Comments by "Yerris" (@yerri5567) on "Hong Kong offers HK$1 million bounties on another 5 fugitive opposition figures" video.

@tylerd8245 What decline? Ever since the handover of HK in 1997 they had a constitution duty create their own "national security law" under Article 23 of their mini constitution. They just failed to fulfil it thats all. You think your country doesnt have this law?
4
Bot. HK failed to fulfil their constitutional duty in creating their own "national security law", thats why Beijing had to step it. Its HK that failed to keep its promise, not China.
4
@tylerd8245 " In my country, with all its faults, we are not arrested for..." Oh? What country are you from? Tell me, and Ill tell you what freedom you dont have. "We are not imprisoned for exercising freedom of expression and peaceful assembly" You sure? You sure people wont be imprisoned for hate speech, verbal harassment, or call-to-actions (incitement) to crimes? And the riots in HK were not "peaceful" as what we have all seen. The city was basically destroyed. How would your country woulve handled riots? Much worse if its a Western country let me tell you that. "Must take some real mental gymnastics to arrive at whatever conclusions you've reached" Ive only stated that HK has failed to fulfil their constitutional duty to create their own "national security law", which is a fact. And youve concluded whatever conclusion that I had (which are the facts) was wrong? Especially when I was asking you a question? Ill say your words right back at you: "must take some real mental gymnastics to arrive at whatever conclusions you've reached".
3
@tylerd8245 "You can play the game of whataboutism all you want" Me? How about you look in the mirror before accusing others of whataboutism. I only asked you a question and brought up that HK had a constitutional duty to created their own "national security law" under Article 23 of their mini-constitution. And what did you do? Brought up about "freedom" this "freedom" that. Carnival this, vigils that. That literally whataboutism right there. "The fact of the matter is (1) Hong Kongers have much less freedom today than prior to the enactment of the national security act" They were meant to have their very own "national security law" ever since their handover in 1997. You think when HK was under the British they were able to do what they did against China towards the British? No! Protests were not allowed in HK under British rule. And HK was great prior to 1997. They had the SAME freedom has they had previously, just not politically, like under British rule. And your argument that HK was more free when they didnt have more laws is ridiculous. Isnt it obvious that a place is more free without any laws?! I would argue that even YOUR country would have more freedom if you also didnt have a "national security law". Dont you think? "and (2) businesses have left in droves due to an unstable political climate and unpredictable future" Irrelevant. Abide by the laws of the country and nothing will happen. Same rule applies for every single country youre in. If China allowed the riots to continue, ie dont have this "national security law", even more businesses would leave due to its literal dangerous climate. You honestly think that businesses care about political climate? If they did, why would they do business within the Chinese mainland themselves?! "This started well before the new law, when the CCP was beginning to impose its will, in what many perceive as the breaking of the promise that it would allow HK to retain the same rights and freedom after the handover" You dont know what youre talking about. CCP imposed their "will"? What will? The constitutional will that they were meant to accomplish that they didnt? It was HK that broke their promise, not Beijing. HK was meant to created their own "national security law" under Article 23 of their mini-constitution. Half way through the 50 year and still no result is a failure on HKs part. Why should Beijing sit still when HK failed? HK already broke their promise before Beijing intervened. And their way of life hasnt not changed from under British rule till now. Actually no, under the British HK wasnt allowed to protest against their rulers nor choose their leader, under the Chinese HK was! That says everything already. "You think the record low turnout in voting for a sham election signals the citizens are optimistic about its future? Rationalize it all you want. I don't really care. Hong Kong is a world class city, and it's in decline" Irrelevant. Optimistic or not has absolutely nothing to do with a city being "world class". Whether a place is "world class" or not has nothing to do with the locals. Absolutely nothing I tell you.
