HONG KONG DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

PROSECUTIONS DIVISION

EVIDENC

2016
CASE

NUMBER:

NOTES
______________
______________
_ _ _ _ _T_O_ P_ _ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ S_ E
__
C _R_E_T_ _ _ _ _
______________

00008628

CASE
THE CASE I WILL BE LOOKING INTO IS HONG KONGS RECENT CASE
REGARDING THE DISAPPEARANCE OF STAFF MEMBERS WORKING FOR LOCAL
HONG KONG BOOKSTORE, CAUSEWAY BAY BOOKS. AS OF JANUARY 2016, FIVE
EMPLOYEES
OF
THE
STORE
HAD
GONE
MISSING.
EACH
OF
THE
DISAPPEARANCES WERE LINKED TO THE MIGHTY CURRENT, A BOOK
PRODUCER THAT IS IMPORTANT TO THE CHINESE GOVERNMENT.
TO DATE, SPECULATIONS HAVE BEEN GIVEN REGARDING THE INVOLVEMENT OF
THE CHINESE COMMUNIST PARTY IN THE BOOKSELLER DISAPPEARANCES.
WORRIES HAVE BEEN BROUGHT FORWARD BY HONG KONG CHIEF EXECUTIVE, C.
Y. LEUNG REGARDING THE MATTER AND HOW THE ABDUCTIONS WOULD BE A
BREACH OF BASIC LAW, ESPECIALLY IF THE MAINLAND AUTHORITIES HAD
INVOLVEMENT. LEE BO, THE MAJORITY SHAREHOLDER OF THE STORE ALSO
WENT MISSING. WHEN HE SENT A LETTER BACK TO HONG KONG STATING THAT
HE WAS SAFE, AND TO CALL OF THE SEARCH FOR A MISSING PERSONS CASE,
SUSPICIONS WERE RAISED VERY RAPIDLY.
IN THIS ASSIGNMENT I WILL BE STATING THE HONG KONG LAWS AND HUMAN
RIGHTS THAT I SUSPECT THE CHINESE COMMUNIST PARTY ARE VIOLATING IN
THIS CASE.

EVIDENCE
SOUTH CHINA MORNING POST [CASE OPENING STATEMENT] - BY THE END
OF 2015, FIVE PUBLISHERS IN HONG KONG HAD GONE MISSING ALL
LINKED TO MIGHTY CURRENT
SOUTH CHINA MORNING POST [04/01/2016] - HTTP://WWW.SCMP.COM/NEWS/
HONG-KONG/LAW-CRIME/ARTICLE/1877932/MISSING-PRESUMED-DETAINEDHONG-KONG-PUBLISHERS-BOOKS (MISSING PERSONS STATEMENT, SPECULATION
OF DETAINED BOOKSELLERS]
SOUTH CHINA MORNING POST [05/01/2016] - H T T P : / /
WWW.SCMP.COM/NEWS/HONG-KONG/LAW-CRIME/
ARTICLE/1897784/CY-LEUNG-HONG-KONGS-MISSINGB O O K S E L L E R S - M A I N L A N D - C H I N A - L A W (C.Y. LEUNG INITIAL
RESPONSE)
WALL STREET JOURNAL [05/01/2016] - H T T P S : / /
W W W . Y O U T U B E . C O M / W A T C H ? V = Y A J E Z B B H G R G (SUSPICION
ARISES)
SOUTH CHINA MORNING POST [05/01/2016] - H T T P : / /
WWW.SCMP.COM/NEWS/HONG-KONG/LAW-CRIME/
ARTICLE/1897863/DISAPPEARANCE-BOOKSTOREO W N E R - G O E S - A G A I N S T - O N E - C O U N T R Y - T W O (ONE COUNTRY,
TWO SYSTEMS VIOLATION CLAIMS)
SOUTH CHINA MORNING POST [07/01/2016] - H T T P : / /
WWW.SCMP.COM/NEWS/HONG-KONG/LAW-CRIME/
ARTICLE/1898573/HONG-KONG-ACTIVISTS-VOWL O D G E - C O M P L A I N T - U N - O V E R - M I S S I N G (COMPLAINT TO
UNITED NATIONS MADE)
SOUTH CHINA MORNING POST [09/01/2016] - H T T P : / /
WWW.SCMP.COM/NEWS/HONG-KONG/LAW-CRIME/
ARTICLE/1898997/VANISHING-HONG-KONGB O O K S E L L E R S - E X T R E M E L Y - W O R R Y I N G - S A Y S - E U (EU
STATES THEIR WORRIED)
SOUTH CHINA MORNING POST [11/01/2016] - H T T P : / /
WWW.SCMP.COM/VIDEO/HONG-KONG/1899763/
THOUSANDS-HONG-KONG-PROTESTERS-MARCH-DEMANDR E L E A S E - M I S S I N G - B O O K S E L L E R S (PUBLIC DEMONSTRATION
HELD)

