Without flinching, you will reduce the danger by half (Lee Yee
Yesterday the Xinhua News Agency ann
unced that the Hong Kong version of national security law would be included on the agenda of the coming meeting of the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress. Just a day after, Tam Yiu Chung, a member of the Committee, said he didn’t receive any information about the arrangement. The ridiculous fact that the agenda can be suddenly updated without any advance notice proves again the Committee is nothing more than a rubber stamp. If this can happen to an organization of national level, how can one expect the local officials here in Hong Kong to have any free will?
The aforementioned arrangement is clearly a deliberate delay so as to wait for the outcome of the Hawaii meeting between Yang Jie-chi and Pompeo. Possibly, to avoid severe sanctions from the US, Beijing has tried to trade off with a milder version of the national security law in Hong Kong. As things unfolded, after 7 hours of “constructive” dialogue, the negotiation just broke down. Right after that, the updated agenda was announced and the spokesperson of China’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs reiterated, “China’s determination to push for a national security law in Hong Kong is unshakeable.”
Obviously, the Legislative Council (LegCo) election in September is the reason why Beijing is rushing the Hong Kong version national security law through. Tsang Kwok-wai, the Secretary for Hong Kong’s Constitutional and Mainland Affairs, publicly stated that those who are against the national security law are putting their loyalty to the People’s Republic of China to suspicion. This in fact provides a ready-made excuse to disqualify candidates in the coming election. In view of this, all pro-democracy candidates will have to face a very difficult dilemma: be expressive of their standpoint about the national security law and get disqualified, or go against their will, support it and get casted aside by their supporters.
The Hong Kong version of national security law is simply against common sense. Recently, Cheng Yeuk-wah, Hong Kong’s Secretary for Justice, stated that it is “unreasonable and unrealistic” to expect the law to be implemented in accordance to the principles of the common law, and the addition of a sunset clause to it is something “unnecessary”. Such saying is clearly a violation of the Basic Law, which outlines that Hong Kong maintains the common law system. What’s more, it is inappropriate to put the Hong Kong version of national security law in Annex III, which is made for national laws only. From a more practical point of view, It is scary for the general public to a see such happenings as the arbitrary implementation of the law, direct enforcement of it by mainland officials and the possible trials by courts in China.
All these are evidence that the protection of the Basic Law no longer exists. The sad reality is that the people of Hong Kong can only choose to emigrate, or stay but live without freedom. With the threat of the national security law and extensive disqualification, the prospect of the pro-democracy camp in the upcoming election is extremely gloomy, and the chance to have them dominating the Legislative Coumcil has virtually vanished.
On the other hand, it is worth noticing that on online forums popular among the young, the majority tends to support the implementation of the national security law, oppose the bargaining approach of the legal circle and pro-democracy camp, and prefer harsh American sanctions. But make no mistake, the young are no supporters of the legislation. They are rather diehard fans of the “mutual destruction” proposition.
The current situation just reminds me of a scene in a movie from the 80s called “Out of Africa”. While confronting a pride of lions, the hero suggests that the heroine should not run, because the gesture will just invite the beasts to pounce against her. Instead, if one doesn’t flinch, it eases the danger. And soon the lions go away.
As Churchill once said: “One ought never to turn one's back on a threatened danger and try to run away from it. If you do that, you will double the danger. But if you meet it promptly and without flinching, you will reduce the danger by half.”
flinch away 在 didn't look ashamed and <flinch away> or <didn't flinch> from ... 的推薦與評價
I agree with you both are correct. In the first sentence, I can just about see the "didn't" applying to both the "ashamed" and "flinch away" part. ... <看更多>