What’s free is the most expensive | Lee Yee
Last week, Carrie Lam announced that the Central government will support Hong Kong’s fight against the epidemic in several large initiatives, including universal screening, earmarking AsiaWorld Expo as a holding treatment facility, and the construction of the makeshift hospitals, all cost to be borne by the Central government.
Such “good deeds”, shouldn’t society respond with great enthusiasm? But according to Carrie Lam, there are voices in society trying to divide the public and the government, “Every time (the government) does something, it will be discredited by some people with conspiracy theories,” and asked the media to “join (the government) in the call on citizens to participate in testing.”
Distorting facts is what discrediting means, but some facts cannot be denied, for example:
● Nationally-approved testing personnel have been exempted by the government from the requirement to register for medical laboratory work in Hong Kong. China’s BGI (formerly Beijing Genomics Institute) will process the samples from the citywide screening. Its chemists are not registered in Hong Kong.
● BGI is a listed company in Shenzhen responsible for collecting and analyzing the “national gene bank”.
● In July 2020, two companies under BGI Group were included in the sanctions list by the U.S. Department of Commerce for “suspicion of forced collection of DNA of Uyghurs and other Muslim minorities for research in order to suppress Uyghurs.”
● On Aug. 14, a multinational biotechnology company filed a lawsuit with the High Court against BGI, accusing it of infringing upon a gene sequencing kit patent. GBI’s trustworthiness is in line with the level of many other Chinese companies.
● Some medical professionals believe that under the current condition of border and market non-closure, doing universal screening alone is not helpful. The public’s acceptance of testing increases the risks.
Faced with these facts, it’s evident to the public how many will be tested voluntarily. Moreover, the effectiveness of screening has been questioned by regions who’ve successfully stopped the spread of the virus, including Taiwan.
Because of China’s support, Hong Kong is not paying. As such, Carrie Lam and her cabinet have relentlessly professed their gratitude towards the Central government.
Japanese writer Isaka Kotaro said, “Nothing is more expensive than free.” A few years ago, Chinese entrepreneur Jack Ma also repeated the same thing, “free is the most expensive.” Why the most expensive? Because the price you pay is time, privacy, health, freedom, these seemingly intangible things, our most precious wealth. From the collected samples, a chemist can obtain one’s DNA, some very sensitive and personal privacy information.
We would rather pay for what we need, rather than the free things given. If the three anti-epidemic initiatives were paid for by the government, it will be necessary to get LegCo to approve the funds. In the process, at least the government and BGI or other institutions must go through negotiations that must be disclosed, rather than operating within a black box. If the three initiatives were to invite bids from Western countries, there will not be viral conspiracy theories or “smearing” remarks on social media.
The Carrie Lam regime has been accusing the United States and other Western countries of adopting “double standards” for Hong Kong in recent years. For example, the US police force also used violence against the protesters, many countries have national security laws, and other countries have postponed elections, etc., why only criticize and sanction Hong Kong?
Regarding the behaviors of people, society, and countries, we should adopt the same standards for judging and commenting, but the premise is that the other party is a person, society, and country with certain standards. We respect people from anywhere, but that does not equate respecting people who have no standards in words or deeds, and do not respect themselves. Many countries have national security laws, but behind which most countries have legislative procedures that are fully authorized by public opinion, and are restricted by the judiciary and independent media and public opinions. How is a national security law with absolute powers without checks and balance comparable to those in these other countries? Many countries allow a certain degree of police violence on protesters, but there are other mechanisms to restrict them, such that improper police violence will be followed by legal consequences.
Under autocracy, power is the single most almighty thing, accompanied by no “standards” whatsoever, whether professionally, or behaviorally of those in power and their people. Autocracy does not comply with universal standards. The standards used on those people and regimes with standards cannot be adopted on those people and regimes that do not. Facing those without standards, the natural human instinct is distrust.
u.s. sanction list hong kong 在 李怡 Facebook 的精選貼文
Theatre of the absurd for real (Lee Yee)
Carrie Lam said last week she was not worried about “being included on the sanction list” and had no assets in the U.S., nor did she aspire to America, so without a visa, she might as well exclude America from the list of countries she would travel.