CONFIDENTIAL

PROPOSED
HONG KONG LAW VIOLATIONS
IN THIS SECTION, I WILL BE STATING THE HONG KONG LAWS THAT I
ACCUSE THE MAINLAND GOVERNMENT OF VIOLATING IN THE HONG KONG
BOOKSELLER CASE.
ARTICLE 28
THE FREEDOM
INVIOLABLE.

OF

THE

PERSON

OF

HONG

KONG

RESIDENTS

SHALL

BE

I PUT FORTH THIS ARTICLE OF THE HONG KONG BASIC LAW AS A RESULT OF
IT CLEARLY BEING VIOLATED, AND I ACCUSE THE CHINESE COMMUNIST
PARTY OF VIOLATING THIS LAW. THE ARTICLE STATES THAT NO HONG KONG
RESIDENT SHALL HAVE THEIR RIGHT TO FREEDOM TAKEN FROM THEM. IT IS
CLEAR THAT IF THE CHINESE GOVERNMENT HAVE ABDUCTED THE BOOKSELLERS
FROM CAUSEWAY BAY BOOKS, IT IS A BREACH OF ARTICLE 28 AS ABDUCTING
HONG KONG RESIDENTS AND TAKING AWAY THEIR FREEDOM DOES NOT ABIDE
BY THIS LAW.
ARTICLE 29
THE HOMES AND OTHER PREMISES OF HONG KONG RESIDENTS SHALL BE
INVIOLABLE. ARBITRARY OR UNLAWFUL SEARCH OF, OR INTRUSION INTO, A
RESIDENT'S HOME OR OTHER PREMISES SHALL BE PROHIBITED.
I ALSO BELIEVE THAT ARTICLE 29 HAS BEEN VIOLATED BY THE CHINESE
COMMUNIST PARTY. THE ARTICLE STATES THAN NO RESIDENT OF THE HONG
KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION SHOULD BE INTRUDED. THIS LAW
WAS BREACHED UPON THE ABDUCTION OF LEE BO FROM HIS PREMISES (HIS
BUSINESS LOCATION). THIS IS CLEARLY NOT CONFORMING TO THE STATED
LAW.
ARTICLE 31
HONG KONG RESIDENTS SHALL HAVE FREEDOM OF MOVEMENT WITHIN THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION AND FREEDOM OF EMIGRATION
TO OTHER COUNTRIES AND REGIONS. THEY SHALL HAVE FREEDOM TO TRAVEL
AND TO ENTER OR LEAVE THE REGION. UNLESS RESTRAINED BY LAW,
HOLDERS OF VALID TRAVEL DOCUMENTS SHALL BE FREE TO LEAVE THE
REGION WITHOUT SPECIAL AUTHORISATION.
I STRONGLY ACCUSE THE CHINESE GOVERNMENT OF VIOLATING ARTICLE 31
THAT STATES THAT ALL RESIDENTS OF HONG KONG HAVE THE FREEDOM OF
MOVEMENT, AND CAN LEAVE, AS WELL AS RETURN TO HONG KONG AT ANY
POINT. I AM MAKING THIS CLAIM AS I BELIEVE THAT THE CHINESE
GOVERNMENT HAVE ABDUCTED AND DETAINED THE BOOKSELLERS. AS A
RESULT, THEY ARE STRIPPED OF THEIR RIGHT TO BE ABLE TO RETURN TO
HONG KONG, HENCE BREACHING ARTICLE 31.

