The arrest of 53 people from the pro-democracy camp in Hong Kong was alleged to be a violation of the National Security Law of Hong Kong in the primary election last July, and the far-fetched arguments shocked the world. However, the so-called “intention” is only to vote in the Legislative Council to veto the government’s budget in full accordance with the legal procedures of the Hong Kong Basic Law; and this intention is only Dai Yaoting’s personal opinion before the emergence of the Hong Kong SAR National Security Law, neither supported by others, and even the organizers have long indicated that they will not ask the elected candidates to veto the budget; now the government is pushing excuses Indiscriminate arrests will only make the people of Hong Kong to the future, even the last confidence is lost.
The most bizarre point is that the Communist Party of Hong Kong has been claiming that the pro-democracy activists who were arrested “before the budget” have stated that they “vetoed the budget twice” to “force the Chief Executive to step down”, which means “subversion of state power”. However, the most ridiculous thing about this lie is that in recent years, the SAR Government has repeatedly invoked the Returning Officer’s DQ to veto the eligibility of candidates, but it has never seen the Government ask a question – will it veto the Budget without reason?
On the other hand, what is meant by “justified”? The government has always believed that everything it does is very reasonable, while everything the “opposition” does is scolded. For the sake of “national security”, should we abolish “oppose” and “abstain” in the Legislative Council and replace them with “support, agree and bless” buttons?
And Article 52(3) of the Basic Law even states that the Chief Executive must resign only when the Legislative Council is dissolved because it refuses to pass the budget… and the re-elected Legislative Council continues to refuse to pass the “original bill” under dispute. The question is, why after the dissolution of the Legislative Council, the government suddenly won’t DQ legislators’ eligibility to stand for election? Even if they are re-elected, why won’t they withdraw, suspend or amend the budget? Why is it assumed that after the two major defeats in the Legislative Council, the Chief Executive will still insist on the “original proposal” to “commit suicide” in the Legislative Council and then resign?
If the democratic camp’s intention is to “violate the Basic Law”, then how can Members continue to vote against it? How will the government do as it is told and how will Beijing not intervene? If what the democrats are doing is “in line with the Basic Law”, then why did Beijing not immediately send someone to “plug the loopholes” and amend or “interpret” Article 52 of the Basic Law as early as July last year, when it was so worried about such a scenario? Article 52 of the Basic Law” to stop this provision of the Basic Law that “endangers national security”?
If it is so dangerous for the Chief Executive to step down, should the provision in the Basic Law that allows the Chief Executive to step down be repealed? Even when Tung Chee-hwa stepped down “out of the blue” due to “health problems”, the government did not have to shut down, but now that everything is under the control of the Chinese Communist Party, why would it shut down? Who would believe such a lie?
What’s more, the key to the so-called “ten-part campaign” of Dai Yaoting’s to “impose sanctions on various countries” is not the veto of the budget, but Beijing’s indiscriminate arrest of Hong Kong; without indiscriminate arrest, no sanctions would have been imposed. Now that the budget has never been vetoed, the Legislative Council election has been cancelled, the primary candidates cannot even enter the Legislative Council, and even the “extended legislature” has resigned in general, but some people “can’t forget the sanctions”. “, but at this time to engage in abusive arrests, the original “script” is absolutely impossible to “achieve”, to make it true, is to show that the rule of law in Hong Kong today, has become three words: unwarranted.
Recent Comments