Comments by "DailyBeatings" (@DailyBeatings) on "CGTN"
channel.
-
115
-
17
-
17
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
10
-
9
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@antonysmyth2464 This is completely false. Under the basic law, which was part of the agreement, Hong Kong was suppose to enact a security law (article 23):
"The Hong Kong Special Administrative Region shall enact laws on its own to prohibit any act of treason, secession, sedition, subversion against the Central People’s Government, or theft of state secrets, to prohibit foreign political organizations or bodies from conducting political activities in the Region, and to prohibit political organizations or bodies of the Region from establishing ties with foreign political organizations or bodies."
Hong Kong continued to violate the agreement by not enacting a security law, then the region is subjected to violent protests with demands of secession openly backed by foreign organizations for over a year. I wonder if there's a mechanism in the agreement to remedy the situation?
Per the agreement the PRC is allowed certain powers (article 18) under paragraph four in the event of certain conditions within the special administration region:
"In the event that the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress decides to declare a state of war or, by reason of turmoil within the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region which endangers national unity or security and is beyond the control of the government of the Region, decides that the Region is in a state of emergency, the Central People’s Government may issue an order applying the relevant national laws in the Region."
It's obvious the events in Hong Kong qualify under article 18, therefore the actions of the central government were clearly allowable. These were the terms agreed to by ALL parties involved during the handover.
https://www.basiclaw.gov.hk/en/basiclaw/chapter2.html
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2