Being the Chief Executive of Hong Kong and asked whether she was concerned about being picked on by a foreign country, she should have answered appropriately that she was worried about the overall Hong Kong issue instead of uttering personal affairs. In fact, her son is doing his doctorate in America. If the sanction against her threatens his resident visa, how could she not be worried? Worse still, if the sanction is stringently put in force, the banks that service the sanctioned will become embroiled, and will thereby revoke the accounts of the latter.
Chip Tsao said on his Facebook page, “Her saying ’I have no assets in the U.S.’, deemed by netizens in the mainland an innuendo against members of the Chinese Communist Party(CCP) moving their assets to America, has unexpectedly made her one-night heroine in the mainland.” Some mainland netizens said they were moved by the firmness and unyieldingness of Carrie Lam, and if all their officials and party members were the same as Carrie Lam, no one would give a damn about the U.S.’s sanctions.
The media disseminated that the U.S. government is considering banning all CCP members and their families from traveling in the U.S. and expelling those currently in the U.S.. When White House Press Secretary Kayleigh McEnany was asked about it, she answered that she had nothing to announce regarding that aspect, but with respect to issues about China, they reserved every possible option. It means the abovementioned measure is not obviated.
Global Times Chief Editor Hu Xijin said on his Weibo page: “This has been the most insane envision of U.S.’s diplomatic measure made by Washington, D.C. so far, and leaking the news to the media is also an evil act”. Mainland netizens jeered at him by saying, “What are you jittering at, Hu? Now that you are so contemptuous of American Imperialism, why do you take a U.S. visa to heart? A ban on CCP members and their families from traveling in America is no big deal. We don’t care for it! It has nothing to do with ‘insaneness’ and ‘evilness’. ”
Honestly, “insaneness” and “evilness” are just words of exaggeration. In actuality, the measure pertains to U.S. domestic affairs. The U.S. Immigration Act stipulates that all subordinates to communist party and members of its affiliates cannot enter or immigrate to the U.S., surely with clauses of exemption. If the U.S. wants to do it, it can simply enforce it without unnecessary legislation.
Carrie Lam‘s “not worried” and Hu’s “insaneness” have in fact laid bare their genuine worries at heart. When sanctions befall individuals, it is all about personal interests instead of state’s interests. Carrie Lam’s son is in the U.S.; Xi Jinping’s daughter is said to be in the U.S.; a lot of other officials’ offspring and assets are also in the U.S.. It seems that the sanctions will be extended to the U.K. and other countries.
The National Security Law takes the cake. In less than a month since its promulgation, the U.S. and China have been at daggers drawn with each other. It has also put China in a situation in which it is beleaguered by countries all around the world. All of these amount to the theatre of the absurd. Everything stems from a book about Xi Jinping’s private life to be published. Then, five stakeholders of Causeway Bay Books disappeared. It was suspected that Paul Lee, one of the owners, was carted off to the mainland. Amidst an uproar in the media, the extradition amendment bill was tabled for deliberation early last year upon the question “Why can’t we nab a person in Hong Kong?” put forward by Beijing. “Extradition to China” was to be legalized by communist Hong Kong in collaboration with China so that cross-border law enforcement would be made legitimized. However, the backlash from Hong Kong people against it was unexpectedly ferocious and extensive, even making an impact on the international community. After the withdrawal of the bill, the National Security Law, which is even sterner, was then introduced. To everyone’s surprise, the evil law triggered off backfire from all around the world, followed by countries laying siege to China in tandem on end.
How to make an elephant out of a fly
What is weirdest is Carrie Lam tabled the extradition amendment bill to allegedly remedy a “loophole” in the extradition treaty with Taiwan, yet in the end she prompted those countries including the U.S., Canada, Australia, the UK and Finland that have signed an extradition treaty with Hong Kong to rescind the treaties which were based on the promise that criminals would not be extradited to China. With the National Security Law having taken effect, the basis is gone. More countries are believed to follow suit.
