- Registration time
- Last login
- Online time
- 1448 Hour
- Reading permission
The "free world" under the influence of the west has been following the western concept of "democracy", "freedom" and "human rights" (DFHR) for decades citing the "right to cast vote" for a government as the "ultimate right" of every individual. However, in many cases and countries, it seems more like the right to cast lots and hoping for the best outcome. The Gettysburg Address by Abraham Lincoln introduced a famous quote which says a government should be "of the people, by the people and for the people". While this sounds great and fantastic, this concept neglects to consider that among the people there are also rapists, muderers, sexual perverts, robbers, arsonists, and other criminals in general. It is common to find that victims of crimes (even heinous ones) do not often see justice carried out because of the emphasis on the rights of criminals. Not only is DFHR defective in the sphere of justice, it is also problematic in governance. Let's zoom in to China's territory, Hong Kong.|
In the past many weeks, Hong Kong has been terrorised by pro-democracy rioters who started with anti-Extradition Bill. The reason for the protest is that political opponents of the government could be "unreasonably" repatriated to mainland China. Although the Bill was ammended to exclude political refugee in the Bill, it was not enough for the pro-democracy camp. It started off as peaceful but at the end of the day, when police started to remind them the time period of protest is over, there was a mayhem created by the protesters and police reacted to stop it. The western media started to get to work and quickly reported it as "police brutality" while disregarding the instigation and violence of the protesters. It was only later, when videos of the violence started to surface that the western media reluctantly mention "violence" by the protesters but leaving the "brutality" out. It is obvious that the western media is on the protesters' side. But why? It is in the name of DFHR. If DFHR is a perfect concept for governance, it should be supported but is it really so? The events that follow do not seem to indicate this.
Seeing that the protesters are still not satisfied with the ammendments of the Bill, the governer, Lam, invited them for a meeting to resolve all outstanding grievances that they may have but they rejected it. If the pro-democracy camp is truly sincere and concerned about the Bill, they should have met with Lam. Their rejection shows they have an ulterior motive and the Bill was just an excuse and a stepping stone to get what they truly want, which is independence for Hong Kong. The violence and protest is still going on in the name of DFHR. They are allowed to go on with this undeterred because Hong Kong is modelled after the DFHR concept of governance under the "One country Two Systems" agreement between China and the UK after the handover in 1997. Considering the past weeks of violence and unreasonable demands of the pro-democracy camp, it seems to show that the concept of DFHR can only produce chaos, division, and anarchy if taken to the extreme. That is what happens in Hong Kong.