關於 undermining effect ，我們在網路上蒐集到這些相關的討論、資訊與評價

我在《橙新聞》最新的英文評論文章😎😎😎

https://apps.orangenews.hk/app/common/details_html…

Opinion | US Secretary of State is violating the Law of Safeguarding National Security in Hong Kong

HK Current

20th of October 2020

By Athena Kung

On 14th of October 2020 [US time], a report was released by the United States (hereinafter refer to as "the US") Secretary of State (hereinafter referred to as "the said Report") under the so-called "Hong Kong Autonomy Act". During recent months, the US Government has been increasingly blatant in its interference in Hong Kong's affairs. Its petty actions included passing successive laws, pronouncing an executive order and imposing 'sanctions' against HKSAR Government's officials under the pretext of so-called "human rights", "democracy" and "autonomy".

In short, the accusations against the HKSAR Government contained in the said Report are all groundless, unwarranted and irresponsible. All the comments in the said Report are really smearing and demonising The Law of the People's Republic of China on Safeguarding National Security in the HKSAR (hereinafter referred to as "National Security Law"). Being the highest organ of state power, the National People's Congress (hereinafter referred to as "the NPC") has lawfully authorized the Standing Committee of the NPC (hereinafter referred to as "the SCNPC") to formulate relevant laws on establishing the legal system and enforcement mechanisms for the HKSAR to safeguard the national security. Thus, the enactment of the National Security Law on 30th of June 2020 by the SCNPC is both lawful and constitutional.

Before the implementation of the National Security Law, due to the fear towards the violence exercised by the rioters who supported HK independence, majority of the HK citizens did not dare to voice out their opinions whenever their views was against that of the rioters. Only the riots were able to enjoy the freedom of speech during the whole period of Black Power Anti-government Movement. However, since the National Security Law has come into effect, stability can be restored in the HKSAR step by step, whereas once again, HK citizens are able to enjoy their basic rights and freedoms in accordance with the law as before. All along, the US Government has embellished the violence and illegal acts exercised by the rioters who are wrongfully beautified as democracy warrior. The ulterior motives behind was US Government's great desire to build up a pro-American Government in HK by promoting Colour Revolution here. With the success of promoting HK Independence, the US may make use of HK as a Bridgehead to attack PRC whose Great Rejuvenation might then be hindered.

Recently, US has also imposed certain "sanctions" on financial institutions and HKSAR Government officials, which is another concrete evidence proving the hegemony on the part of US. The US Government has been exerting pressure on financial institutions and HKSAR Government officials so as to threaten the officials not to pass any law or policies which the US Government dislike. By so doing, the US Secretary of State is clearly violating 2 areas of the National Security Law, including:
(1) Secession under Article 20(1), namely participating in separating the HKSAR from the PRC by with a view to committing secession or undermining national unification whether or not by force or threat of force ; and
(2) Subversion under Article 22(3), namely participating in seriously interfering in, disrupting, or undermining the performance of duties and functions in accordance with the law by the body of power of the HKSAR by force or threat of force or other unlawful means with a view to subverting the State.
Is the National Security Law applicable to the US Secretary of State? The answer is positive. Under Article 38, the National Security Law shall apply to offences under this Law committed against the HKSAR from outside the Region by a person who is not a permanent resident of the Region.

In addition, according to Article 55 of the National Security Law, it is appropriate for the national security case of the US Secretary of State to be taken up by the Office for Safeguarding National Security of the Central People's Government in the HKSAR (hereinafter referred to as "the Office"):
"Article 55
The Office for Safeguarding National Security of the Central People's Government in the HKSAR shall, upon approval by the Central People's Government of a request made by the Government of the HKSAR or by the Office itself, exercise jurisdiction over a case concerning offence endangering national security under this law, if:
(1) the case is complex due to the involvement of a foreign country or external elements, thus making it difficult for the Region to exercise jurisdiction over the case ;
(2) a serious situation occurs where the Government of the Region is unable to effectively enforce this law ; or
(3) a major and imminent threat to national security has occurred."

No doubt, with the involvement of the US Secretary of State who enjoys a high weight in the US Government in a national security case, the whole case would definitely become very complex as a result of existence of such an external element. After all, it would be extremely difficult for the HKSAR Government to exercise jurisdiction over the case, for instance, in the areas of collecting evidence and making necessary investigations. Under such circumstances, it is necessary for the Office to take up this case and exercise jurisdiction over it.

The author is Barrister-at-law.

The views don't necessarily reflect those of Orange News.

