If we are not retained, we stay (Lee Yee)
During the few days around July 1 that the Hong Kong version of National Security Law took effect, the city reached its nadir. The pro-communist made an extremely menacing rendition of the law and its articles. When the public was still digesting the law on the day it was promulgated, the police put it into practice. On June 28, Wang Dan, an activist in the 1989 Tiananmen Square protests, said in his Facebook post that information from Beijing revealed Jimmy Lai and Joshua Wong would be apprehended upon the National Security Law becoming effective on July 1, though extradition to China was unknown. Meanwhile, no sooner had Anson Chen told the media her decision to quit her political endeavor than Chinese state media posed an intimidating query: “Can the bane of Hong Kong shirk the penalty with just a few words ‘quit political endeavour’?” as well as wantonly disseminating the tidings: “ The head of the Hong Kong independence gang absconds in fear of the ‘National Security Law for Hong Kong’”. What’s more, after the UK declared citizenship offer to BNO passport holders in Hong Kong, Global Times Chief Editor Hu Xijin said “the Chief Secretary would ban them from leaving Hong Kong”. Worse still, Hong Kong people worried that their lives would be shattered by the U.S.’s sanction to decouple HKD from USD, be it hearsay.
While living in fear, quite some Hong Kong people are changing HKD into USD, fleeing from the city right away or busy rustling up whatever they can for emigration. However, the primaries of the democrats on Sunday still drew in long queues of 610,000 citizens, who were fearless of the machete dangling over their heads, sprawling all over the place in the city. The results showed that localists and amateur participants triumphed lopsidedly, suggesting that support for valiant protests prevails among the pro-democracy electorate despite the terrifying National Security Law.
The UK, the U.S., Australia and Taiwan have pledged humanitarian assistance to Hong Kong people horrified at the National Security Law. Be that as it may, some Hong Kong people are still worried that the SAR government will ban BNO passport holders from leaving the city, or request civil servants to relinquish their BNO passports.
The author of Radio Free Asia’s “Late night talk about Zhongnanhai” indicates in his latest article that the Chinese and Hong Kong government do not care about Hong Kong people making off abroad, but wring their hands in agitation that with the terrifying National Security Law implemented, Hong Kong people stay put.
He cited the 2005 speech by Yan Xuetong, senior researcher at the Council of State Security of the People's Republic of China, about the Anti-secession Law: “When we talk about the integrality of sovereignty and territory, we refer to Taiwan as a piece of land, not Taiwanese, so the Anti-secession Law dismisses the separation of this piece of land, not the independence of Taiwanese. We do not object to the right of Taiwanese to casting off their Chinese identity. However, since Taiwan is an inseparable part of China, we have the right to deny Taiwanese request for establishing a country on our land“. His remarks were summarized as a policy of “retaining the island not the people” towards Taiwan.
The contemplation of the “retaining the island not the people” policy is on the same line with “retaining Hong Kong not the people”. In light of the scale of the anti-extradition bill movement last year, even the dumbest know that it is hardly possible to brainwash Hong Kong people or turn them into patriots. That being the case, maybe the harshness of the National Security Law and the hastiness of its legislative procedure are aimed at creating vibes of awe and shock. Offers of paths to citizenships from the West to Hong Kong people are probably what the Chinese Communist Party is glad to see, in spite of verbal objection that is part of its vanity project. In fact, it eagerly looks forward to the unpatriotic running away from the city, nothing loath. Zhao Lijian, the official spokesperson for the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, expressed the idea alternatively: “The entrance and exit are always open in China.” It means emigration is totally at Hong Kong people’s discretion and taking them in at foreign countries’ own sweet will.
China is never wanting in people. With a mass exodus of Hong Kong people, China is able to make an overall replacement of Hong Kong’s citizens by mainlanders that are used to living under a despotism.
A month ago, Deutsche Welle asked Joshua Wong in an interview: Why do protests continue while quite a number of Hong Kong people said Hong Kong and “one country, two systems” is already dead? Wong answered: The Hong Kong with which we were acquainted has been dead for long while ‘one country, two systems” exists in name only. That said, hiding out in a foreign country is not the way to resolve the problem. When the extradition amendment bill was tabled last year, people deliberated about emigration and hiding out in a foreign country as well. Yet, in the end, everybody strived for a favourable turn. After the severe test in the past year, protest has become part of Hong Kongers’ DNA.