3
@Cosmo1093 "Yes, proposed by a government that the citizens of Hong Kong never elected" Citizens dont elect "governments". The bill would have been proposed regardless of who the leader was. HK isnt a dictatorship
3
@Cosmo1093 "Protesters in 2019 were just demanding what they were already promised" What youre doing is cherry picking words without the full context. Whats promised is clearly specified in the constitution. Its clearly detailed and followed accordingly (Annex I and Annex II). How convenient for you to be ignoring that the method of selecting the Chief Executive is meant to be "in accordance with the principle of gradual and orderly progress". What does that mean? That means there will be changes, and the changes will be "gradual and orderly". Thats exactly whats happening. Theyve been given what they were promised. Moreover, youre also conventionally leaving out the 2nd half of the sentence: The ultimate aim is the selection of the Chief Executive by universal suffrage upon nomination by a broadly representative nominating committee IN ACCORDANCE WITH DEMOCRATIC PROCEDURES", in accordance with democratic procedures specified in Annex I and Annex II! "Following your logic of trying to ignore the spirit of the law, there was no time limit set under Article 23 for HK to implement a national security law, so it would be legal for HK to never implement a national security law at all" No, its common practice that no specified date means theyre meant to do it in g00d faith within a reasonable time period, not "never do it". Half of the specified time and still no result is not in g00d faith. If going by your logic, the 50 year agreement also never had a start date. Beijing could also legally have the 50 year of time period start in year 2200, instead of from 1997. Agreements are meant to be done in g00d faith. And that means ASAP or within a reasonable time period in this case. "I disagree. Elected government officials are ultimately held accountable by their voters" Youre wrong, but you are entitled to your opinions. You are using the Western democratic system to judge a non-Western democratic system. Accountability is largely irrelevant in this specific scenario, Ill tell you why. HK is a special administrative region (SAR) of PRC, whereby HK is to have a high degree of autonomy, but still ultimately under the behest of PRC. Remember, HK is to have a "high degree" of autonomy, not "absolute" autonomy, its clearly stated in their mini-constitution. When there was such a huge legal loophole in the HKvsTW murdr case, I bet you it was Beijing that told HK to close this legal loophole by proposing the "controversial" extradition bill using HKs legal system. So my point still stands. Regardless of who was elected, the bill wouldve still been "proposed" as this was an invisible hand pushing this from Beijings side. And I use "proposed" in quotation because its not in Beijings interest to forcefully do it their way, the Beijing way. They want to do it the HK way through HKs legal system. So directed by Beijing, passed by HK, and implemented by HK. So whoever HKs leader was, they wouldve still had to propose it no matter what.
3
@TheSakicheese HK is to have a high degree of autonomy, not absolute autonomy
2
@renantebulda916 Freedom of what? Freedom to infringe upon their countrys national security law?
2
@Cosmo1093 "They also have a constitutional duty to implement universal suffrage in elections -- Articles 45 and 68 of the Basic Law" Irrelevant to what I said. Moreover, article 45 and 68 is still enforced. So not sure what youre on about there. "The activists demanding democracy are simply demanding what they are already entitled to, but Beijing considers that to be a crime" Wrong. All this started from a proposed extradition treaty with mainland China to close a legal loophole after a HK man murdered his girlfriend in Taiwan but was basically able to walk freely in HK. HK themselves proposed the extradition bill, but because of misinformation, there was fear that literally anyone could be extradited to mainland China for any reason, even though the bill explicitly says what can and cannot be part of the extradition and the fact that HKs independent judicial court run by foreign judges have the final say. Fear due to misinformation was what drove the initial protests. Then came the riots. None of this was "peaceful" at all as we have seen. And all this had nothing to do with "pro-democracy" or anything for that matter at this point. Anything "pro-democracy" related was months later. But before that, there were more protests over "police brutality", even though HK police is extremely tamed compared to Western nations way of how their police handle riots. As for what these "activists" demanding "democracy", HK already had it in place at the time of the initial protests. So not sure what youre on about there. The crime was HK not fulfilling their constitutional duty by enacting their "national security law" (Article 23) so all this riot could even take place.
