Comments by "LoC28C" (@LoC28C) on "Al Jazeera English" channel.

  1. 2
  2. 2
  3. 2
  4. 2
  5. 2
  6. 2
  7. 2
  8. 2
  9. 2
  10. 2
  11. 1
  12. 1
  13. 1
  14. 1
  15. 1
  16. 1
  17. 1
  18. 1
  19. 1
  20. 1
  21. How come every other country can have a national security law, China is not allowed to have one ? What is the motive of the western media here ? Secondly, this panel is very lopsided. Listening to this surely gives me the feeling of Mr Rong is the sheep being led to the pack of Wolfe’s being Mr To and Andreas together with Kamal Santa Maria too. Clearly Mr To and Andreas are very Anti-China by what they do and their history. This legislation is supposed to be passed in to law by the LegCo in Hong Kong. They have taken 23 years and has not been successful in passing this law because Mr To’s party has been opposing to it without giving any solution. Similarly, Mr To and his colleagues in the opposition in Hong Kong has also protested and blocked many legislation and initiatives that is required to provide the people of Hong Kong a decent living without offering any solution. It does seem that they have been opposing for the sake of opposing. Some of these examples are : 1. Land reform to enable more land to be available for public housing and also to provide affordable housing to the ordinary citizens of Hong Kong. 2. Education reform to ensure that the text books and syllabus taught in schools will stop teaching students the altered history of Hong Kong and China. The Hong Kong LegCo also tried to stop the teaching of Anti-China syllabus in the schools in Hong Kong too but this too has been opposed and prevented from taken effect by Mr To’s party. 3. Redesignation of the northern part of Hong Kong into a Silicon Valley and electronics hub to encourage innovation and growth in these two sectors of the economy for the whole of China. Mr To’s party has refused to allow such to happen in Hong Kong therefore the companies like Tencent, Huawei, DJI and so on have been forced to settle in Shenzhen instead of Hong Kong. Therefore also depriving brilliant Hong Kong Talent from securing jobs writing Hong Kong itself. Andreas also lost his credibility by not showing any understanding about the Sino-British joint Declaration. He is only pushing his own biased agenda of western styled human rights and democracy and possibility the cessation of Hong Kong and Taiwan. The spirit of the Sino-British Joint Declaration is to have a 50 years transitional period for the people of Hong Kong to learn and adapt to the mainstream Chinese society and hence be integrated in to the rest of the country. This can only be done on a gradual basis and not over night. What Andreas seem to be promoting is that there will be no change in the society in Hong Kong for 50 years and thereafter the whole of the 1.4 billion people on Mainland China adapt to the lifestyle and culture of the Hong Kong people or to be more westernized. To think like this he is either delusional, stupid, crazy or an idiot with no knowledge of human management or human behavior.
    1
  22. 1
  23. 1
  24. 1
  25. 1
  26. ⁠@staceevanya Sorry it is not true that the National Security law in Hong Kong is crated to facilitate the CCP to control over Hong Kong. If you look at the Article 23 the crimes stated and defined there is exactly how it is described in most countries around the world but the difference is that the punishment prescribed by the Hong Kong’s Article 23 is very minimal as compared to most places around the world. For many of these crimes described in Article 23 it would be life in prison or death penalty in all countries in Europe or America however it is a mere few years jail in Hong Kong. The only difference is that in Hong Kong there are many organisations funded by foreign Governments trying to subvert the day to day running of Hong Kong and China whilst there are not so many of these organisations in many other countries or territories around the world. In India they outright banned some of these organisations like Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International and these organisations just left India about a decade or so ago. This Article 23 was a requirement to be set up by the Hong Kong Government according to the agreement for the return of Hong Kong to the mainland. However, the UK and the USA has been lobbying through their sponsored politicians and other organisations like the churches controlled by the CIA in Hong Kong to stop the implementation of this law. The reason for it is that when this law is implemented these organisations and churches funded by the UK and USA in Hong Kong will be breaking these laws.
    1
  27. 1
  28. 1
  29. 1
  30. 1
  31. 1
  32. 1
  33. 1
  34. 1
  35. 1
  36. 1
  37. 1
  38. 1
  39. 1
  40. 1
  41. 1
  42. 1
  43. 1
  44. 1
  45. 1
  46. 1
  47. 1
  48. 1
  49. 1
  50. 1