Unfortunately, the ostrich just refuses to stick its head out, insisting on denying the “immigration wave”. Instead, “immigration”, “departure”, and “travel” are just a matter of not getting a “malicious departure” project. The Chinese understand that this is the same purpose as “static management in the original area” and “situ closure and control”, which is to avoid the word “closed city” and refuse to face the reality.
Looking at the responses of different officials to the immigration wave is also eye-opening. It is more impressive than the Hong Kong sister wearing a swimsuit. At least Yu Li Qingping doesn’t need to be so angry.
For example, the priority of many immigrants is the education of their children, which means 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 she does not trust Hong Kong education, and that the relaxation of immigration thresholds by foreign countries has also become an incentive.
This is crap. If they trust Hong Kong’s education system, how could Hong Kong parents “pass away” just because “foreign countries have eased immigration thresholds”?
Don’t forget that the previous Secretary of Education, Yang Runxiong, said that he “doesn’t want to understand in depth, what Hong Kong (education system) should do to help their (children) arrange”, so he used “simple” and “lazy” methods to arrange Children go to international schools and study abroad.
In a word – in the past, parents were afraid that their children would become “crazy ducks”, but today they are afraid of becoming “wolf warriors”, so they have to leave.
Liu Zhaojia, vice-chairman of the National Association for the Study of Hong Kong and Macau, is more frank, noting that it is not a bad thing for some people to leave Hong Kong due to political issues, and asked whether the central government needs to absorb these Hong Kong people who do not agree with the central government.
On the surface, Liu is telling the truth, please leave the “non-race”; 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 opinions” in the past, but today’s Hong Kong 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 a “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 mainland-oriented. These words are alarmist 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 criticized, the purpose is to point out the errors or shortcomings of the relevant systems, policies or measures, the purpose is to urge the correction or elimination of these errors or shortcomings, and to improve them through legal channels, and there is no intention to incite others to criticize the government or the government. hatred, resentment or hostility from other communities)