Joshua Wong said a lot of people are more valiant than him. From the remarks of the participants in the primaries and the high voter turnout, Hong Kongers are not overawed at all. The menacing policy of replacing Hong Kongers with mainlanders is doomed to failure. While Hong Kongers are aware of the fact that after surrender comes suppression, the powerful authoritarian ought to be aware of the fact that after intimidation and violence comes not fleeing and a bunch of abjectly obedient citizens, but continual protests in diversified forms.
What can the powerful authoritarian do to a stack of people who could not be beaten to death, nor overwhelmed, and now cannot be scared away?
同時也有10000部Youtube影片,追蹤數超過2,910的網紅コバにゃんチャンネル,也在其Youtube影片中提到,...
「death penalty countries」的推薦目錄:
- 關於death penalty countries 在 李怡 Facebook 的最佳貼文
- 關於death penalty countries 在 陳奕齊 - 新一 Facebook 的最佳解答
- 關於death penalty countries 在 Noh Salleh Facebook 的最佳貼文
- 關於death penalty countries 在 コバにゃんチャンネル Youtube 的最佳解答
- 關於death penalty countries 在 大象中醫 Youtube 的最讚貼文
- 關於death penalty countries 在 大象中醫 Youtube 的最佳貼文
- 關於death penalty countries 在 Death Row In Different Countries (Around The World) - YouTube 的評價
death penalty countries 在 陳奕齊 - 新一 Facebook 的最佳解答
Don’t Be Naive! Chinese Communist Party (CCP) is Standing on the Side Against Human Civilization
Peaceful world order after WWII had been established upon the philosophy worshiping multilateralism. The cultural basis supporting such multilateralism contained an imagination believing in the ultimate good of the respect for diversity.
The Rise of China and the Naivete of EU
However, as time progressed into the Post-Cold War era of the 90's, globalization in trade became the dominant trend. Following the global embrace of multilateralism and respect for diversity, it was believed that China would have been influenced by open and positive values once she had participated in this big family of global trade. Indeed, China took advantage of its role as the "world factory" and gained a huge economic leap forward. After China joined the WTO in 2000, within seventeen to eighteen years, China had grown nine-fold compared in terms of its aggregate economic volume. Furthermore, it surpassed Germany in 2005 and Japan between 2009 and 2010, becoming the second-largest economy in the world.
In particular, due to the global financial crisis derived from the subprime mortgage in 2007 and Lehman Brothers' bankruptcy in 2008 in the United States, the PIGGS countries turned into victims in Europe. China thus took advantage of this crisis to expand its power, bridging China’s role as depicted in Hu JinTao's "China's peaceful rise" to that in Xi JinPing's "China dream." Finally, China has revealed its ambition to compete for the position as a world leader and a planner of a new world order. The United States has finally, recently woken up to this nightmare of Xi, who has long intended to use China's almighty economic power to achieve his political agenda and hegemony. Unfortunately, many EU countries who consider themselves as advanced, civilized, pro-human rights and respectful to diversification, such as Germany and France, still fail, or refuse, to see the CCP regime’s true color and remain extremely naive towards it.
Repulsion towards Vulgarity, Tolerance towards Violence
Ironically, the two leading EU countries, Germany and France, prefer a dictatorial emperor, Xi, over Trump elected by the Americans with their ballots. The two countries do not shy away from showing them disgusted by Trump’s vulgar behaviors, but reluctantly show intolerance towards Xi’s cruelty and dictatorship. As a result, the EU countries develop inconceivable and mysterious stubbornness: they loudly criticize countries practicing death penalty based on their own judicial system; however, they are generous and subdued when it comes to the violence happening in HongKong where the HongKong police and Chinese GongAn basically bypass all applicable, or reasonable, laws. We should find this contrast deeply disturbing.
