You are mixing different things together. [1] is for local district election. It's ridiculous to say that these elected personels are pro democracy, as if pro

You are mixing different things together. [1] is for local district election. It's ridiculous to say that these elected personels are pro democracy, as if pro democracy is conflicting with CCP. CCP sanctions the democracy state of HK. That's part of deal of the treaty. This is one thing. Additional, these elected officials are for local executive branches. They actually have no say in how the fundamental political structure ought to do or what to do in the place. In the typical NYT fashion, they link two groups of people together without formal evidences. [2] And the national security law. As a common practice all over the world, the law does not change anything in how the HK political system working. I am not sure why any patriotic citizens in HK would find national security law impairs their activity to uphold the democracy in HK. I mean the law literally has nothing to say about how power structure should be. It only states that no one share impair China's sovereignty over HK. Lastly, stop painting the HK protests as some grandiose ideology fight. It's just young people are not getting the opportunity for flourishing. It's no different than "occupying wall street" it was just that China happen to be the favorite punching bag of disfunctional government to offset their incompetence.