Berapa banyak penjahat yang lari dari RRC ke HK?
--- ilmesengero@... wrote:
Mungkin yang benar seperti semula ditetapkan "one country two systems". Satu
negara dua sistem politik.Tetapi kalau lama kelamaan kedua-duanya menjadi satu
sistem, misalnya komunis atau juga kapitalis, maka hilanglah pengertian semula.
On Wed, Jun 19, 2019 at 3:27 AM jonathangoeij@... wrote:
Hebat ya Partai Demokrat bisa mendapat support dari sedemikian banyak rakyat
Hong Kong.
--- SADAR@... wrote :
Yang "BETUUUL" ituapanya???
Yang jelas kondisiatau status Hongkong memang UNIK, tidak ada kedua nya
diduniaini! Sekalipun jelas jemelas merupakan bagian dari Tiongkokdaratan, dan
oleh karena itu penekanannya pada SATU negara,tapi berlakukan 2 SISTEM, sistem
sosialisme dan tetapmeneruskan sistem kapitalisme di HK!
Bisa saja UUEkstradisi itu hanya berlaku antar negara, tapi melihatkekhususan
kondisi Hongkong, menurut saya juga TIDAK SALAHrevisi UU Ekstradisi yang hendak
dijalankan Carrie Lam, Gub.HK kali ini. Karena memang, UU Ekstradisi yg selama
iniberlaku di HK juga aneh, tidak berlaku untuk Tiongkok, Taiwandan Macau, ...
dan oleh karenanya hendak direvisi! Janganjadikan HK sorga pelarian pelanggar
pidana/kriminal, karenatidak bisa diekstradisi dan tidak bisa diadili di HK!
Lalu,dimana masalahnya ditentang begitu KERAS, ... oleh PartaiDemokrat dan
berhasil kerahkan sebegitu banyak massa turunkejalan, bahkan mendapatkan
dukungan kuat dari asing,khususnya oleh AS dan Inggris???
jonathangoeij@... 於19/6/2019 7:14 寫道:
betul juga ya.....artinya Chan yg mendukung UUEkstradisi beranggapan 2 negara
yg berbeda.
--- ajegilelu@... wrote:
Ruwet juga ya.
Setahu saya ekstradisi itu perjanjian hukum antarnegara. Jadi, seperti apa
pijakan yang benar karena pemerintah Hong Kong mau berlakuan ekstradisi dengan
pemerintah RRC. Artinya, pemerintah HK berpendapat HK dan RRC adalah 2 negara
berbeda. Sementara, penduduk HK yang menolak hukum ekstradisi bukankah justru
berpijak pada pendapat HK bagian dari RRC...?
Hehe...
--- SADAR@... wrote:
Lho, TIDAK ada maksud saya MELARANG orang berpendapat! Yang saya ajukan
KESALAHAN Pijak pendapat sumbang itu!
ajeg 於 18/6/2019 9:59 寫道:
Apa berpendapat begini juga tak boleh?
“Not yet” is a reference to the terms of the joint declaration governing Hong
Kong’s return to Chinese rule in 1997, which promised that the territory’s way
of life would remain unchanged for 50 years, until 2047. When it was signed, in
1984, the year 2047 seemed impossibly far off, but the proposed extradition law
brings 2047 much, much closer.
--- SADAR@... wrote:
Aachhh, ... bung ini ada-ada saja! Darimana bisa Not Yet!!! Sejarah HK selama
ini TIDAK pernah ada yg bisa bilang bukan wilayah kesatuan Tiongkok! Sekalipun
99 tahun disewakan Inggris, menjadi koloni Inggris, TETAP saja tahun 1997
mutlak harus dikembali kepangkuan ibu-pertiwi Tiongkok!
Masalah kesatuan negara itu harga mati bagi rakyat! Sama halnya dengan NKRI
adalah harga mati bagi Rakyat Indonesia, jangan coba-coba berteriak GAM
Merdeka, Papua Merdeka dsb, ...! Rakyat Indonesia akan bangkit melawan
habis-habisan membela NKRI!
ajeg 於 18/6/2019 9:29 寫道:
Sebaiknya memang ada kebebasan berpendapat. Setidaknya untuk bilang not yet..
--- SADAR@... wrote:
Bagaimana bisa menganggap HK bukan bagian/wilayah Tiongkok! SATU
kesatuan NEGARA dibawah Republik Rakyat Tiongkok! Jelas, Louisa Lim ini, tidak
mengakui HK adalah bagian/wilayah tak terpisahkan dari Tiongkok Daratan!
Berkehendak HK Merdeka, .... dan sekarang terus merongrong, menjegal kelancaran
pem.HK dengan segala penolakkan dan pemboikotan bahkan dengan usaha gunakan
"people Power" aksi-aksi kerusuhan/kekerasan melumpuhkan dan menggulingkan
pemerintah HK!
ajeg 於 17/6/2019 23:23 寫道:
Hong Kong is not China yet, but that feared day is coming ever nearer
Louisa Lim
Mon 17 Jun 2019 01.19 BST
The extradition law was delayed after a million people took to the streets, but
the fight for the territory’s values is far from over
Hong Kong has become a place whose present is unresolved and whose future is
unimaginable. After the unexpected violence of the last week, no one can
predict how the events of this afternoon, tomorrow, this week will play out.
