Clash of Civilizations in Hong Kong over Pursuit of Independence


Hundreds of lawyers wearing black stage a silent protest to the Court of Final Appeal against China's parliament that passed an interpretation of Basic Law, in Hong Kong, China November 8, 2016. REUTERS/Tyrone Siu

Hundreds of lawyers wearing black stage a silent protest to the Court of Final Appeal against China’s parliament that passed an interpretation of Basic Law, in Hong Kong, China November 8, 2016. REUTERS/Tyrone Siu

Centralism has been Chinese traditional culture for more than two thousand years. It is natural for Chinese government and people to oppose split of the country so fiercely. They would never allow any part of China to become independent.

That is why China is determined to take Taiwan by force if it dares to declare independence. That is not a threat. It is what Chinese military has been making preparations for a long time.

That is why Taiwan President Tsai Ing-wen dares not declare independence as she and her party desire and why the United States supports her though it openly declare that it opposes Taiwan independence.

That is why Chinese parliament, the National People’s Congress (NPC), interpreted on Monday Hong Kong’s mini-constitution, the Basic Law, to prevent those who advocate Hong Kong independence from becoming Hong Kong’s legislators.

Western culture, however, advocates self-determination. If most people in a region want independence, they shall be allowed to establish a new nation separate from the nation they originally belong to. That is why Britain says it is concerned.

In its November-7 report on Britain’s response titled “Britain says concerned by Chinese National People’s Congress’s decision on Hong Kong”, Reuters quotes British Foreign Office spokeswoman as saying, “We urge the Chinese and Hong Kong SAR Governments, and all elected politicians in Hong Kong to refrain from any actions that fuel concerns or undermine confidence in the ‘One Country, Two Systems’ principle”.

She implied in what she said that Chinese government’s action (interpretation of the Basic Law) has fueled concerns and undermined confidence in the ‘One Country, Two Systems’ principle so that she calls on Chinese government to refrain from such actions.

Hong Kong lawyers responded strongly due to their values from Western Culture. Reuters says in its report “Hong Kong lawyers march to condemn China’s legal ‘interference’” on November 8, “More than 1,000 Hong Kong lawyers dressed in black marched through the heart of the city in silence on Tuesday to condemn a move by China that effectively bars two elected pro-independence lawmakers from taking their seats in the legislature.”

Reuters quotes a Hong Kong solicitor as saying, “In the guise of putting forth an interpretation, they really have attempted to legislate for Hong Kong…”

The solicitor regards judicial independence as complete independence from Chinese central authority. That is true in the US with Western democracy but not in centralized China. China also advocated judicial independence but not independence from the Chinese Communist Party (CCP)’s leadership.

Therefore according to China’s traditional centralism, no one is independent from the central authority, which now is the CCP under the collective leadership with Xi Jinping as the core.

By setting the Basic Law as Hong Kong’s mini-constitution and stipulating that Chinese parliament the NPC has the power to amend and interpret the Basic Law in Articles 158 and 159 of the Basic Law, China retains some power of legislation. The solicitor complained as he failed to really understand China’s “One Country, Two Systems” policy.

What is most important is in Clause 3 of the Joint Declaration, China begins its declaration with subclause (1) “Upholding national unity and territorial integrity”, China decides to set up Hong Kong Special Administrative Region with the subclauses below that stipulate the “One Country, Two System” policy. If national unity and territorial integrity are broken by Hong Kong independence, there will be no “One Country, Two Systems” at all, not even the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region.

Understand?

Reuters’ report mistakes “One Country, Two Systems” as agreement between China and Britain. No, there are some clauses of joint declaration between the two but some unilateral declarations by Britain and some by China in the Joint Declaration. Clause 3 is China’s unilateral declaration. It is not an agreement but a promise.

Breaking a promise is much less serious than breaking the obligation in an agreement especially when the promise is broken due to the breaking of the condition of national unity and territorial integrity under which the promise is made.

The clash of civilizations in Hong Kong will not give rise to a war but may cause China to break its promise and put an end to its “One Country, Two Systems” policy.

We, Hong Kong people, must be careful to avoid that. Otherwise, I will be punished for what I have written when the freedom of speech I enjoy in Hong Kong now will be deprived.

However, my greatest worry is the clash of civilizations between China and Taiwan, which may give rise to a cruel war.

President Tsai upholds Taiwan people’s right to determine their future, but China says that the 1.3 billion Chinese people do not allow that. If the clash intensifies and if the US continues its decline and become so weak as unable to protect Taiwan, China will take Taiwan by force.

