花辨直播官方版_花辨直播平台官方app下载_花辨直播免费版app下载

What happened outside the SAR government complex and in Admiralty, where some "occupiers" attacked police officers with umbrellas and hard objects, showed that promises made by "Occupy Central" organizers that protests would be "non-violent" were a lie. Indeed, such actions also exposed their great hypocrisy.

The "Occupy" initiators made these promises only because they had to - not because they wanted peace. They had to say it to convince local people to join their illegal campaign. But their ultimate goal was to trigger mass unrest - including violence against the police. That was to intimidate the central authorities as well as the SAR government.

The four ridiculous demands they have made are devoid of meaning and are just self-serving hyperbole. It is common knowledge the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress (NPCSC) is one of the highest institutions of State power. It cannot be forced to do anything. It can certainly not be intimidated by illegal protests. The SAR government has done its best to promote Hong Kong's constitutional development. It deserves considerable popular support for this. By demanding the resignation of Chief Executive Leung Chun-ying, the "occupiers" are showing they really want to seize the power to govern Hong Kong.

Numerous public opinion polls show the majority of Hong Kong residents do not support "Occupy". The initiators of the illegal movement know the campaign is unpopular. They can only fall back on misleading passionate, but naive young people.

The real goal of the "occupiers" is to challenge the sovereign rule of the central government over Hong Kong. This is in order to benefit the US government's "return to Asia" strategy. This includes turning Hong Kong into a forward base for Washington to mount its anti-China campaign. The leading "occupiers" were hired by the US authorities to turn innocent Hongkongers into enemies of 1.3 billion mainland compatriots.

The "Occupy" organizers never had any intention of staging peaceful protests. They will not stop now. But there are three options for ending "Occupy". These are: 1) the central and SAR authorities could reach some kind of compromise by satisfying certain demand(s) of the "occupiers" in exchange for restoring order; 2) there should be no negotiations or compromises; the police should be allowed to deal with the troublemakers; and 3) extraordinary measures should be taken to end the unrest and return things to normal in Hong Kong.

Obviously, the first option cannot be realistically achieved. This is because there is no way the NPCSC will ever submit to political blackmail of any kind. As NPCSC HKSAR Basic Law Committee Chairman Li Fei explained recently, "If (the central government) gives in under pressure to a small number of extremists now things will only go from bad to worse."

The second option will let Hong Kong die a slow, painful death for nothing. It is, therefore, not in the best interests of society.

Clearly the only viable solution is the third option: To take extraordinary measures to end the chaos before it does more harm to Hong Kong.

Now extraordinary measures do not necessarily mean the use of force. Hong Kong is a society operating under the rule of law. The best way to maintain lasting peace is to settle disputes in accordance with the law. If necessary, the central government might intervene to end the turmoil in Hong Kong according to the National Security Law. Sometimes it is necessary to protect society by stopping a small number of individuals disrupting public order.

The author is a veteran current affairs commentator.

(HK Edition 10/02/2014 page4)