Search
Conquering all these plebs in gold HA xD
The Predator Helios 700 is powered by 10th Gen Intel®️ Core™️ i9 processor! Play like a PRO and get this from the Acer E-Store.
https://acer.co/2JAxtBt
#Intel #10thGen #Helios700 #Corei9 #PredatorGaming Predator Gaming
Exchange for Support (Lee Yee)
There was one other major world event on Jul 1, apart from the promulgation of the National Security Law for Hong Kong. A referendum was held in Russia on the revision of the country’s Constitution.
In the Newscast on the night before last, CCTV broadcast a key feature about the telephone dialogue between Xi Jinping and Russian President Putin. Putin expressed firm support from Russia for China's efforts to maintain national security in Hong Kong. Xi mentioned the Russian constitutional amendment, endorsed by a majority vote in a referendum, which will allow Putin’s term as the president to last until 2036. Xi reaffirmed China’s firm support for Russia's commitment to a development direction that is appropriate for the nation.
Not a word was uttered by China on Russia’s celebration of its 160-year occupation of Vladivostok. Instead, the compliments on Putin’s uninterrupted re-election were dished out in exchange for Russia’s support for the National Security Law.
Although there are 53 countries on the United Nations Human Rights Commission (and reportedly 20 more) that support Hong Kong National Security Law, once all the names of these countries are unfolded, it is not hard to spot that none of them are countries that would likely attract Chinese nor Hong Kong people to invest, study, or live in. There is not a single great power amongst them. However, though opposition to the law has only been voiced out by 27 countries, all of them are influential with significant leverage on world affairs. Of course, among them the most adamant is the United States, which has withdrawn from the Human Rights Commission. Now that Russia is at last joining the Chinese bandwagon, the situation looks a little less awkward for China.
On July 1, the referendum on the constitutional amendments in Russia drew to a close. 78% of the voters supported the amendments, the most important one of which is the "removal of the upper limit of the presidential term in the ‘re-election’ clause”. That is to say, all the presidential terms before the amendment takes effect will be revoked. Everything will be back to zero. Putin's term of office will start all over again. According to the new constitution, Putin can be re-elected as the president until 2036. He will have stayed in the highest power for the longest in Russian history, even surpassing the reign of Peter the Great.
Like Xi Jinping, who forced through the National Security Law for Hong Kong, Putin did not receive any blessings from other major international powers for his feat. There was no strong opposition because after all it went through a referendum. The United States and the European Union, however, were skeptical about the voting process, questioning whether there was coercion of voters, or repeated voting.
Russia's deletion of the presidential re-election regulations is analogous to China's deletion of the presidential re-election regulations in the year before last. With both world powers ruled by lifetime leaders, concerns about such a situation have been raised in international public opinion.
Despite all the twists and turns throughout history, in China as well other countries, everything boiled down to power struggles that basically stemmed from succession schemes amongst the most powerful, which in turn came with a lifetime tenure amongst top leaders. A lifetime tenure for the most powerful led to absolute power that bred absolute corruption, which is the root cause of all political complexities in human society.
All the struggles in the royal courts originated from the inheritance of power. The potential heirs, not the sons, of an emperor were the focuses. There was no place for normal family intimacies amongst sons, daughters, siblings, wives and concubines. Family relationships were built on associations with the potential heirs. For the past 70 years in the Soviet Union, the severe suppression of the people by the dictatorship, and all the brutal struggles have all been due to the inheritance of power at the highest level. During Mao Zedong’s rule, every single one of the never ending political movements of class struggles could be traced back to the inheritance of power at the top. Ordinary people were the victims as a result.
After millennia in the dark ages, it was not until 1776 when the United States became independent that the problem of inheritance of power at the highest level was basically solved. Finally, people could vote to authorize the succession of power in a legal manner, without bloodshed and contention. A system was established to ensure the separation of the three powers, a multi-party system, freedom of news reporting, speech, religion, and association, etc. as checks and balances of the highest power so as to prevent absolute corruption that came with absolute power.
In 1800, there were only three democratic countries in the world. By 2015, the number of countries authorized by the peoples’ votes increased to 130. According to Churchill, ‘democracy is the worst form of government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.’ In all those that have been tried, plebs were inevitably victimized in the power struggles.
Deng Xiaoping might also have understood that power inheritance is the root cause of all political complexities. That was why he laid down the system for naming the heir for the generation after the immediate next. This system achieved a certain period of social stability. What is the impact of abandoning this approach? Putting China aside, what we saw in Hong Kong was the changes in the period from the Causeway Bay Bookstore incident to the implementation of the Hong Kong version of National Security Law.
