AM, Eric Loh said:

I am sure the protestors are not duly concerned if they are not terrorists. 

What a condescending, glib and disingenuous attitude towards people fighting for their freedom of expression. It’s really sad to see people who think that the enemy of their enemies are their friends. 

[Grumpy one]

Oh well, there goes the neighbourhood 

[Eric Loh]

26 minutes ago, rkidlad said:

What a condescending, glib and disingenuous attitude towards people fighting for their freedom of expression. It’s really sad to see people who think that the enemy of their enemies are their friends. 

It has descended to frequent violent and chaotic conducts and even attacks by protesters at citizens who disagreed with their approach. Most peaceful protests have left the movement. Who is behind this violent group is still under much suspicion. The central government is doing like every country to control the situation before it gets out of hand. Majority of Hong Kong population still want to be associated with the mainland. You really don't know about the sentiment on the ground for you to sound condescending.      

[rkidlad]

24 minutes ago, Eric Loh said:

It has descended to frequent violent and chaotic conducts and even attacks by protesters at citizens who disagreed with their approach. Most peaceful protests have left the movement. Who is behind this violent group is still under much suspicion. The central government is doing like every country to control the situation before it gets out of hand. Majority of Hong Kong population still want to be associated with the mainland. You really don't know about the sentiment on the ground for you to sound condescending.      

Eric, do you really think the CCP are genuinely trying to differentiate between any rogue protestors and the genuinely peaceful ones? The CCP doesn’t care. You agree with what they say or you can end up in prison or disappeared. 
 

Do you know the details of this bill that will be passed without any input from the locals? Do you really imagine it to be something that’s even remotely fair to people’s political freedoms? 

Edited May 27, 2020 by rkidlad

[yuyiinthesky]

On 5/26/2020 at 9:11 AM, Eric Loh said:

I am sure the protestors are not duly concerned if they are not terrorists. 

Sure, we have seen at the Tiananmen Square incident 1989 that the CCP would never treat protesters as terrorists, right?
 

Quote

By the spring of 1989 there was growing sentiment among university students and others in China for political and economic reform. The country had experienced a decade of remarkable economic growth and liberalization, and many Chinese had been exposed to foreign ideas and standards of living. In addition, although the economic advances in China had brought new prosperity to many citizens, it was accompanied by price inflation and opportunities for corruption by government officials. In the mid-1980s the central government had encouraged some people (notably scientists and intellectuals) to assume a more active political role, but student-led demonstrations calling for more individual rights and freedoms in late 1986 and early 1987 caused hard-liners in the government and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) to suppress what they termed “bourgeois liberalism.” One casualty of this tougher stance was Hu Yaobang, who had been the CCP general secretary since 1980 and who had encouraged democratic reforms; in January 1987 he was forced to resign his post.

Tiananmen Square: May 1989 demonstratorsDemonstrators gathered around the “Goddess of Democracy” statue in Tiananmen Square, Beijing, late May 1989.Jeff Widener/AP Images

The catalyst for the chain of events in the spring of 1989 was the death of Hu in mid-April; Hu was transformed into a martyr for the cause of political liberalization. On the day of his funeral (April 22), tens of thousands of students gathered in Tiananmen Square demanding democratic and other reforms. For the next several weeks, students in crowds of varying sizes—eventually joined by a wide variety of individuals seeking political, social, and economic reforms—gathered in the square. The initial government response was to issue stern warnings but take no action against the mounting crowds in the square. Similar demonstrations rose up in a number of other Chinese cities, notably Shanghai, Nanjing, Xi’an, Changsha, and Chengdu. However, the principal outside media coverage was in Beijing, in part because a large number of Western journalists had gathered there to report on the visit to China by Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev in mid-May. Shortly after his arrival, a demonstration in Tiananmen Square drew some one million participants and was widely broadcast overseas.

 

Meanwhile, an intense debate ensued among government and party officials on how to handle the mounting protests. Moderates, such as Zhao Ziyang (Hu Yaobang’s successor as party general secretary), advocated negotiating with the demonstrators and offering concessions. However, they were overruled by hard-liners led by Chinese premier Li Peng and supported by paramount elder statesman Deng Xiaoping, who, fearing anarchy, insisted on forcibly suppressing the protests.

 

During the last two weeks of May, martial law was declared in Beijing, and army troops were stationed around the city. However, an attempt by the troops to reach Tiananmen Square was thwarted when Beijing citizens flooded the streets and blocked their way. Protesters remained in large numbers in Tiananmen Square, centring themselves around a plaster statue called “Goddess of Democracy,” near the northern end of the square. Western journalists also maintained a presence there, often providing live coverage of the events.

 

Crackdown And Aftermath

By the beginning of June, the government was ready to act again. On the night of June 3–4, tanks and heavily armed troops advanced toward Tiananmen Square, opening fire on or crushing those who again tried to block their way. Once the soldiers reached the square, a number of the few thousand remaining demonstrators there chose to leave rather than face a continuation of the confrontation. By morning the area had been cleared of protesters, though sporadic shootings occurred throughout the day.