責編：CK Li
編輯：Jchow

國際?我們都會💪💪💪

Thank you Global Times:

Majority in HK supports postponing LegCo elections: survey

The US Department of the Treasury on Friday placed sanctions on 11 officials in the Chinese mainland and Hong Kong for "undermining Hong Kong's autonomy". Ko Chung Kit Jacky, a Hong Kong resident, told the Global Times on Saturday that the action would not have an actual effect. "The unilateral sanctions have no legal power in Hong Kong and will not affect Hong Kong's economy," Ko said.

https://www.globaltimes.cn/content/1197139.shtml

【After Winning Majority in LegCo: Beijing's Crackdown May Trigger International Intervention】

***感謝Hong Kong Columns - Translated，將我早前撰寫『議會過半想像：以「#國際攬炒」反制「臨立會2.0」』長文（https://www.facebook.com/joshuawongchifung/photos/a.313299448762570/2887650867994069/）翻譯成英文，鼓勵國際社會關注立會選舉一旦過半的沙盤推演，在最惡劣形勢下的制衡策略。***

中文精簡版本：https://www.facebook.com/joshuawongchifung/photos/a.564294826996363/2888641404561682/

Hongkongers have experienced our revolution for over half a year. They no longer take a consequentialist view to the effectiveness of their movement as they did years ago, or waste time second-guessing the intentions and background of fellow activists. Following the defensive battles at CUHK and PolyU, November’s District Council election saw a great victory of unity. More marvellous is the union between peaceful and “valiant” protesters.

In the process of resisting tyranny, the people have realised that one cannot prioritize one strategy over another. This is also how the common goal of “35+” came into being—the hope that we will win over half of the seats in the Legislative Council (LegCo) this September, such that the political spectrum that represents the majority of Hongkongers is able to gain control of legislative decisions. The political clout of Hongkongers will increase if 35 or more seats are successfully secured on our side. It is certainly one vital step to achieve the five demands within the system.

The possibility of realizing legislative majority

Technically it is not unrealistic to win a majority even under the current undemocratic system. Back in the 2016 LegCo election, we already won 30 seats. In addition to the District Council (First) functional constituency seat that is already in the pocket of the pan-democrats, as long as the candidates in Kowloon East and New Territories West do not start infighting again, we could safely secure 33 seats based on the number of pan-dem votes in 2016.

The other 3 seats required to achieve a majority depend on democrats’ breakthrough among the functional constituencies by dispersing the resources of the Liaison Office. They also count on whether the turnout this September could exceed 71.2% — that of last year’s District Council elections. Some of the factors that could affect the turnout include: will the epidemic persist into the summer? Will there be potential violent repression of protests in the 2 weeks preceding the election? Will Hong Kong-US relations be affected by the downturn of the global economy?

Therefore, the ambition of “35+” is to be prioritised by the resistance as both a means and an end. I have already expressed my support for an intra-party primary at the coordination meeting. In the meantime, it is pleasing to see the ongoing debates reaching a consensus of maximising the seats among geographical constituencies in the upcoming election.

Whilst enthusiastic coordination, we should also assess the post-election landscape and gauge Beijing’s reactions: if we do not reach 35 seats, Hong Kong will be subject to tighter control and more severe repression by China; but if the democratic parties successfully form a majority in LegCo, CCP’s fears of a “constitutional crisis” would become imminent. Hence, the key questions are how the Pan-Democrats should deal with the volatile political situation in Hong Kong and how they are going to meet Beijing’s charge head-on.

Watching out for Beijing’s dismissal of LegCo after reaching majority

To take back control of LegCo such that it faithfully reflects the majority’s principles and needs is the definition of a healthy democracy. Recently, however, DAB’s Tam Yiu-chung has warned that the plan of the Pan-Dems to “usurp power” in the LegCo would only lead to Beijing’s forceful disqualification of certain members or the interpretation of the Basic Law. This proves that winning a majority in LegCo is not only a popular conception but also a realistic challenge that would get on the nerves of Beijing. Could Beijing accept a President James To in LegCo? These unknown variables must be addressed upon achieving a majority.

While there is no telltale sign as to Beijing’s exact strategy, we are already familiar with the way CCP manipulated the Basic Law in the past 4 years. Having experienced three waves of disqualifications in LegCo, twice kicked out of LegCo with my team, and thrice locked up in jail, I have no false hopes of an easy compromise from Beijing: they would not let Pan-Dems control LegCo for half a year and wait (as is the proper procedure) until after having negatived the Budget to dissolve the legislature, and thereby giving them an easy victory in the re-elections. The greater the Pan-Dems threaten Beijing’s rule in Hong Kong, the more likely that it will trigger Beijing’s repression.

Since the disqualification and arrest of lawmakers have already become “normalised”, one can even imagine the police stepping into the LegCo building to force Pan-Dems into voting. Neither is it beyond our imagination to expect the CCP to kick out all 70 lawmakers in a fit of rage and replace them with a provisional LegCo “2.0” [HKCT note: The first was from 25 Jan 1997 to 30 Jun 1998]. To depend on a majority that could lead to a chapter of a “new testament” for One Country, Two Systems is perhaps what many elites long for, but they are overly optimistic:for a ticket to the promised land will not be available at the Chief Executive election campaign a year and a half later.

