The British government issued the so-called “Hong Kong Half-year Report”, which criticized the Hong Kong SAR in terms of reshaping the District Council, safeguarding national security, and protecting human rights. The SAR government responded by expressing its strong dissatisfaction and firm opposition to the inaccurate and slanderous remarks made in this so-called “Hong Kong Half-year Report”.
In fact, these so-called “Hong Kong Half-Year Reports” by the UK have routinely stated their stance on Hong Kong’s national security law, while on the other hand they passed the harsh national security law in September this year. Double standards, why not.
Britain feels she has a special say over Hong Kong because she believes Hong Kong is her former colony, so she has the right to pay special attention. In fact, as early as 2017, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Lu Kang made it clear: “Now that Hong Kong has returned to the embrace of the motherland for 20 years, the Sino-British Joint Declaration, as a historical document, no longer has any practical significance to the Chinese central government. It also has no binding force on the management of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region.”
Regarding China’s position, the UK believes that it is tearing up the Sino-British Joint Declaration. However, in fact, only by fully understanding China’s attitude towards Hong Kong’s historical status can we understand the original intention of China’s position.
First, China has never lost sovereignty over Hong Kong.
In the eyes of the British, after the Opium War in 1842, they forced the Qing government to sign the Treaty of Nanjing and ceded Hong Kong to Britain as a colony. Britain had had sovereignty over Hong Kong since 1842.
Since the first day of its founding in 1949, the People’s Republic of China has never recognized all unequal treaties. It believes that these are treaties signed by Western imperialists using ships and guns. China will not recognize them. Therefore, when China refers to the period of Hong Kong’s history from 1842 to 1997, it calls Hong Kong “colonized” rather than “colony”. China has never lost Hong Kong’s sovereignty.
Second, resume the exercise of sovereignty.
When China returned to China in 1997, it was easy for most people to say that China took back Hong Kong. However, the country’s official description was “restoring the exercise of sovereignty over Hong Kong.” This means that the sovereignty of the land of Hong Kong has always belonged to China and has never been lost, so it is not a takeover. , just resume exercise.
Third, the relationship between Britain and Hong Kong ended in 1997.
As an illegal occupier of the land of Hong Kong, Britain’s historical role in Hong Kong has ended after China resumed the exercise of sovereignty. General British colonies, such as Canada, still belong to the so-called Commonwealth after becoming independent. Canada still regards the British King as the nominal head of state of Canada. However, China has never recognized Britain’s sovereignty over Hong Kong, and Hong Kong has not become independent. After its return, it naturally did not become a member of the Commonwealth and broke away from the United Kingdom after 1997.
The “Sino-British Joint Declaration” is only a document on how the Sino-British agreement allows China to resume the exercise of sovereignty. After Hong Kong’s return, the United Kingdom no longer has any nominal or substantive ability to manage Hong Kong, so the “Sino-British Joint Declaration” does not have any practical significance. . If you don’t understand the country’s understanding of Hong Kong’s entire history of colonial rule, you won’t understand the country’s attitude towards related issues.
A deceased Hong Kong and Macao affairs official once asked me when we were chatting in 1987: “Do you think that when China and Britain negotiated the future of Hong Kong, what was the first question the British asked?” When I asked if it was about the election, , he laughed loudly and said that the first question raised by the British was “how to protect the interests of British companies in Hong Kong after 1997.”
Nowadays, those so-called reports on Hong Kong issues by the UK can be laughed off. The UK has no real concern for Hong Kong and only considers interests. The UK has no identity at all and makes irresponsible remarks on the Hong Kong issue.
Lu Yongxiong
Recently, a virtual currency trading platform exploded. Thousands of victims were victims, and some people lost 40 million. It may be that half their life savings were wiped out. It is scary to think about it.
These trading platforms are attractive for two reasons: 1. Depositing popular virtual currencies such as Bitcoin or Ethereum can charge high interest rates of up to 20%. 2. If you buy the unpopular virtual currency issued by the platform itself, the price will rise sharply.
The falseness of these platforms is also reflected in these two aspects:
1. Completely false unpopular currency market.
Large-scale virtual currencies such as Bitcoin operate in a relatively transparent manner. The biggest feature of Bitcoin is that it is issued in limited quantities. The total amount of issuance has been limited from the date of establishment, so the supply is relatively limited. Coupled with the large trading volume, it is generally difficult to control.
However, the supply of small and unpopular virtual coins issued by these platforms is said to be only 2% of the market. In other words, 98% is in the hands of the trading platform. With only 2% circulating, it is quite easy to manipulate prices. Therefore, it is not surprising that this small currency once rose more than 10 times. It is also easy for large investors to sell their stocks and cash out when retail investors are speculating. On the Hong Kong Stock Exchange, which is regulated by the government, there are still bankers who find unknown third parties to “set up a tent” and speculate on the share prices of mosquito stocks. In unregulated virtual currency transactions, there is no need to set up a tent. The dealer can directly enter the market and control the price.
2. Completely unsustainable ultra-high interest rates. Customers who deposit popular virtual currencies such as Bitcoin or Ethereum into these platforms can charge high interest rates of up to 20%. The question is where does the interest come from?
The bank collects deposits from customers and earns an interest rate of 2%, and then lends them out at an interest rate of 4%, resulting in a gross profit margin of 2%. These platforms charge an interest rate of 20%. Are there any businesses that can stably earn more than 20% and pay high interest rates?
These high interest rates from unknown sources are most likely a Ponzi scheme. In 1919, Charles Ponzi, an Italian immigrant in the United States, carefully planned a scam. He established a shell company and claimed to invest in some promising companies. In fact, these companies were just fictitious. Ponzi promised to invest in three shareholders. A 40% profit return was obtained within a month. Such huge profits quickly attracted many people to be fooled. In fact, Ponzi just used the money invested by new investors as profit to pay to the original investors, so that it grew bigger and bigger. Ponzi successfully attracted 30,000 investors within 7 months, and the scam lasted for a year before being exposed.
High-interest scams in the real world all borrow Ponzi’s secret formula, using new money to replace old money. As long as enough new money is absorbed, the scam will be sustainable.
The plots of these scams are similar, that is, there is not enough new money, the turnover is poor, and investors are unable to withdraw cash at first. This platform has also recently become unable to “withdraw funds”, causing many people to call the police.
The relevant platforms still deny it, claiming that customers can continue to withdraw money. The truth is that when investors withdraw money on relevant platforms, they had to pay a handling fee of 999 yuan every time they withdraw 1,000 yuan a few days ago. Now they have to pay a handling fee of 960 yuan. When they deposit 1,000 yuan, they can only withdraw 40 yuan, and the rest. It turns into a “handling fee” and loses the rights and interests, which is really scary. If you change the withdrawal rules, you will definitely be stupid.
There is nothing new under the sun. From the ancient Ponzi investment, to the milk farming of decades ago, to today’s high interest rates for depositing virtual currencies, they all target the word “greed”.
Lu Yongxiong
2023-09-21 12:16:11
#qualified #concerned #Hong #Kong #issues