 

The military also moved in forcibly against protesters in several other Chinese cities, including Chengdu, but in Shanghai the mayor, Zhu Rongji (later to become the premier of China), was able to negotiate a peaceful settlement.

 

By June 5 the military had secured complete control, though during the day there was a notable, widely reported incident involving a lone protester momentarily facing down a column of tanks as it advanced on him near the square.

Tiananmen Square: man blocking tanks A Chinese man temporarily blocking a line of tanks on June 5, 1989, the day after demonstrators were forcibly cleared from Beijing's Tiananmen Square.

Source: https://www.britannica.com/event/Tiananmen-Square-incident

 

If I would live in Hong Kong, I would have no illusions about the CCP not sending the tanks again, to stop the protesters.

 

[Eric Loh]

18 minutes ago, rkidlad said:

Eric, do you really think the CCP are genuinely trying to differentiate between any rogue protestors and the genuinely peaceful ones? The CCP doesn’t care. You agree with what they say or you can end up in prison or disappeared. 
 

Do you know the details of this bill that will be passed without any input from the locals? Do you really imagine it to be something that’s even remotely fair to people’s political freedoms? 

The new security law deal specifically with subversion, terrorist and any behavior that gravely threatens national security and foreign interference. The freedom to speak and assembly are still allowed. The status of Hong Kong financial hub is not threatened. Seem every country has the same concerns and have laws to maintain peace and stability to their citizens. 

[Eric Loh]

5 minutes ago, yuyiinthesky said:

Sure, we have seen at the Tiananmen Square incident 1989 that the CCP would never treat protesters as terrorists, right?

What they did in Tiananmen Square was a tragedy like the Kent State massacre. 

[rkidlad]

2 minutes ago, Eric Loh said:

The new security law deal specifically with subversion, terrorist and any behavior that gravely threatens national security and foreign interference. The freedom to speak and assembly are still allowed. The status of Hong Kong financial hub is not threatened. Seem every country has the same concerns and have laws to maintain peace and stability to their citizens. 

And what about the proposed bill to make it illegal to criticise the Chinese national anthem?

 

https://time.com/5842352/hong-kong-national-anthem-bill-protests/

 

If China want peace and stability, let the country keep running with its own system as promised before. The locals had elections in November 2019 and they voted for pro democracy. 

https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/11/25/what-happened-hong-kong-elections/

 

Eric, why on earth would any right-minded person from Hong Kong want to be more like the CCP? Do you really think the CCP can be trusted? There is no rule of law in China. Exactly the same as it is here in Thailand. Which right-minded person would want to be part of a system where there are no rules and where might is right? 

[rkidlad]

1 minute ago, Eric Loh said:

What they did in Tiananmen Square was a tragedy like the Kent State massacre. 

People in the US (and other open societies) can freely talk about the 4 people who were murdered that day.

 

Can people in China freely talk about the 'at least 10,000' people killed in Tiananmen Square? 

 

Are you beginning to see the importance of the freedom of expression? 

[Eric Loh]

5 minutes ago, rkidlad said:

And what about the proposed bill to make it illegal to criticise the Chinese national anthem?

Why is this singled out when many Western and Asian countries have laws to protect its national anthem. Thailand has strict laws on their royal anthem. Britain and Australia have protocols on how one should behave when the national anthem is played. 

9 minutes ago, rkidlad said:

f China want peace and stability, let the country keep running with its own system as promised before. The locals had elections in November 2019 and they voted for pro democracy. 

https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/11/25/what-happened-hong-kong-elections/

 

As I said, the freedom of speech and assembly are still in place. This security law deals with specific behavior that threatens the safety of the people and country. 

11 minutes ago, rkidlad said:

Eric, why on earth would any right-minded person from Hong Kong want to be more like the CCP? Do you really think the CCP can be trusted? There is no rule of law in China. Exactly the same as it is here in Thailand. Which right-minded person would want to be part of a system where there are no rules and where might is right? 

Not right for you to be condescending of the Hong Kong's population desire to be part of the mainland. Those who don't want to be part of that majority has the liberty to migrate. There are no restriction on immigration. 

[Eric Loh]

18 minutes ago, rkidlad said:

People in the US (and other open societies) can freely talk about the 4 people who were murdered that day.

 

Can people in China freely talk about the 'at least 10,000' people killed in Tiananmen Square? 

 

Are you beginning to see the importance of the freedom of expression? 

Both tragedies were about freedom of expression. 

[Traubert]

45 minutes ago, yuyiinthesky said:

Sure, we have seen at the Tiananmen Square incident 1989 that the CCP would never treat protesters as terrorists, right?
 

Source: https://www.britannica.com/event/Tiananmen-Square-incident

 

If I would live in Hong Kong, I would have no illusions about the CCP not sending the tanks again, to stop the protesters.

