Hong Kong - Macau - Zhuhai Bridge

The world’s longest sea-crossing bridge has opened. The 55 km (34 miles) Hong Kong – Macau – Zhuhai Bridge links Hong Kong to Macau and mainland China, cutting travel time many times faster. This impressive engineering feat to create connectivity between Hong Kong and mainland China is praised by some but criticized by others. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- On the positive side, it is believed that it will help economic development of and bring prosperity to the Greater Bay Area which covers 11 cities and 68 million people. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- On the negative side, it is said to be a waste of money. China bashers can’t lose any chance to bash the Peoples’ Republic of China (PRC), complaining that it drags Hong Kong closer to Beijing’s grip. O My God, the China / Hong Kong border has been erased! --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- These are my thoughts and comments: Hong Kong had been a British colony for 156 years. It returned to Chinese rule on July 1, 1997. Hong Kong became a Special Administrative Region (SAR) of China, so did Macau in 1999. Which makes more sense, to strengthen the Hong Kong / China border, or loosen, even erase it? Under the Schengen Agreement, most European Union (EU) members allow free flow of people between nations. But easing the border and allowing the free flow of people of Hong Kong, Macau and mainland China, all Chinese people of the same country is wrong? --------------------------------------------------------------------- The idea and request of building this bridge originated from some Hong Kong merchants and business people, not out of Beijing’s desperate need to drag Hong Kong to its grip. Hong Kong and Macau are already within Bejing's grip. Rather, Beijing supported this mega project for the benefit of China and the Chinese people, especially the Greater Bay Area. China bashers talk like Hong Kong is still a British colony or an independent country, and the evil Chinese rulers are coming to take over Hong Kong. The truth is this: in 1997, China did not “take over” Hong Kong. China “took back” Hong Kong from the Brits.

Donald Tsang and Prince Charles

In the news, former Hong Kong leader Donald Tsang is charged over corruption allegations.

Here are my thoughts and comments:

Whether Donald Tsang is guilty or not would not change my view that corrupted politicians can be found everywhere, not just in Hong Kong.

It is a political comedy (or tragedy if you insist), that Donald Tsang was made a Knight Commander of the Most Excellent Order of the British Empire (KBE) for his long-time service to Hong Kong. He was knighted by Prince Charles at the Government House just hours before the handover of Hong Kong back to Chinese rule on July 1, 1997.

Being a British knight, Donald Tsang then became the second Chief Executive of Hong Kong (2005 to 2012). Does anybody know if he gave up his KBE or OBE (Order of British Empire), before he took office as the Chief Executive of Hong Kong? I heard rumor that he refused to give it up. It would be so awkward, politically incorrect, and legally confusing for a British Knight to rule over Chinese Hong Kong.

I also heard that Prince Charles was really upset (in private), that Queen Elizabeth had to hand over Hong Kong to the Communist Chinese in Beijing. Some reporter overheard his private complaint and leaked out the news.

July 1, 2015

July 1, 2015 is an important day of Canada and Hong Kong. It is Canada Day. It also marks the 18th anniversary of British handover of Hong Kong back to China. Canadians celebrate Canada Day today, but not all HongKongers celebrate the return of Hong Kong to Chinese rule.

A Keith Durant in Youtube gave his comments on the political situation in Hong Kong. He told the truth. Here are his comments: The funny thing is they have more democracy under China than they ever had as a British protectorate. Under Britain the governor was appointed in Britain with no input from the people of Hong Kong. Under China they are at least offered choices of those the government is willing to accept.

My thoughts:

There is no way that the Chinese Government will allow separatists or independence-leaning politicians to run for the chief executive office in Hong Kong. Candidates must be pre-screened and approved by a pro-Beijing Hong Kong committee made of 1200 members, which represents almost 40 different sectors or groups of people in Hong Kong society. The approved candidates or finalists will then run for the office, and every adult HongKonger will be given a vote to select their leader.

This is the situation: since the handover on July1, 1997, Hong Kong has become a Special Administrative Region (SAR) of China. It has a high level of autonomy, but it is not a separate country. To become the chief executive of Hong Kong, you must be pro-China, not anti-China.

Hong Kong already has much democracy and freedom. In terms of economic freedom, it is on the very top in the whole world. The rejection of this new election and voting system appears to be a small victory of the pro-American and pro-Western styled democracy politicians and people. It is a setback of Chinese styled democratic reform in Hong Kong.

It is rather stupid and irrational that some anti-China HongKongers still wave the British flag, complaining that there is no free election in Hong Kong. Was there any free election when Hong Kong was under British rule? No, None. Would these anti-China HongKongers be happy to re-become British 'subjects' or 'second class citizens' under British colonial rule?