Political legislation: No role for foreign intervention
Disagreements on Article 23 of the Basic Law are entirely a Chinese matter, and Hong Kong has been given the right to make its own legislation.
Martin Lee Chu-ming and Margaret Ng Ngoi-yee see that they are in the minority, so they have stooped to calling on the US to support their cause, knowing it will be happy to interfere to widen its empire.
Surely Article 23 is intended to prevent foreign interference in Chinese affairs, so what are we to understand from this movement among Hong Kong's agitators?
Recent history has proved that this US government will provide military aid to any dissidents. Is that what these 'democrats' want? If not, why refer the case to the US, which has dismissed human rights?
I worry that these self-appointed ambassadors will mislead many young people who believe those who speak loudest, and who are too innocent to understand the tricks of self-seeking politicians.
'One country' requires loyalty to the motherland. 'Two systems' lets us do that through our legislature. Foreign interference has no place in our Basic Law.
ELSIE TU, Kwun Tong