[av_engr]

From my understanding, they were filibustering because a pro-china legislator was the former chairwomen of the internal committee (a group that review policies before submitted to vote in general legislature), and for her to be re-elected, she must resign first. Then pro-china party realized their fuck up and caused a whole drama.

According to the rulebook, the vice chairman (pan-democratic) is supposed to hold the meeting till new chair is elected. The democratic legislators saw this as a chance to filibuster because pro-china legislator had an agenda to push for establishing the National Anthem Act. In this case, the filibuster forces the pro-china party into a losing situation.

The resolution was that the pro-china legislators seek "legal advice" from some government legal counselor and directly broke the filibuster by having the general legislature chairman (pro-china) appoint a new "chairman"(who happens to be pro-china) to hold the new election. Of course, this is highly illegal, but it went through anyways. Ultimately, it led to democratic legislator surrounding chairman podium and protesting the illegal filibuster breaking, which resulted in being forcefully removed from the legislature hall.

[pkbtran]

Yes. This is my understanding too. What's funny is the government's legal opinion is from a UK lawyer about a Chinese interpretation of a HK LegCo rule. What's even crazier: the LegCo "security team" only attack/restrain the Pro-Democracy legislators. There's no hiding their "affiliation".

[woutr_be]

From what I saw on the videos, they only restrained (they didn’t attack anyone) legislators who physically tried to block the meeting from taking place. In this case it only being pan-democrat.

Feel free to look at the videos yourself and make up your own mind of course.

[ngcc_hk]

There is video of attacking legislator by others. In any case the no of legislator should be have been dq by various unlawful mean (one seat finally said it is unfair after nearly 2 years)

The problem is exactly what cause the whole uproar as except for this f procedure nothing can now stop to enact whatever the law they want.

It is either f or ... then mainland start impatient and ignore the whole legislature and just enact their own law.

That is really the end of HONG Kong as far as HONgkonger or foreigner concern.

The security law is not your run of the mill law. It is going to be arbitrary arrest etc.

The HKER will fight but given there is no nominal protection even, there would not be financial centre any more.

[woutr_be]

I’m unsure about the first past, as far as I understood it, they wanted to prevent the election of a new chairman until the next elections. Mostly because in the current legislature the pan-democrats don’t hold a majority, which is expected to change in September. So they wanted to prevent new laws (like the national anthem law) to be pushed through

The last part is difficult, both sides sought legal advice, both were contradicting each other. Eventually the pro-China side pushed through with their advice, which resulted in clashes and eventually the eviction of pan-democracts.

All in all; it’s an absolute mess, and not expected to get any better. China is already circumventing the HK government by pushing for a national security law. (Which was supposed to be implemented over the past 23 years)

[ksec]

>The last part is difficult, both sides sought legal advice, both were contradicting each other. Eventually the pro-China side pushed through with their advice, which resulted in clashes and eventually the eviction of pan-democracts.

Actually the legal advice from Government ( Which in the past 10-15 years has always been Pro-China ) on the issue was that the Pro-Democrats were right as it was listed very clearly by the rules. That there was no way "reinterpret" it. It was a surprise to the Pro-China party so they sort to external legal advice and suggest or basically completely changed the rule.

Is was at that moment, Hong Kong is officially Rule by Law and not Rule of Law.

And yes that is why the later part was an absolute mess. People were planning to protest about it anyway, but before anything was planned the new security law happened.

[woutr_be]

I’m aware that the government’s own legal team cited against that move, so they sought external legal advice and pushed through. It’s all very strange, and I’m surprised the courts haven’t been involved yet.

It’s looking like a couple of rough months ahead, the new security law will take into effect, most likely the national anthem law will go through as well.

At best the elections in September give a majority to the pan-dems.

[av_engr]

Anyways, totally agree on your last part of the comment. China is for sure showing no patient and will value its political stability over any economic benefit reaped from HK.

In fact, while listening to the press conference of the pro-china party right now on National security law, they just said it: "compared to safety of the 1.4 billion Chinese citizens, stock market drop is insignificant". To me it sounds like that China has dropped the axes, HKers better be quiet.

[woutr_be]

I'm trying to remain subjective, especially when giving information to other people, but this is just my understanding of what happened. It's really hard to find unbiased information, especially when reading local news.