Admittedly, the Pan-Dems cannot unilaterally initiate “Laam-chaau” [HKCT note: mostly translated into “scorched-earth” mentality or “mutual destruction”; some even translated into “If I burn, you burn with us”]. The most they can do is to force a standstill of the government, and not for long the LegCo will have been eliminated from the equation to make the wheels turn again. It all leaves the plan of “Negativing the motion → Dissolving LegCo → Re-election after re-election → the stepping down of Carrie Lam” merely as overly positive speculation, probably resulting from their overestimate of CCP's capacity for rational calculation. The Pan-Dems must guard their frontlines and recognise what the biggest threat from Hong Kong to China could be. In this case, should LegCo sessions be disrupted or suspended, the Pan-Dems would have to be well prepared to surmount the expected obstacles and prevent the disqualification crisis 4 years ago—a Catch-22 indeed.

Productive tension from global intervention: Using Laam-chaau against the CCP

What aggravates the CCP the most is the potential threat to Hong Kong’s unique status as the one and only “separate customs territory”. Any miscalculation will compromise its role as the Chinese economy’s “white gloves”. Imagine if CCP were to disqualify all 70 elected lawmakers and convene a meeting north of the Shenzhen River to pass a resolution to Hong Kong’s affairs (much like the Provisional Legislative Council “1.0" in 1997), how great will the shock be in a world with an effective Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act? However hard it is to predict the future one thing is certain: With the US presidential election just around the corner, blows to the separation of powers would not be tolerated, and the West would necessarily effect countermeasures against the Hong Kong government.

Beijing has been relying upon Hong Kong to navigate the international community for decades. While clamping down on the political freedom of the cosmopolitan city, Beijing desires to maintain the financial centre’s economic freedom. Hence, we started lobbying for the Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act four years ago, and today we are determined to promote “Laam-chaau” on an international scale.

The will of the voters must be reflected in an election. If a “35+” legislature were to be dismissed and replaced, such flagrant violation of democracy would assuredly cause a greater backlash than the infamous extradition bill. Knowing what the reality ahead of us could be, we have to combine our election and international strategies to oppose the placement of a 35+ LegCo with an “Emergency Legislative Council 2.0”, to advance an international “Laam-chaau” to Hong Kong’s status as “separate customs territory”. Only then will we stand a chance to resist the regime and to realise the five demands.

Adjusting our mindset: Overcoming the “constitutional crisis” to reach a resolution

Upon the realization of the “35+” LegCo, it is expected that the CCP will launch a devastating counterattack. The Pan-Dems should not expect LegCo to run normally; neither can the lawmakers realise their governing blueprints they have for Hong Kong. Rather, candidates will be able to compete against one another with visions of a liberated Hong Kong through popular vote. Bringing this point up has nothing to do with undermining the common goal of reaching a majority in LegCo, but rather channels the battle of LegCo to positive use upon the rule of law’s death and a “constitutional crisis” ahead. Knowing that Hongkongers have nothing to fall back on, all Pan-Dems should not miss the only way to the realization of “35+”.

Thus, be they partisans, nonpartisans, incumbent politicians, amateur politicians, or the civil society as a whole – if we stay in the political discourse of 2016 and continue to perpetuate old stereotypes, that is to deal with the divisions on the pan-democratic camp by favouring the most “local” faction; to consider only resource allocation and self-aggrandizement as the purpose of a LegCo campaign; to ignore how potential lawmakers are fitted to what specific roles; to turn a blind eye to the journey of resistance since last summer (extending indefinitely into the future)—They would lead as astray and cost us lose a precious opportunity for change by winning a 35+ majority.

The extent to which the pan-democrats can stay united in light of the political atmosphere since last summer is another problem that our side must to address. Before the watershed moment of 12th June 2019, many democratic delegates were trapped in the mentality of needing to “preserve people’s livelihood”, “be content of what we have accomplished”, and other strategies that favours stability. As the government refuses to heed to the five demands, whether the democrats, especially those in the functional constituencies, have the political will to go all-in is the real difficult question that confronts us in the upcoming LegCo election.

All in all, if “35+” cannot be realised, it is unsurprising to see LegCo being more heavily suppressed in the next 4 years; even if "35+" is achieved, it is questionable whether the pan-democrats are able to weather multiple attacks, verbal or physical, from the regime (judging from its power in the last four years) and utilise the international Laam-chaau strategy against the displacement of LegCo. Adhering to the motto of “we fight on, each in his own way”, I can only hope that Hongkongers in elections, street confrontations and international front can reconcile with each other, so that we may collectively compel the government to yield to our demands in the next six months. It is only by reaching a resolution before a real constitutional crisis that we can combat the institutional violence of the regime and not be devoured by it.

https://hkcolumn.blogspot.com/2020/04/joshua-wong-after-winning-majority-in.html?fbclid=IwAR216gf53pG_j9JOpDfr2GItvjLfrFSekKTPzoEs3-s9KBqvPEwz865P8vw