ARTICLE 38
HONG KONG RESIDENTS SHALL ENJOY THE OTHER RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS
SAFEGUARDED BY THE LAWS OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE
REGION.
IT IS ALSO CLEAR THAT ARTICLE 38 IS BREACHED AS MORE THAN ONE HONG
KONGS BASIC LAW ARTICLES HAVE BEEN BROKEN. I STRONGLY ACCUSE
CHINA OF VIOLATING HONG KONGS BASIC LAW ON AT LEAST THREE
SEPARATE ACCOUNTS. AS A RESULT OF THIS, ARTICLE 38 HAS CLEARLY
BEEN BREACHED.

OTHER HONG KONG LAWS

BELOW I WILL ALSO STATE NUMEROUS BASIC LAWS THAT HAVE BEEN PUT IN
PLACE BY THE HONG KONG GOVERNMENT TO PROTECT ITS CITIZENS.
ARTICLE 27
HONG KONG RESIDENTS SHALL HAVE FREEDOM OF SPEECH, OF THE PRESS AND
OF PUBLICATION; FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION, OF ASSEMBLY, OF PROCESSION
AND OF DEMONSTRATION; AND THE RIGHT AND FREEDOM TO FORM AND JOIN
TRADE UNIONS, AND TO STRIKE.
ARTICLE 27 PROTECTS THE CITIZENS OF HONG KONG BY ALLOWING THEM THE
FREEDOM OF SPEECH. THIS LAW STATES THAT RESIDENTS OF THE SAR ARE
ALLOWED TO FORM AND DEMONSTRATE FOR WHAT THEY BELIEVE AND TO VOICE
THEIR OPINIONS. THIS IS PROTECTIVE OF RESIDENTS BY ENSURING THAT
GOVERNMENTS AND OTHER ORGANISATIONS ARE ABLE TO HEAR WHAT THE
CITIZENS WANT. THIS IS BENEFICIAL TO CITIZENS AS THEY WILL NOT BE
PROSECUTED FOR PERFORMING DEMONSTRATIONS, UNLIKE IN SOME NATIONS,
SUCH AS SINGAPORE.
ARTICLE 30
THE FREEDOM AND PRIVACY OF COMMUNICATION OF HONG KONG RESIDENTS
SHALL BE PROTECTED BY LAW. NO DEPARTMENT OR INDIVIDUAL MAY, ON ANY
GROUNDS, INFRINGE UPON THE FREEDOM AND PRIVACY OF COMMUNICATION OF
RESIDENTS EXCEPT THAT THE RELEVANT AUTHORITIES MAY INSPECT
COMMUNICATION IN ACCORDANCE WITH LEGAL PROCEDURES TO MEET THE
NEEDS OF PUBLIC SECURITY OR OF INVESTIGATION INTO CRIMINAL
OFFENCES.
THIS LAW STATES THAT THE PRIVACY OF COMMUNICATIONS OF RESIDENTS
IN HONG KONG IS KEPT UNMONITORED UNLESS AUTHORITY IS GIVEN TO
INVESTIGATE INDIVIDUALS. THIS PROTECTS CITIZENS OF HONG KONG BY
ENSURING THAT THEY CAN COMMUNICATE IN PRIVACY WITHOUT THE FEAR OF
BEING WATCHED. THIS AGAIN LEADS TO FREEDOM OF SPEECH.
ARTICLE 32
HONG KONG RESIDENTS SHALL HAVE FREEDOM OF CONSCIENCE.
HONG KONG RESIDENTS SHALL HAVE FREEDOM OF RELIGIOUS BELIEF AND
FREEDOM TO PREACH AND TO CONDUCT AND PARTICIPATE IN RELIGIOUS
ACTIVITIES IN PUBLIC.

