South China Morning Post
Advertisement
Advertisement
Hong Kong national security law (NSL)
Get more with myNEWS
A personalised news feed of stories that matter to you
Learn more
A banner outside Maple Street Playground at Sham Shui Po promoting the electoral reform announced by Beijing on March 30. Photo: K.Y. Cheng
OpinionLetters

Letters | Beijing is sincere about ‘one country, two systems’ in Hong Kong, just not infinitely tolerant

  • For 23 years since the handover, pan-democrats have freely criticised Beijing. The central government intervened when the opposition crossed a red line, but does not want to destroy Hong Kong
Hong Kong national security law (NSL)
Letters
Letters
Why you can trust SCMP
I am responding to the letter, “Imagine a fresh start in political overhaul of city” (April 27).
I am inclined to agree with the first part of the letter, which said the Hong Kong government did not do a good job of looking after Hongkongers’ livelihoods, leading to runaway housing prices and a big wealth gap. The extradition bill thus acted as a spark that eventually set the forest afire. Government incompetence was surely partly responsible for the unrest.
However, your correspondent raised the question of the central government’s commitment to implementing the “one country, two systems” framework. I believe it has been sincere in doing so.
Over the past 23 years, Hong Kong has commemorated the June 4 Tiananmen Square crackdown without a break, while the pan-democrats, acting like “world saviours”, kept on blaming the central government for one thing or another. But tolerance was not infinite.

06:13

Thousands of Hongkongers defy ban and gather to mark Tiananmen anniversary

Thousands of Hongkongers defy ban and gather to mark Tiananmen anniversary
When they crossed a red line, the central government had no choice but to enact the national security law. It makes no sense for the central government to want to totally destroy Hong Kong. Why would it do that? We did have the opportunity to elect our chief executive but the pan-democrats simply said, back then, that the proposed plan was not their cup of tea.
It is interesting to note that after the implementation of the national security law, several of these “saviours” have left Hong Kong, by all sorts of means, even illegally, instead of bravely facing up to the consequences of their actions. In leaving, they have simply left behind the mess they had made for their fellow Hongkongers to take care of. Bravo!

The doomsayers have been labelling Hong Kong a hell ever since the handover. The point is not whether you like “the party” or not, but whether you need to live with it or not.

Anyway, Hong Kong is still a free city. Anyone who really sees Hong Kong as hell is free to go.

Ringo Yee, Tuen Mun

 

2