Can I allow others to sleep soundly by the side of my bed?

Emperor Taizu of Song when he annexed South Tang

Comment by Chan Kai Yee on Reuters’ report, full text of which can be viewed respectively at http://www.reuters.com/article/us-hongkong-china-lawyers-idUSKBN13315Q
and http://www.reuters.com/article/us-hongkong-china-politics-britain-idUSKBN1321IF

Advertisements

5 Comments on “Clash of Civilizations in Hong Kong over Pursuit of Independence”

  1. Richard Hu says:

    The gentleman “Washington’s Fifth Columns in HongKong” whose reply offers both accuracy and wisdom to this ugly chapter of our nascent post Colonialism period in our history is to be applauded.
    The young idiots should not have sworned in in the first place and the coward lawyers with their headpiece should be rounded up and ship to GB and fend for themselves in their Motherland.
    These HongKongers have their lives too good and not being appreciative, they should try to move to the West and see for themselves- How DOGS are treated HERE.

    Like

  2. Fre Okin says:

    China gave Hong Kong ample time to resolve this independence crisis. The hundreds of lawyers protesting against China’s ‘interference’ should blame the two clowns for forcing China’s hand. Judicial review for such a matter should not take forever, especially knowing China’s NPC meeting timetable. China will not sit still and be insulted by independence seekers. The lawyers who protested should instead have demanded the two newbies to apologize to China right away after the insulting oath taking. Perhaps China would not have put her foot down if the duo have apologized.

    “Sixtus Leung and Yau Wai-ching, had been scheduled to be sworn in on Wednesday morning after the oaths they took last week were declared invalid. Both had declared allegiance to a “Hong Kong nation” and then replaced the word China with “Shina,” considered derogatory by some.” OCT. 19, 2016 NYTimes.

    Like

  3. Simon says:

    HKers does not even have the balls to convict westerners and instead chose a qwailo judge to hand down sentence to foreigners. The case of convicted double murderer Rurik Jutting a Briish national for killing two Indonesian workers in HK was heard in court by Judge Michael Stuart-Moore. After the the verdict was announce the judge agree Jutting should serve his sentence back home in Britain. HK does not even have judicial independent to hear cases against westerners how on earth do they expect to be taken seriously to seek indpendent from China?

    Like

  4. WASHINGTON'S FIFTH COLUMNS IN HONGKONG says:

    Foolish “Independence” Hongkongers. Hongkong is a city. It was NEVER a city state. So the elections in Hongkong were nothing more than a local municipal elections. Whatever gave them the idea they were a country and could therefore demand independence? Are they so dumb and low on intellect – including the lawyers – that they allow their minds to be so easily twisted and manipulated by British/American warped logic?

    Can’t they read that simple declaration at the end of London Whitehall’s expiry of the lease on Hongkong : ONE COUNTRY, two systems! Yes ONE country. But you can have your municipal or City Hall elections. No more no less.

    Sheesh. Deng Xiaopeng gave face to the British and the foolish second class Hongkongers under British colonialism. And the British, under margaret Thatcher and Tony Blair, appreciated that. Otherwise Chinese PLA troops would had acted as Police on behalf of Beijing, and just marched into Hongkong to legally re-possess it’s property (territory). If the second class “rejected by London as British itizens” dogs had wanted independence, they should had fought for it then .. literally .. and maybe died for it.

    Cowardice comes in many forms. These dogs should had taken up their claims for independence under British colonial rules who would probably had shot them like the dogs they deemed the despised Orientals are for any slightest violent protests. But they are so brave against a lenient and sympathetic “parent” who consider their interests first as Chinese as any parent displaying unconditional love would. I can only shake my head in shame at these stupid and selfish sell-out traitors to that sordid American CIA and Soros’ DemocracyAid agencies.

    Like

  5. Steve says:

    It is said that by instigating the Mother of All Wars maybe the only solution to finish off a cruel war. The central government of China have no other alternative but to instigate new measures to combat terrorism, separatism and extremism. Basically, a revolt has already being initiated by the HK and Taiwan pro independence movement. Just look back at the HK umbrella movement, a mass riot of rebels taking to the streets, causing schism, disruption and divisiveness within business and government communities.

    China holds the Rod and need to find common ground to bring both HK and Taiwan back into the central governance. I am not saying China should start a war, but unnecessary reprisals by these unruly hoodlums should be countered with disciplined force.

    Like


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s