ARTICLE 32 PROTECTS THE BELIEFS OF HONG KONG CITIZENS. IT STATES

THAT CITIZENS OF THE CITY ARE ENTITLED TO THEIR OWN BELIEFS AND
THEY ARE NOT EXPECTED TO BECOME DISCIPLES TO A SPECIFIC BELIEF OF
RELIGION. THIS ALLOWS RESIDENTS TO BE MORE OPEN ABOUT THEIR
BELIEFS AND ALLOWS THEM TO FEEL SAFE WHILST PRACTICING SUCH
BELIEFS.

HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATIONS

UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS
THE UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS IS A FORMAL DECLARATION
DOCUMENT FORMED AND ADOPTED BY THE UNITED NATIONS. THE DECLARATION
WAS PUBLICLY ANNOUNCED DURING THE 1948 GENERAL ASSEMBLY IN PARIS,
FRANCE. THE DECLARATION INCLUDED EFFORTS FROM A RANGE OF DIFFERENT
LEGAL AND CULTURAL PRACTITIONERS. THE DOCUMENT WAS PUT INTO PLACE
TO AIM TO PROVIDE AN EXPECTED LEVEL FOR THE WORLDS NATIONS. THE
DOCUMENTS SETS THE RIGHTS THAT ARE EXPECTED OF EACH AND EVERY
INHABITANT ON THIS PLANET.
OFTEN, IT IS APPARENT THAT THE DECLARATION IS VIOLATED AND RIGHTS
ARE NOT ADHERED TO. IN THE HONG KONG BOOKSTORE CASE THERE IS A
TOTAL OF 12 HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATIONS THAT ARE KNOWN OF. BELOW ARE
NUMEROUS EXAMPLES OF SUCH VIOLATIONS IN THE SPECIFIED CASE:
ARTICLE 7: ALL ARE EQUAL BEFORE THE LAW AND ARE ENTITLED WITHOUT
ANY DISCRIMINATION TO EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAW. ALL ARE
ENTITLED TO EQUAL PROTECTION AGAINST ANY DISCRIMINATION IN
VIOLATION OF THIS DECLARATION AND AGAINST ANY INCITEMENT TO SUCH
DISCRIMINATION.
THIS ARTICLE STATES THAT NO INDIVIDUAL SHOULD BE DISCRIMINATED,
AND ALL SHOULD BE TREATED WITH THE SAME DEGREE OF PROTECTION.
ARTICLE 8: EVERYONE HAS THE RIGHT TO AN EFFECTIVE REMEDY BY THE
COMPETENT NATIONAL TRIBUNALS FOR ACTS VIOLATING THE FUNDAMENTAL
RIGHTS GRANTED HIM BY THE CONSTITUTION OR BY LAW.
ARTICLE 9: NO ONE
DETENTION OR EXILE.

SHALL

BE

SUBJECTED

TO

ARBITRARY

ARREST,

ARTICLE 10: EVERYONE IS ENTITLED IN FULL EQUALITY TO A FAIR AND

PUBLIC HEARING BY AN INDEPENDENT AND IMPARTIAL TRIBUNAL, IN THE
DETERMINATION OF HIS RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS AND OF ANY CRIMINAL
CHARGE AGAINST HIM/HER.
ARTICLE 11: (1) EVERYONE CHARGED WITH A PENAL OFFENCE HAS THE
RIGHT TO BE PRESUMED INNOCENT UNTIL PROVED GUILTY ACCORDING TO LAW
IN A PUBLIC TRIAL AT WHICH HE HAS HAD ALL THE GUARANTEES NECESSARY
FOR HIS DEFENCE.
(2) NO ONE SHALL BE HELD GUILTY OF ANY PENAL OFFENCE ON ACCOUNT OF
ANY ACT OR OMISSION WHICH DID NOT CONSTITUTE A PENAL OFFENCE,
UNDER NATIONAL OR INTERNATIONAL LAW, AT THE TIME WHEN IT WAS
COMMITTED. NOR SHALL A HEAVIER PENALTY BE IMPOSED THAN THE ONE
THAT WAS APPLICABLE AT THE TIME THE PENAL OFFENCE WAS COMMITTED.
ARTICLE 12: NO ONE SHALL BE SUBJECTED TO ARBITRARY INTERFERENCE
WITH HIS PRIVACY, FAMILY, HOME OR CORRESPONDENCE, NOR TO ATTACKS