2
"They aren't. Only 20 of the 90 Legislative Council seats are elected by voters. The Chief Executive isn't elected at all by voters" Yes they are. First of all, for Article 68, the 20 seat of the 90 legislative council directed elected by voters IS part of the constitution. No where in the constitution says that ALL 90 seats are to be from direct vote, not even in the original 1997 version says that. The remaining seats are also voted/nominated in by their industry profession. Thats part of the constitution. Read it properly before saying "no they arent". And Article 45 - "The Chief Executive of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region shall be selected by election OR through consultations held locally and be appointed by the Central People's Government. The method for selecting the Chief Executive shall be specified in the light of the actual situation in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region and in accordance with the principle of gradual and orderly progress. The ultimate aim is the selection of the Chief Executive by universal suffrage upon nomination by a broadly representative nominating committee in accordance with democratic procedures." So Article 45 is also enforced, because thats exactly what was followed. In the 3rd paragraph of Article 45 and 68 it specified the method on the procedures, namely Annex I and Annex II. Read it before you say "no they arent". "That's not universal suffrage" No country on this planet has "true" universal suffrage. Not even the US. Remember, HK didnt even have elections under the British. They should be grateful of the form of democracy that they have now. Ask for too much youll end up getting none after 50 years. Is that what you want?
2
@SR-pr2xz "correct" So is the US part of this "civilized world" you speak of then?
2
@radenwirahadian9069 No. Bounty for committing crimes agains their national security law.
2
@phoso1 HK*
2
@cyrusthevirus9878 Ok. But others might want to
1
@ravikurup8350 I dont think theyre sending HK police overseas to arrest people...Its local police that make the arrests if anything
1
@user-cc1bf2pv4h HKs GPD has always been growing above world average rate. So not sure what you meant by that
1
"They also have a constitutional duty to implement universal suffrage in elections -- Articles 45 and 68 of the Basic Law" Irrelevant to what I said. Moreover, article 45 and 68 is still enforced. So not sure what youre on about there. "The activists demanding democracy are simply demanding what they are already entitled to, but Beijing considers that to be a crime" Wrong. All this started from a proposed extradition treaty with mainland China to close a legal loophole after a HK man murdered his girlfriend in Taiwan but was basically able to walk freely in HK. HK themselves proposed the extradition bill, but because of misinformation, there was fear that literally anyone could be extradited to mainland China for any reason, even though the bill explicitly says what can and cannot be part of the extradition and the fact that HKs independent judicial court run by foreign judges have the final say. Fear due to misinformation was what drove the initial protests. Then came the riots. None of this was "peaceful" at all as we have seen. And all this had nothing to do with "pro-democracy" or anything for that matter at this point. Anything "pro-democracy" related was months later. But before that, there were more protests over "police brutality", even though HK police is extremely tamed compared to Western nations way of how their police handle riots. As for what these "activists" demanding "democracy", HK already had it in place at the time of the initial protests. So not sure what youre on about there. The crime was HK not fulfilling their constitutional duty by enacting their "national security law" (Article 23) so all this riot could even take place.
1
@Cosmo1093 Comments above. Couldnt tag you on comment for some reason
1
@Cosmo1093 Still cant tag and comment
1
@KyranSparda Is extraordinary rendition a better comparison?
1
TheIceman567 Fall this far? Ever since the handover of HK in 1997, HK had a constitution duty create their own "national security law" under Article 23 of their mini constitution. They just failed to fulfil it thats all. You think your country doesnt have this law?
1
@mudshovel289 What do you mean "doomed"? You expect HK to be a place free from their very own countrys national security law? Ever since the handover of HK in 1997, HK had a constitution duty create their own "national security law" under Article 23 of their mini constitution. They just failed to fulfil it till now thats all
1
@jkdfjufseytjreyj4003 Depends on how serious the charges are against the fugitives
1
@Frank-ni4me What do you mean by "world class city"?
1
@LeeQour Well you thought wrong
1
@unvaccinatedAndPureBlood What do you mean? Ever since the handover of HK in 1997, HK had a constitution duty create their own "national security law" under Article 23 of their mini constitution. They just failed to fulfil it thats all. You think the West doesnt have this law?
1
@bingoboing8368 Osama bin laden and his buddies arent US citizens, so why were they H?
1
@pervertt Theyve committed crimes. Theyre fugitives. Political refugees may not have committed crimes.
1
@k-t2498 Its not just a mere protest. Theyve committed the crime of sedition, secession and/or subversion.
1