The loophole is not remedied, but keeps on festering. There could be a complete collapse of Hong Kong and China’s diplomatic relations with the world. The calamity stems from just a little book. What else could be more absurd?
u.s. sanction list hong kong 在 堅離地城:沈旭暉國際生活台 Simon's Glos World Facebook 的最佳解答
【#TheDiplomat🌍】難得The Diplomat讀者對香港有興趣:
The series of iron-fisted moves last month in Hong Kong may seem sudden to international observers: Hong Kong government’s earlier reinterpretation of the China-Hong Kong relationship, the election of a pro-Beijing legislator to be a Legislative Council chair through a controversial mechanism, and Beijing’s recent decision to impose a national security law on Hong Kong. The desire to bring Hong Kong under the banner of “one country, one system” is not impulsive. Quite the contrary, it’s a calculated campaign to initiate a so-called “second reunification with Hong Kong” — since the first reunification after the handover, using a lenient soft-power approach, has supposedly failed.
What are Beijing’s calculations that motivate this bold campaign now? And more important, will the campaign work?
While I remain highly skeptical of solely applying the realist framework to study Hong Kong, Beijing’s mentality is nonetheless entirely realism-driven. It is therefore essential to use this lens to understand more of their thoughts.
COVID-19: A Golden Opportunity on the International Stage?
To start with, the coronavirus pandemic seems to have created an ideal backdrop for Beijing to push forward its iron-fisted policy toward Hong Kong. The West has been devastated by the pandemic, more so than China, and has been slower to recover economically. Instead of decoupling from China, Beijing thinks the West is desperate for an influx of Chinese capital and markets. This notion encourages Beijing to pursue brinkmanship, in the form of confrontative “wolf warrior diplomacy,” its escalation of sharp power, and, most recently, Hong Kong’s national security law. As long as the international community does not put their condemnation into action, Beijing will keep pushing the envelope.
Beijing is convinced that the chambers of commerce representing other countries in Hong Kong will always place profits above all else as long as the national security law does not threaten them. Business deals struck at the crucial moment can entice foreign businesses to use their lobby teams in their home countries in Beijing’s favor.
Although anti-China sentiment has become more mainstream, Beijing, the major beneficiary of globalization in the past two decades, has tied its destiny with various elites internationally. These “friends of China” can be swayed to safeguard Beijing’s interests, but the up-and-coming leaders in many countries look less friendly. Therefore, the window of opportunity for Beijing to act is closing before the new value-driven generation comes to power.
The Lack of Incentive Behind the U.S. and U.K.’s Escalating Rhetoric
While U.S. politicians from left to right are vocal against China, their ultimate goal, Beijing believes, is to win votes in the November election. They would hence avoid hurting the interest groups they represent and go easy on actions aiming to punish China, such as denying Hong Kong’s status as a separate customs territory, sanctioning Chinese companies listed in Hong Kong, or escalating the trade war.
Even though the Trump administration is ramping up the rhetoric to sanction China, protecting Hong Kong’s autonomy is not one of the United States’ core interests. In contrast, having control over Hong Kong is China’s core interest. Beijing would rather make concessions over other disputes with Washington in exchange for claiming victory in Hong Kong for its internal propaganda.
Britain, the co-signer of the Joint Declaration for Hong Kong’s handover, is arguably most entitled to denounce Beijing’s violation, which would give mandates to the United States to act. But Beijing is convinced that Britain, not as powerful as it used to be, will not make such a move. Beijing’s recent plans to withdraw businesses from the United States and list them in the London stock market is a move to place a wedge between the two powers. U.S. President Donald Trump’s unilateralism and his harsh stance against U.S. allies also strengthens Beijing’s conviction that the West will not follow the United States’ lead.
Beijing’s Divide and Conquer Strategy in Hong Kong
Hong Kong’s parliament, the Legislative Council (LegCo), is a major roadblock to Beijing’s control, as demonstrated twice since the handover — in 2003 when the national security law was first introduced and in 2019 with the anti-extradition legislation that sparked city-wide protests. In both setbacks, Beijing lost control when moderate pro-establishment legislators broke away from the party line in the face of public outcry. As the September LegCo election approaches, the last thing Beijing wants is for the election to become a de facto referendum on the single issue of the national security law, which could result in another landslide win for the democratic parties. The law would be untenable to the international community if it’s opposed by both pro-democracy voters, which according to polls account for 60 percent of the votes, and moderate pro-establishment voters.