UPON HIS HONOUR AND REPUTATION. EVERYONE HAS THE RIGHT TO THE
PROTECTION OF THE LAW AGAINST SUCH INTERFERENCE OR ATTACKS.
ARTICLE 13: (1) EVERYONE HAS THE RIGHT TO FREEDOM OF MOVEMENT AND
RESIDENCE WITHIN THE BORDERS OF EACH STATE.
(2) EVERYONE HAS THE RIGHT TO LEAVE ANY COUNTRY, INCLUDING HIS
OWN, AND TO RETURN TO HIS COUNTRY.
ARTICLE 18: EVERYONE HAS THE RIGHT TO FREEDOM OF THOUGHT,
CONSCIENCE AND RELIGION; THIS RIGHT INCLUDES FREEDOM TO CHANGE HIS
OR BELIEF, AND FREEDOM, EITHER ALONE OR IN COMMUNITY WITH OTHERS
AND IN PUBLIC OR PRIVATE, TO MANIFEST HIS RELIGION OR BELIEF IN
TEACHING, PRACTICE, WORSHIP AND OBSERVANCE.
ARTICLE 19: EVERYONE HAS THE RIGHT TO FREEDOM OF OPINION AND
EXPRESSION; THIS RIGHT INCLUDES FREEDOM TO HOLD OPINIONS WITHOUT
INTERFERENCE AND TO SEEK, RECEIVE AND IMPART INFORMATION AND IDEAS
THROUGH ANY MEDIA AND REGARDLESS OF FRONTIERS.
ARTICLE 28: EVERYONE IS ENTITLED TO A SOCIAL AND INTERNATIONAL
ORDER IN WHICH THE RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS SET FORTH IN THIS
DECLARATION CAN BE FULLY REALIZED.
ARTICLE 29: (1) EVERYONE HAS DUTIES TO THE COMMUNITY IN WHICH
ALONE THE FREE AND FULL DEVELOPMENT OF HIS PERSONALITY IS
POSSIBLE.
(2) IN THE EXERCISE OF HIS RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS, EVERYONE SHALL BE
SUBJECT ONLY TO SUCH LIMITATIONS AS ARE DETERMINED BY LAW SOLELY
FOR THE PURPOSE OF SECURING DUE RECOGNITION AND RESPECT FOR THE
RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS OF OTHERS AND OF MEETING THE JUST REQUIREMENTS
OF MORALITY, PUBLIC ORDER AND THE GENERAL WELFARE IN A DEMOCRATIC
SOCIETY.
(3) THESE RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS MAY IN NO CASE BE EXERCISED CONTRARY
TO THE PURPOSES AND PRINCIPLES OF THE UNITED NATIONS.
ARTICLE 30: NOTHING IN THIS DECLARATION MAY BE INTERPRETED AS
IMPLYING FOR ANY STATE, GROUP OR PERSON ANY RIGHT TO ENGAGE IN ANY
ACTIVITY OR TO PERFORM ANY ACT AIMED AT THE DESTRUCTION OF ANY OF
THE RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS SET FORTH HEREIN.

JUSTIFICATIONS
ARTICLE 12
IN THE HONG KONG BOOKSTORE CASE, ARTICLE 12 IS VIOLATED AS IT
STATES THAT NO INDIVIDUAL SHOULD HAVE THEIR PRIVACY INTERFERED AND
TO BE ATTACKED. I ACCUSE THE CHINESE GOVERNMENT OF VIOLATING THIS
HUMAN RIGHT AS THEY WOULD HAVE HAD TO INTERFERE WITH THE PRIVACY
OF THE BOOKSELLERS BY ABDUCTING THEM FROM THEIR PLACE OF WORK.
THIS IS CLEARLY NOT COMPLYING WITH THE WORDS AND PHRASES STATED IN
ARTICLE 12 OF THE UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS.