Don’t get overawed (Lee Yee)
On the day that the National Security Law was passed by the National People’s Congress, I got a message of a friend from afar: “Are you secure?” I answered without even giving it a thought: ”No one is secure in a secure country.”
When maximal authority of a country is realized, individual rights are so minimal that no one is secure. Even in China where the plebs would answer with a big NO, are people in power secure? Was Liu Shaoqi, the late Chairman of the People’s Republic of China persecuted to death during the Cultural Revolution, secure? In the past 70 years, have most of the people in power of different levels been secure in view of the miseries they have encountered? Was and is Jiang Zemin, the former General Secretary of the Chinese Communist Party(CCP), secure? Is Xi Jinping secure?
The befalling of the National Security Law is likened to “the second handover of Hong Kong”. An online article points out “the difference between the first and second handover” is that “the people who resent the CCP in 2020 is countless times more than those in 1997, and in terms of reputation, conduct and calibre, the people who espouse the second handover in 2020 are not even comparable to those who espouse the first handover in 1997”. Another says that “Hong Kongers belonging to no country before handover used to live in peace and work with contentment”, and asks “where their homes are when they belong to a nation”? In China, even the movers and shakers evacuate their relatives by fair means or foul from their country to a strange place they call home in the West.
The Articles of the Hong Kong version of National Security Law was not announced until it took effect, so that Carrie Lam was unable to utter a word about the details of it on the day of implementation of the Law. Legislation as such is preposterous. The full text of it is awash with equivocal meanings of unfinished wordings, which is so jaw-dropping that even a layman would ask: What kind of legal document is that? Zhao Sile, a journalist from China, said online: “The Law is typically from China because the laws of China have always been ambiguous and ill-defined”. She continued, “How are they enforced? Arbitrary and flexible provisions are made by different administrative departments which then inflate in power unceasingly.”
Regarding the abovementioned, it is almost pointless to delve into every Article of it for clarifying under what circumstances does one offend and not offend the Law, and where the grey areas are. Take those dubbed the “four ringleaders of Hong Kong independence” and “gang of four that jeopardizes Hong Kong” by Chinese media as an example. While they are known to be opposed to Hong Kong independence and even anti-localist, and did not advocate the protest last year, China deems them to be guilty of all of the above by dismissing the actuality. Subsequently, some budding political groups disbanded in no time. However, if the CCP decides to recriminate, on no account can they escape. That being said, it is possible that China will sit on the issue of Hong Kong independence provisionally in an attempt to dilute the sanctions against it from overseas. With the arbitrariness and flexibility of laws of China and its enforcement, no one is secure, nor one is doomed to committing a crime. Falling into a trap is simply akin to running into a car accident.
Looking at the National Security Law, Hong Kongers, who are accustomed to living under the rule of law, will naturally get frightened and anxiety-ridden, and try to wash their hands of sensitive issues. They think they will stay secure by stopping short of slogans with content of “secession of state” or disbanding a political group. In reality, if the CCP wants to get you in trouble, it does not have to leverage the National Security Law. Manipulated by the CCP, the SAR government can do and will do whatever stipulated by the National Security Law. Is the Law retroactive? Wasn’t the disqualification sentence for Leung Chunghang and Yau Waiching, former Legislative Council members, retroactive? And the judge that brought in the verdict based on retroactivity was Andrew Cheung Kuinung, the next Chief Justice of the Court of Final Appeal to-be. Does it make sense to contemplate upon the situation differently before and after the enactment of the National Security Law?
Now that the CCP can do whatever it wants. Is the enactment of the National Security Law an unnecessary move? As Chinese officials said, the Law, like a sword dangling above Hong Kongers, is to get them overawed and frightened.
Scared? Surely. Yet, one should have been scared much earlier on. If one had been scared, one would have arranged for fleeing from Hong Kong. Those who choose to stay should not let fear take control of them.
I have always remembered what British writer Salman Rushdie wrote after September 11 attacks in 2001: “Amid the conflict between liberty and security, we should always opt to stand with liberty without remorse even though we make a wrong choice. How do we beat terrorism? Don’t get overawed and don’t let fear take control of you even though you are scared.”
The late U.S. President Franklin Roosevelt said, “The only thing we have to fear is fear itself.” If we let fear take control of us, we give up liberty.