The only certainty is that Hong Kong’s way of life is under immediate threat
and its people are coming out in force to defend it.
But the curse of living in the eternal immediate present is that the stakes
for this “last fight” could not be higher, especially since young Hong Kongers
fear that if they are defeated in this battle, there will be nothing left to
lose. The failure of the Umbrella movement five years ago, when Hong Kongers
occupied important thoroughfares for 79 days, seeking greater democratic
participation, to win any concrete gains has raised the stakes further still
this time round.
“HK is not China! Not yet!” These few words hastily scrawled on to a piece of
A4 paper and tacked on to the concrete strut of a walkway aptly encapsulate the
political crisis roiling Hong Kong. The territory has been plunged into
instability after police fired rubber bullets and 150 rounds of teargas to
break up a huge rally on 12 June, just days after a million people peacefully
took to the streets to protest against extradition legislation.
“Not yet” is a reference to the terms of the joint declaration governing Hong
Kong’s return to Chinese rule in 1997, which promised that the territory’s way
of life would remain unchanged for 50 years, until 2047. When it was signed, in
1984, the year 2047 seemed impossibly far off, but the proposed extradition law
brings 2047 much, much closer.
By permitting the rendition of anyone on Hong Kong soil to face trial in
China, it would effectively remove the firewall between Hong Kong’s common law
system and the mainland’sparty-dominated legal system. Though the government
has now suspended the bill, the process has unleashed a firestorm of fear and
anger.
Since the Umbrella movement, Hong Kongers have already seen irrevocable
changes to their way of life: popularly elected lawmakers have been
disqualified by the courts for saying their oaths too slowly or with the wrong
intonation; politicians have been forbidden to stand for election; a political
party has been banned; activists have been sent to prison on public-order
offences; now the police have used violence against their own people.
The unseemly rush to pass this unpopular extradition law has also weakened
each of the territory’s institutions. The legislature descended into unseemly
brawls, with fist fights breaking out as committees duelled. The civil service
and judiciary are no longer seen as politically neutral. The police force, once
seen as Asia’s finest, is an object of popular hatred, and its relationship
with the public is irretrievably damaged.
The chief executive, Carrie Lam, is so unpopular that protesters carried
pictures of her face stamped with the word “Liar” and 6,000 mothers turned out
to accuse her of not being fit for office. Even though the bill has been put on
hold, the process has already permanently devalued the institutions that HK
people hold dear.
Hong Kong’s status as a city of protest is also under threat. The ability to
demonstrate has become an important expression of local identity that
distinguishes Hong Kong from China and over the years Hong Kongers have
enthusiastically marched with performative flair, mounting shopping actions,
carol singing rallies and artistic protests against censorship with blank
placards. Yet the designation of Wednesday’s protest as a riot, combined with
court verdicts finding activists guilty on public nuisance charges, strike at
the very heart of the ability to stage a protest.
Today, any call to public action, even the act of giving speeches to a rally,
requires a greater degree of caution. The young activists involved in recent
protests have switched tactics to form leaderless, anonymous collectives,
hiding their identities with face masks and using messaging apps to organise.
The government has begun to act against these, arresting one Telegram group
administrator on suspicion of conspiracy to commit public nuisance. Many
activists no longer welcome their photos being taken or doing interviews with
foreign media. Within the course of a week, they are becoming as cautious as
mainland Chinese dissidents. By shutting young people out of the political
process, the government may well have created an underground resistance that
sees that radical action can have results.
But the core values that Hong Kongers cherish include universal values, press
freedom, judicial independence and civil rights. These are seen by Beijing as
among the “seven unmentionables”, putting Hong Kongers on the frontline of the
clash between western “universal” values and the Communist party’s need for
total control.
Faced with these existential threats, Hong Kong’s default position has in
recent years been a defensive crouch. “We don’t have a grand strategy,” the
political scientist Ray Yep from City University told me before this round of
protests had broken out. “In every situation, you just defend what you can the
most. This is how you defend Hong Kong values. We defend what we have. It’s
defensive but it can be offensive as well.” When one in seven of the population
turns out to protest against the extradition legislation, defence becomes
attack, particularly in the eyes of Beijing.
The protest messages on the pieces of paper flapping on the overhead walkway
underline the confusion, shock and anger reverberating through the territory in
the wake of last week’s violence. “Stop shooting students.” “Is protesting a
crime?” “Is speaking a crime?”
But equally, there’s a flinty determination that underpins the realisation
that, even if this struggle over the extradition law is won, there will be the
next fight, then the next. Because Hong Kong is not China yet.. Not yet, but
2047 moves ever closer at an accelerating pace. One message simply said: “Keep
going till the end.”
Louisa Lim is the author of The People’s Republic of Amnesia