ARTICLE 13
MUCH LIKE THE ARTICLE STATED IN THE HONG KONG BASIC LAW, ARTICLE
13 STATES THAT ALL PEOPLE HAVE THE RIGHT TO MOVE BETWEEN BORDERS,
AND TO LEAVE/RETURN TO THEIR OWN COUNTRY. SHOULD THE EMPLOYEES BE
IN CUSTODY OF THE CHINESE GOVERNMENT, ARTICLE 13 OF THE
DECLARATION WOULD BE VIOLATED.
ARTICLE 28
THIS ARTICLE STATES THAT ALL INDIVIDUALS ARE ENTITLED TO BOTH
LOCAL AND INTERNATIONAL ORDER. I STRONGLY BELIEVE THAT THIS IS NOT
THE CASE, AND SHOULD CHINA BE INVOLVED, THEY WOULD HAVE VIOLATED
THIS LAW AS THE ACT OF KIDNAPPING IS NOT LOCAL, NOR INTERNATIONAL
ORDER.

CONFIDENTIAL

HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATIONS

THE GENEVA CONVENTION
THE GENEVA CONVENTIONS ARE A GROUP OF TREATIES THAT INSTRUCT THE
TREATMENT OF DIFFERENT TYPES OF PEOPLE WHETHER THEY ARE WAR HEROS
OF JUST CIVILIANS. EVEN THOUGH IT IS AN AGED DECLARATION, IT HAS
SOME RELEVANCE TO MY CASE.
CONVENTION IV:
UNDER THIS CONVENTION, CIVILIANS ARE AFFORDED THE PROTECTIONS FROM
INHUMANE TREATMENT AND ATTACK AFFORDED IN THE FIRST CONVENTION TO
SICK AND WOUNDED SOLDIERS. FURTHERMORE, ADDITIONAL REGULATIONS
REGARDING
THE
TREATMENT
OF
CIVILIANS
WERE
INTRODUCED.
SPECIFICALLY, IT PROHIBITS ATTACKS ON CIVILIAN HOSPITALS, MEDICAL
TRANS IN SPITE OF THIS, THE GOVERNMENT HAVE NOT TAKEN IMMEDIATE
ACTION TS, ETC. IT ALSO SPECIFIES THE RIGHT OF INTERNEES, AND
THOSE WHO COMMIT ACTS OF SABOTAGE. FINALLY, IT DISCUSSES HOW
OCCUPIERS ARE TO TREAT AN OCCUPIED POPULACE.
CONVENTION FOUR OF THE GENEVA CONVENTIONS STATES THAT CIVILIANS
ARE ENTITLED TO PROTECTION FROM INHUMAN TREATMENT. I WOULD ARGUE
THAT THE ACT OF ABDUCTION IS BY FAR AN INHUMANE ACTION AND THAT I
BELIEVE THAT THE CHINESE AUTHORITIES IS VIOLATING THIS CONVENTION
ON THE ACCOUNT OF BOTH ABDUCTING AND DETAINING THE BOOKSELLERS.

CONFIDENTIAL

CLOSING COMMENTS
HOW WELL DO THESE LAWS PROTECT HONG KONG CITIZENS?
IN MY OPINION, ALTHOUGH THE HONG KONG AUTHORITIES HAVE YET TO TAKE
SUBSTANTIAL MEASUREMENTS REGARDING THE CASE, I BELIEVE THAT HONG
KONG DO HAVE A SOLID LEGAL SYSTEM WITH FAIR LAWS THAT ARE
IMPLEMENTED FOR THE SOLE REASON OF ENSURING THEIR CITIZENS NOT
ONLY ARE SAFE, BUT ALSO THAT THEY FEEL SAFE AND NOT MISJUDGED. IT
IS CLEARLY APPARENT THAT CITIZENS OF HONG KONG FEEL SAFE, MUCH
MORE SO THAN IN COMPARISON TO OTHER MAJOR ASIAN CITIES. RESIDENTS
OF HONG KONG FEEL AS IF THEY ARE ABLE TO SPREAD THEIR VIEWS
WITHOUT DISCRIMINATION OR CHANCES OF PROSECUTION. THE CRIME RATE
IN HONG KONG IS ONE OF THE LOWEST IN THE WORLD, REINFORCING THE
FACT THAT IT IS A SAFE CITY AND PROVES THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE
LAWS IN THE REGION.

