Author: Zhang Shizhi
Before the comments on the topic, the author first stated that the author's performance of the chief executive and major officials in the recent severe turmoil of the severe turmoil has the following unsatisfactory views.
The special first of the repair event is not available to responsibility
First, the consultation period of the draft initially launched was short, blind and confident, and seriously.
The second is to cause dissatisfaction and retreat, and each concession is the reason why greater complaints.At the end of March, after being fiercely opposed by the business community, the government eliminated the amendment of the fugitive regulations to revised nine commercial and personal crimes, including bankruptcy, futures securities, protection of intellectual property rights, environmental pollution and public health, illegal use of computers, taxes and other crimes, andThe threshold for fugitive transfer from more than one year to more than one year to more than three years. The revision is concession to the business community, causing unfair dislikes.At the end of May, the threshold for more than three years was raised to seven years, causing Hong Kong to become a paradise for the paradise that can be sentenced to less than seven years.Later, there were so -called eight non -transfer, that is, the non -transfer of the principles of double crimes; non -transfer of political crimes; non -transfer of the criminals of the death sentences; non -transfer of behaviors involving news, speaking, academics, and publishing.Almost revised the fugitive regulations into a guarantee regulations for various exemptions and widths.This process not only does not receive goods, but gradually increases questioning of government amendments.
Third, before the outbreak of riots, the chief executives and relevant government officials did not have any detailed and questionable interpretation of the public on the public. Basically, they were talking about themselves.The suspect of the case can be transferred to Taiwan to be tried in order to highlight the righteousness, and the good human nature can resist political questioning.
The fourth is the lack of sufficient judgment and effective response to foreign institutions and even the rise of foreign governments.
Due to the performance of the Chief Executive and the government in the process of repair, the repair of the practice has not changed from unreasonable to everyone's shouts, fermenting the incident step by step, and has an unshirkable responsibility.
But the incident has evolved so far, it has indeed deteriorated.After the Chief Executive announced the death, the violent resistance was still withdrawn. With the withdrawal of the two words as the primary appeal that must be met, it was not as simple as the specific appeal.The persistence of the demonstrators has two similar: one who looks like a child who is used to raising, requires parents to meet all requirements, otherwise they will be crying and unreasonable; the other is not obedient, Lao Tzu will interrupt your legs!Parent -type tyrannical.
The Chief Executive announced that the practice was dead and it was a complete concession.If you do n’t use the word to make an article on the word, even after the chief executive guarantees that the life of life is still more culprit than the retracement, it is still not indifferent. If the chief executive must fully follow the requirements of the opponent.Pressing trouble, this is the aspirations that are not in the anti -repair example itself, but to use the incident to thoroughly fight the wisdom and the government's will.
The withdrawal means denying the proper nature
As far as objective results are concerned, the government's response has fully complied with the requirements of the opponent in terms of the demand for the termination of the repair.It is not necessary to withdraw the word of the past and the end of the time without withdrawing the two words. It is to face objective#8203;#8203; the situation responds to public opinion, but announced that the withdrawal of the withdrawal includes the meaning of active.The latter means that specially denys the legitimacy of the original intention of the original intention, that is, acknowledging that the matter itself is wrong.From this point of view, the chief executive's disobedience and persistence reflected her undertaking: due to the lack of the work of the government and the chief executive, and because of the failed to repair the public opinion, the public opinion was respected and the repair was dead.Start again, but it does not deny the good subjective desire to initiate the initial amendment.
Even though the Chief Executive's original intention was correct, he still had to obey public opinion, which was showing the victory of public opinion and government concessions.If there is no need to withdraw the word, the opponent will never make a troops, so the purpose of not stopping now is to take the subject subjectively and deprive her the original intention of the right to propose a repair?She did not repeat the withdrawal literally, what kind of barriers of democracy and free society claimed by the opponents?