Seeing CCP through the eyes of Mao
In fact, these european countries and the western world are deluded by the so-called “respect for diversity.” Let’s use the wisdom of the CCP’s spiritual leader, Mao Ze Dong, as a framework to rethink this diversity concept in civilization. In his work “Correct Handling of Contradictions Between People,” published in 1957, Mao clearly classified social contradictions into “contradictions of two different natures”: “contradictions between ourselves and the enemy” and “internal contradictions among the people”. Contradictions between ourselves and the enemy are antagonistic, for example the contradictions between the exploiting and the exploited classes; but contradictions among people is non-antagonistic. Therefore, the former can not be mediated and resolved, but the latter one can be. Mao further advocated that contradictions between ourselves and the enemy should be resolved by dictatorship, but contradictions between the people should be resolved by a method of “cooperation-criticism-cooperation.” In other words, incompatible contradictions between ourselves and the enemy can only be solved by suppression, but internal contradictions can be softened by cooperation.
Civilization and CCP - Two Incompatible Conflicting Systems
It is time for us to recognize that CCP, a sovereign of authoritarianism and digital dictatorship, should not have been regarded as a representation of the diversity of human civilization. Diversity should be defined based on a founded premise, i.e., a premise confined with certain agreements and consensus, necessary and beneficial for composing diversity. In fact, the value CCP stands for is against the universally accepted values of the world, just like the “incompatible contradictions between ourselves and the enemy”, as Mao said. As long as the existence of the CCP regime continues, human civilization will continue to be persecuted. It can be seen in the current situation of Hong Kong, where China approved the new bill of national security, thereby destroying the remaining freedom guaranteed to Hong Kongers, and assigned the “secret” police gangs to enforce the so-called “justice”.
To see the contracting natures of civilization and the CCP regime, we make an analogy with food. Normally, we respect other people’s choice for food. For instance, Ann prefers rice, Bob prefers noodles, John is a meat lover, Mary only eats seafood, etc. Although those four people have different choices of what they like to eat, they respect each other’s choices of food. However, when Daniel comes over and tells the group that he prefers to eat faeces and needs to be respected for his preference, we can start to see the ridiculousness in it. At first, the four people think eating faeces is a personal choice for Daniel, and Daniel can do whatever he/she wants as long as he/she does it at his/her home. The problem rises when Daniel starts to force other people to eat faeces, while the other four people think faeces is inedible, and should never be served on a plate.
The food analogy tells us that the CCP regime is inherently against human civilization. As a reasonable human being could not categorize feces as food, we should not be tricked to believe that the authoritarian regime of China can blend in and contribute to human civilization. The CCP regime is incompatible to human civilization just like we should not consider to eat a meal with feces in it. As the master of CCP, Mao, admitted, one can never resolve the contradiction between the authoritarian regime of China and human civilization. The existence of Chinese authoritarian regime is a symbol for deprivation of human civilization. For us to maintain and preserve human civilization, Chinese authoritarian regime must be eradicated. There is no room for the coexistence of the CCP regime and human civilization.
Draw a Bottom Line to the Respect for Diversity
Therefore, among western countries, the United States have started or should start to realize that although diversity needs to be respected and tolerated, a reasonable bottom line should be drawn to such respect. Like what I have mentioned above, rice, noodles, meat, seafood and so on should be viewed as food; however, as we can all reasonably agree, feces should not be a part of the league. The United States is now acting to exclude “feces” from the democratic league and draw a bottom line for respect-worthy diversity. However, leading EU countries are still trapped in their fancy, unconditional acceptance to “respect for diversity.” Such respect is hypocritical, empty and baseless. Now, you should be able to understand why leftards in the EU would vigorously criticize death sentences executed under a legitimate judicial system but remain indifferent to the CCP regime’s merciless, relentless and oppressive killings. Namely, they simply set a wrong premise, including feces as an eligible option for “diversity.” As for those who embrace the CCP regime because of economic benefits, they do not even deserve to be viewed as EU leftards, but merely gold diggers in the EU.
--
Special Thanks to our supporters in North America for translation🙏
death penalty countries 在 Noh Salleh Facebook 的最佳貼文
56 countries still have the death penalty, one of which is Egypt where executions are carried out by hanging.
We ask a retired executioner what made him pursue this morbid career and what the job entails.
death penalty countries 在 Death Row In Different Countries (Around The World) - YouTube 的推薦與評價
... <看更多>