WHAT COULD HONG KONG DO BETTER?

IN SPITE OF HONG KONG TYPICALLY BEING A SAFE, THE GOVERNMENT HAVE
NOT TAKEN IMMEDIATE ACTION DURING THE BOOKSELLER CASE, AND IT CAN
HAVE DETRIMENTAL EFFECTS ON THE FUTURE OF HONG KONGS SAFETY.
ALTHOUGH HONG KONG MAKE IT CLEAR THAT THEY ENTITLE THEIR CITIZENS
THE FREEDOM OF SPEECH, MORE EFFORT NEEDS TO BE TAKEN TO LISTENING
TO DEMONSTRATORS AND PROTESTORS THAT HAVE A VIEW ON SITUATIONS
MUCH LIKE DURING THE DEMONSTRATION DURING IN JANUARY, IN ATTEMPTS
FOR CITIZENS TO GET THE GOVERNMENT MORE INVOLVED IN THE BOOKSELLER
CASE. IT IS IMPORTANT THAT CITIZENS FEEL THAT THEIR VOICES ARE
HEARD IN ORDER FOR THEM TO FEEL SAFE AND SECURE ABOUT THE CITY AND
ENVIRONMENT THAT THEY RESIDE IN.
HONG KONG NEED TO QUICKLY PICK UP ON POTENTIAL VIOLATIONS OF THEIR
BASIC LAW, AS WELL AS BREACHES OF HUMAN RIGHTS. INVESTIGATIONS
SHOULD BE LAUNCHED UPON BEGINNING SPECULATIONS TO DECREASE TIME
WASTAGE AND TO OBTAIN THE MOST AMOUNT OF INFORMATION POSSIBLE. IF
HONG KONG MANAGED TO RESPOND QUICKER FOR THE BOOKSELLER CASE,
THERE IS A CHANCE THAT THE CASE TODAY MAY HAVE BEEN SOLVED.

WHAT IMPACT WILL CHINAS ACTION HAVE ON THE REST OF

HONG KONG?
CHINAS ACTIONS CAN AND WILL VERY LIKELY HAVE SUBSTANTIALLY
NEGATIVE EFFECTS ON THE CITIZENS OF HONG KONG. WITH THE ABDUCTIONS
AND LACK OF EXPLANATION, HONG KONG CITIZENS WILL SOON BEGIN TO
QUESTION THEIR SAFETY WHILST LIVING IN THE REGION. SHOULD THE CASE
NOT BE SOLVED, OR IF THERE ARE SIMILAR CASES TO COME, PEOPLE OF
HONG KONG MAY SOON SEEK ASSISTANCE FROM OTHER NATIONS. IT IS
IMPORTANT THAT THE GOVERNMENT OF HONG KONG CAN KEEP THEIR CITIZENS

SAFE,BOTH MENTALLY AND PHYSICALLY. SUCH ACTIVITIES MAY DRAW EXPATS

OUT OF THE REGION AND MASSIVELY DECREASE THE POPULATION OF THE
CITY. THIS MAY HAVE AN EFFECT ON THE GROWTH OF THE CITY, WHICH IN
THE LONG RUN MAY ALSO HAVE A MAJORLY NEGATIVE EFFECT ON THE
CITIZENS OF THE CITY.
SHOULD CHINA CONTINUE TO PERFORM SUCH ACTIVES WITHOUT HONG KONG
TAKING MAJOR ACTION, RESIDENTS OF HONG KONG MAY BEGIN TO THINK
THAT THEY HAVE A CORRUPT GOVERNMENT THAT MAY END IN RESENTMENT AND
MAY EFFECT SAFETY, THE POPULATION AND THE ECONOMY.
THERE IS NO BENEFIT TO THE CITY AND ITS CITIZENS IF CHINA ARE
PERFORMING THE SAID ALLEGATIONS.