they would have reneged had they not promulgated a law. the basic law which Britain and China agreed to and produced before 1997 requires article 23 and says ma

they would have reneged had they not promulgated a law. the basic law which Britain and China agreed to and produced before 1997 requires article 23 and says matters of defense and foreign affairs are the responsibilities of the central government. it's not hard to consider that matters of national security also responsibilities of the central government. Hong Kong failed to fulfill its duty under the agreement. this law added to annex 3 is not a substitute for Hong Kong's unenacted article 23. it is there because Hong Kong failed to enact its own legislation. the notion that this is China breaking the basic law or the joint declaration is just fuel to stoke the fires of anti-china sentiment to distract from problems at home. this sort of emotive fake news is required in a democratic system as people need to be compelled to vote as well as not focus on undelivered results. what is occurring now in HK is only the inevitable consequence of the joint declaration and the basic law to which all parties agreed and about which no other country ever complained until now. isn't it a little hypocritical that countries want to protect their own national security then object when China wants to protect its? who's unhappy with a plan to catch a thief? only the thief. so who wants to make up such stories? only those who need to keep their people focused on the next two minutes of hate