Comments by "David Wong" (@davidwong5197) on "China says UK has 'poisoned' Sino-British relationship over Hong Kong and Huawei" video.

  1. The only real freedom this law takes away is the right to collude with foreign countries. This also means it is the end of the line for NED and NDI to work in HK.
    6
  2. How so? Which article did they break? This should be easy. Name one just one. Security Law you say. It is specified in Article 23 of the basic law.
    3
  3. You are confused. China always has security law since 1948. What country does not have National Security law? I bet you can't name one.
    3
  4.  @Blindswordsman1994  You are an idiot. What is free trade and capitalism? BT has already tested Huawei equipment and wants to install in their network. The UK government forbid them. Is that dictatorship? Please don't tell me BT is British government.
    3
  5. There is a difference. Google and Facebook are service companies and Huawei is not.Google's business model is NOT compatible with Chinese censorship and China does not allow Facebook to sell user data. The premise of banning Hauwei is security. However, BT and DT verified there is none and US cannot produce any evidence.
    2
  6. Please showed me Huawei's 5G backdoor. Bet you can't. BT already verified there is none. So why ban Huawei?
    2
  7. They could change the status of HSBC. Ban all import from UK. Freeze all British assets.
    2
  8. @Oliver Mai Show me where the security law ban free speech. It is not there. Chanting "HK Independence " is not even illegal unless you have other accompanying action. (same as US) The declaration IS just a DECLARATION. It is not a treaty. Check the dictionary and find the difference. The ruling document is the Basic law. The security law is defined in article 23. The detail has just been added in Annex 3.
    2
  9.  @Blindswordsman1994  It is NOW in Annex 3. So..... The question is to the OP which article did China break?
    1
  10. Just one word. BNO
    1
  11.  @risingstarforge  You don't know the facts or maybe you don't care. BT has determined there is no security risk on Huawei's equipment. The British has allowed Huawei to be in 40% of their network. But under US pressure, they banned Huawei for no reason. If Huawei 5G is a risk how about 3G and 4G? They have been deployed for years.
    1
  12.  @eden-3655  You are an idiot. There were many that was arrested during the anti National Security Law protest for illegal assembly. But only one was charged for violating the security law, he drove a motorcycle into the police. If you are so sure, please provide evidence, case number and the charge. Or link to the charges. I bet you can't . So stop with the BS.
    1
  13.  @jamesjoe5979  I did read it on SCMP. The law DID NOT ban collusion?
    1
  14. @Oliver Mai You still fail to show where China takes over jurisdiction. It involved very few cases. THey mostly cases that need diplomatic action in the so called "long reach " cases. You should read the actual law. The law has some problem mostly in "long reach" but not in the free speech.
    1
  15. @Oliver Mai I am now very interested. Please show me the cases where China prosecuted HKers for free speech based on the security law. I don't know of any case. I still want to know what part of the "treaty". You kept saying free speech but offered NO evidence. The government already said chanting "HK Independence" is not a violation unless it is accompanied by other actions. Why don't you name the cases? There are not really that many cases so far. I am talking about charged with security violation, NOT just arrested for rioting.
    1
  16. @Oliver Mai I know you are lazt and don't like to read. Paragraph 3 is the statement of China Policy. Here's an excerpt "Those basic policies will be stipulated in a Basic Law of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region in the PRC by the National People's Congress and will remain unchanged for 50 years." It basically DECLARED the ruling document is the Basic Law. Please do more reading and stop taking misinformation as truth.
    1
  17. @Oliver Mai You should learn to read instead of hearsay. You got fake news. First, China never referred themselves as Beijing. They called themselves Central Government. Second they would name the security office. Please tell me which article is that from? If you are referring to article 48. The text is not even close. And article 50 stated clearly they are subject to local law. All you have is fake news. You got the law wrong and you don't have ANY cases to prove your point. You are pathetic.
    1