 

And here is the real version;

 

http://gregoryclark.net/page15/page15.html

[rkidlad]

6 minutes ago, Eric Loh said:

Why is this singled out when many Western and Asian countries have laws to protect its national anthem. Thailand has strict laws on their royal anthem. Britain and Australia have protocols on how one should behave when the national anthem is played.

Thailand has laws where you can be imprisoned for up to 15 years for criticising certain people. Does that mean it's okay for other countries to copy? In the UK we have no laws about criticising or disrespecting the national anthem. I'm not legally obliged to stand or sing when it comes on at a sports event. You may have noticed some people in the US getting on one knee when the national anthem comes on. That's their right to do so. You're welcome to do it and you're welcome to criticise people for doing it. Please don't conflate draconian laws with generally accepted social etiquette. 

 

11 minutes ago, Eric Loh said:

As I said, the freedom of speech and assembly are still in place. This security law deals with specific behavior that threatens the safety of the people and country

Eric, they're proposing a bill where you can be imprisoned for 3 years for criticising a song. That law doesn't exist right now. Only an absolute lunatic would want laws like these being passed.

13 minutes ago, Eric Loh said:

Not right for you to be condescending of the Hong Kong's population desire to be part of the mainland. Those who don't want to be part of that majority has the liberty to migrate. There are no restriction on immigration.

Here are some more links to how Hong Kongers voted for pro-democracy and away from Beijing.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/nov/24/hong-kong-residents-turn-up-for-local-elections-in-record-numbers

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/24/world/asia/hong-kong-election-results.html

https://edition.cnn.com/2019/11/24/asia/hong-kong-district-council-elections-intl/index.html

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/record-turnout-in-hong-kong-election-seen-as-a-referendum-on-the-pro-democracy-protest-movement/2019/11/24/31804b00-0df5-11ea-8054-289aef6e38a3_story.html

 

Either you want to participate in an honest conversation or you don't.

[rkidlad]

5 minutes ago, Eric Loh said:

Both tragedies were about freedom of expression. 

You didn't answer my question. 

 

In the US you can talk freely about the 4 students who were murdered.

 

In China can you talk about the 10,000 that were in killed in Tiananmen Square? A simple yes or no will suffice. 

[ncc1701d]

I agree wholeheartedly with the sentiments expressed here (other than Eric).

 

however... the mainland is not going to bow to the pressures of anyone and will never give up in any respects of what they want to do with Hong Kong. The protestors could raze Hong Kong to the ground and the mainland would not even blink. The mainland could replace every single person in Hong Kong 188 times over. 
 

even if the proposals are not accepted - the mainland is going to continue to do whatever it wants. They will say one thing and do another. 
 

the British should have done more when they were running the place. 
 

the Americans acted too slowly to the threat of the South China Sea. 
 

 

[RobFord]

On 5/27/2020 at 5:22 PM, Traubert said:

And here is the real version;

 

http://gregoryclark.net/page15/page15.html

This guy is a complete Delete. Even the Chinese authorities recorded well over 200 casualties, while others estimated over two thousand. 

The killings where done in the streets leading into the square. 
 

Check out the Death Toll.

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1989_Tiananmen_Square_protests

[GinBoy2]

On 5/27/2020 at 4:25 AM, rkidlad said:

You didn't answer my question. 

 

In the US you can talk freely about the 4 students who were murdered.

 

In China can you talk about the 10,000 that were in killed in Tiananmen Square? A simple yes or no will suffice. 

Well he won't answer you, he's a total apologist for the CCP, which baffles me.

 

But I will tell you from personal experience, try typing 'Tiananmen Square Massacre' while you're behind the Great Firewall, it's blocked and will initiate a visit from the cops.

 

I have a very good friend who was part of the student movement who thankfully got out and benefited from the 'Chinese Student Protection Act' which gave him permanent residency in the US tells me, in China today the suppression of information has effectively airbrushed it from history.

 

Thats the difference from the West, when something bad happens it becomes part of our history

[Eric Loh]

1 hour ago, GinBoy2 said:

Well he won't answer you, he's a total apologist for the CCP, which baffles me.

 

But I will tell you from personal experience, try typing 'Tiananmen Square Massacre' while you're behind the Great Firewall, it's blocked and will initiate a visit from the cops.

 

I have a very good friend who was part of the student movement who thankfully got out and benefited from the 'Chinese Student Protection Act' which gave him permanent residency in the US tells me, in China today the suppression of information has effectively airbrushed it from history.

 

Thats the difference from the West, when something bad happens it becomes part of our history

You are so self-centered in your opinion that when I provided honest opinion, you can't help but put a label on me. If you review my posts, I am not defending China and certainly not speaking for them in their numerous atrocities and human right abuses. I am just saying that every countries hide truth about past events that portray them badly. Governments re-write history that have negative views that they want to distort. Japan removed textbooks referencing the 300,000 killed during the infamous 1937 Nanjing massacre. Turkey omits referencing to the Armenian genocide or USA wrongful depiction of truth as regards to blacks history. So get off your high horse and get a balance view rather than than your tunnel vision view.