The moderates, despite their reluctance to embrace hardline rule in Hong Kong, differ from the more militant faction within the non-establishment camp in that the former rejects the so-called “mutual destruction” option, which risks Hong Kong’s special trade status — its economic lifeline — as a bargaining tactic to force Beijing to back off. Now that Washington is considering withdrawing Hong Kong’s privileges, the possibility of mutual destruction is becoming real. As Beijing has been promoting a narrative that all supporters of the protest movement’s “Five Demands” are bringing about mutual destruction, Beijing hopes the moderates, in fear of losing their financial assets, might turn toward the establishment.
On the other hand, the pro-democracy camp is at risk of breaking apart. Moderate pro-democracy supporters have been going to rallies to keep up with the political momentum. However, marches with more than a million participants would be impossible under the current oppressive environment. For example, the authorities abuse COVID-19 social distancing measures to suppress rallies, permits for peaceful protests are increasingly difficult to obtain, pro-establishment businesses heavily censored the social media activities of employees, and outspoken individuals are often cyberbullied.
Without support from the moderates, some within the pro-democracy camp may radicalize, as Beijing expects. The radicalization would fit Beijing’s tactic of painting protests as separatism and terrorism, justifying the imposition of the national security law. The trajectory would be similar to Beijing’s handling of the 1959 Tibetan “riots,” during which Mao Zedong’s directive was “the more chaotic the scene, the better.”
The Nationalistic Agenda to Divert Domestic Attention
But after all, to Beijing, Hong Kong is not just Hong Kong. In the wake of the pandemic, Beijing urgently needs to uphold nationalism to divert unwanted attention from its economic crisis. That includes a global propaganda campaign to promote its triumph over COVID-19. Upgrading the Hong Kong protests to a national security issue — as a battle against foreign interference to complete the “reunification with Hong Kong” — best suits the nationalist atmosphere. The all-time low sense of belonging with China among the new generation in Hong Kong further justifies a strong-arm approach. The success of the strategy would offer a way to reunite with Taiwan, which would consolidate Xi’s leadership within the Communist Party.
Also, including the Hong Kong issue as part of the national agenda means that the Hong Kong government, which has already lost its will to govern, will dance to Beijing’s tunes.
This comprehensive crackdown on Hong Kong’s civil society is unprecedented. Beijing believes that the heavy-handed approach would pervade Hong Kong with a sense of powerlessness and bring it to its knees. As long as the international response is limited, the execution of the national security law, according to Chairman Mao’s “theory of contradiction,” will follow a script of “a soft hand” and “a firm hand.” That is, after its imposition, the law will initially apply restraint and be used only on individuals to set a stern example, so that the general public would feel as if the law does not impact them at all and property and stock prices would not fall. Gradually and subtly, if the realist formula of Beijing works, the “second reunification” could become a self-proclaimed success story for Beijing’s propaganda.
However, Beijing’s evaluations are not foolproof. Any single miscalculation could lead to a contradictory outcome for the People’s Republic of China. Is it really prepared?
▶️ 國安法:中國的現實主義框架
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HjhRbV8qTgo
⏺ 中美夏威夷峰會
https://www.patreon.com/posts/38378214
u.s. sanction list hong kong 在 Treasury - Sanctions List Search 的相關結果
U.S. Department of the Treasury Banner ... 2162198, Hong Kong ... Block 1, 1F & 2F Harbour View, Hong Kong New Territories, Hong Kong SAR, China. ... <看更多>
u.s. sanction list hong kong 在 US sanctions with respect to China and Hong Kong 的相關結果
On August 10, 2020, following the imposition of US sanctions under the Order, China sanctioned 11 US nationals in response to their “egregious behaviour on Hong ... ... <看更多>
u.s. sanction list hong kong 在 Hong Kong-Related Sanctions | Office of Foreign Assets Control 的相關結果
The Hong Kong-Related Sanctions program represents the implementation of multiple legal authorities. Some of these authorities are in the form of an executive ... ... <看更多>