Unfortunately, the ostrich refuses to stick its head out, insisting on denying the “immigration wave”. Instead, “immigration”, “exit”, and “travel” are just a matter of not having a “malicious exit” project. The Chinese understand that this is the same purpose as “static control in the original area” and “situ closure and control”, which is to avoid the word “closed city”, which is to refuse to face reality.
Looking at the reactions of different officials to the immigration wave is also an eye opener. It is more impressive than the Hong Kong sister wearing a swimsuit. At least Yu Li Qingping need not be so angry.
For example, the priority of many immigrants is their children’s education, which means that they have lost confidence in Hong Kong’s highly politicized educational environment and do not want to become another “wolf warrior” and “little pink”. However, in an interview with the media, Education Secretary Cai Ruolian believed that family immigration does not mean that he does not trust Hong Kong education, and the relaxation of immigration thresholds by foreign countries has also become a motivation.
This is crap. If they trust the Hong Kong education system, how could Hong Kong parents “die” just because “foreign countries eased the immigration thresholds”?
Don’t forget that the previous Secretary of Education, Yang Runxiong, said that he “didn’t want to understand in detail, what Hong Kong (education system) should do to help their (children) organize”, so he used “simple” and “lazy” methods to organize Children going to international schools and studying abroad.
In a word – in the past, parents were afraid that their children would become “mad ducks”, but today they are afraid of becoming “wolf warriors”, so they have to leave.
Liu Zhaojia, vice chairman of the National Association for Hong Kong and Macao Studies, is more open, stating that it is not a bad thing for some people to leave Hong Kong because of political issues, and asked whether the central government needs absorb these Hong Kong people who do not agree with the central government.
On the surface, Liu is telling the truth, let the “race that is not me”; but if you think about it, this is not right. A city does not have to accommodate different voices, is this the integration of diversity? Besides, isn’t Hong Kong in 1997 also blooming with a hundred flowers? Why didn’t people leave Hong Kong because of “different political views” in the past, but Hong Kong today cannot tolerate dissent? “Leaving because of different political views” can only show that the city of Hong Kong today cannot tolerate dissenting voices. This is “sufficient reason” for immigration.
As for Huang Liuquan, deputy director of the Hong Kong and Macau Affairs Office, “Some people say that after the implementation of the National Security Law in Hong Kong, it will become more and more mainland-oriented or focused on the mainland. These words are scary and politically biased.” Bad phenomenon? Then why does the government sing about the Greater Bay Area every day, and ask us to rely on the motherland?
The author is a current affairs commentator
(If the current affairs articles published on this website are criticised, the purpose is to draw attention to errors or shortcomings in the relevant systems, policies or measures, and the purpose is to promote the work of correcting or removing the errors or defects of this, and remedying them through legal channels, hatred, anger or hostility from other communities)
/cloudfront-ap-northeast-1.images.arcpublishing.com/chosun/OQ6XMVBKC2UJMHBM6TNV7QJG2E.jpg?fit=300%2C300&ssl=1)
