Case Commentary: Political Forecasting and In-Depth Analysis, Volume 1, Issue 1, February 2026

Hong Kong Has No More Room Tricking National Security Law

Ye Qiquan

First release date:

Thursday, June 18, 2020

Cite this article:(APA)

Ye Qiquan. (2026). Hong Kong Has No More Room Tricking National Security Law. Political Forecasting and In-depth Studies. February 2026. Vol. 1(1), 33-36.

 

Abstract: Seeking greater profits is inherent to business. Yet trading national interests for short-term gains is foolish. Even schemers like Qin Hui inevitably face losses outweighing gains. The national security mechanism is both Hong Kongers’ inherent responsibility and the authority they grant the central government to “manage Hong Kong with hidden hands.” Refusing to cede this authority forces the central government to govern Hong Kong with “open hands.” Once the central government resorts to overt management, it signals the erosion of Hong Kong’s “one country, two systems” space. Moreover, this will directly threaten the continuation of the “one country, two systems” framework beyond 2047.

 

The nearly 16 years of large-scale protests in Hong Kong since 2003 have been united by a central theme: opposition to the implementation of Article 23 legislation.

The breach in mutual trust between China’s central government and Hong Kong’s governing forces has astonishingly become the root cause of over a decade of chaos.

Since launching large-scale demonstrations in 2003 and achieving initial successes, Hong Kong has adopted a political marketing model of exerting pressure to force the central government to pay political dividends. This political blackmail tactic has consistently proven effective. While the slogans of annual protests may vary slightly, their core demand remains unchanged: opposing any central government oversight of Hong Kong. It goes beyond mere opposition to demand the central government relinquish complete administrative authority. This is the essence of Hong Kongers’ loud calls for “dual universal suffrage” and “genuine universal suffrage.”

From my perspective, handing over complete administrative authority to Hong Kongers is not inherently impossible. But do you, Hong Kong, still wish to uphold your role as a “Special Administrative Region”? Do you still wish to uphold your role as “one administrative region under one nation”?

According to the modern understanding of state power structures, national power can be divided into three components: legislative power, judicial power, and executive power. Does Hong Kong already possess complete legislative power? Does Hong Kong already possess complete judicial power? The answer is yes.

Now you Hong Kongers demand “dual universal suffrage” and “genuine universal suffrage,” which amounts to demanding full administrative power. So may I ask: Has Hong Kong already fully acquired all the powers of an independent nation? Are you attempting to wrest all state power from the central government, thereby achieving de facto “Hong Kong independence”?

At present, the central government retains only the last vestige of power: the authority to appoint the Chief Executive of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region. Originally, the central government hoped to enact Article 23 legislation as a “covert means of managing Hong Kong.” Unfortunately, this path has been blocked by Hong Kongers’ resistance over the past 16 years. You Hong Kongers refuse to allow the central government to manage you through “covert means,” yet the central government cannot simply ignore you. Therefore, the central government must resort to “overt means” to manage you. Once the central government activates these “overt means,” the space for Hong Kong’s “one country, two systems” arrangement will inevitably shrink. Once the central government possesses effective means to manage Hong Kong, will it ever fully relinquish that authority back to you? Does the “one country, two systems” arrangement stand any chance of continuing beyond 2047? My prediction is that Hong Kong has virtually no possibility of maintaining “one country, two systems” or substantive autonomy after 2047.

I truly cannot fathom the political intelligence of Hong Kongers. You supported British taxation, yet never once expressed gratitude when the central government exempted you from taxes.

When the British sent governors to rule you with triad-like methods, you never protested. Before the handover, when the British stole “the power to govern Hong Kong” from the central government and handed it to you, you immediately started bowing to the British as your fathers. Yet when the central government actually transferred Hong Kong’s governance to you, you never once expressed gratitude.

In 1999, when the central government urged you to curb excessive expansion of the right of abode, you marched “against the NPC’s interpretation of the right of abode.” A few years later, you marched again, complaining that children born to mainland mothers in Hong Kong were taking away Hong Kong people’s welfare. It seems the central government can’t do right by you no matter what. When problems arise, you blame the central government and demand it clean up your mess. You blame the central government whether it leans left or right. So the central government is like that parent caught in the crossfire, huh?

When the British ruled you like your great-grandfathers, you never uttered a word of complaint. When George Soros attacked Hong Kong in 1998, the central government had to come to your rescue. Did you ever say thank you?

After the Asian Financial Crisis, when Hong Kong’s economy was in decline, you demanded the central government open up mainland free travel to Hong Kong to boost the economy. Then you turned around and complained, “Too many mainlanders are coming to Hong Kong.” Turns out you’re just spoiled brats the central government coddles!

Shanghai contributes over 600 billion yuan annually to the central treasury, while you Hong Kongers earn your own money and spend it freely, yet whine about this and that every day. Before the handover, it was stipulated that you would enact your own legislation to handle matters related to national security. Over 20 years later, you’ve dragged your feet on this, and now you even want to wrest “full administrative power” from the central government. When the British ruled you like dogs, you accepted it with smiles. Now that the central government has handed over nearly all management authority to you, you still find fault with everything. How do you expect the central government to evaluate you?

You claim Hong Kong’s economy has declined since the handover. How can you blame the central government for that? Isn’t Hong Kong under your own governance? Since 1997, Hong Kong has consistently ranked first globally in capital freedom every single year. How dare you blame the central government for the economic downturn? Review history since 1840: Hong Kong has scarcely ever outpaced Shanghai economically. Any brief lead stemmed solely from its role as a “bridge between China and Europe” during a unique historical period. In the long term, Hong Kong’s diminishing political and economic significance is an inevitable historical trend. Can this cyclical shift also be blamed on the central government?

Hong Kong not only possesses full legislative authority, but its judicial system is essentially managed and controlled by judges appointed by the British government. Search the entire world—can you find a second country or region with a similar situation outside of Hong Kong?

The United States is a country where state governments hold supreme executive authority. Even so, it maintains only one vertical judicial enforcement system. Should conflicts arise between state and federal judicial enforcement powers, state governments hold absolutely no precedence. Quebec, Canada’s most rebellious province, has never been granted independent supreme judicial authority by the federal government. The Hong Kong Special Administrative Region not only possesses full judicial power but also holds ultimate judicial authority and adjudicative power. Have Hong Kongers ever expressed gratitude to the central government for this?

Just as Hong Kongers can cite examples of mainland children urinating on the street to target mainlanders, they can similarly fabricate numerous reasons to oppose Article 23 legislation. Yet they consistently overlook the most fundamental legal foundation: “Hong Kong is a provincial-level administrative region under the governance of the Chinese government.” Europeans sought to establish Kosovo as a semi-autonomous region, requiring the deployment of armed forces from over ten nations and waging war for more than five years to achieve it. Yet you Hong Kongers attempt to transform Hong Kong into a “fully independent region” through large-scale protests? That is nothing short of a pipe dream!

In the over two decades since the handover, Hong Kong has never invested resources in researching cross-border integration. Opposing the new curriculum openly declares unwillingness to be Chinese. Persistently staging large-scale protests panders to British political blackmail against China’s central government. This cannot be defined by mere greed. Are Hong Kongers unafraid of being branded traitors in history?

Today differs significantly from 2003. The current government is Xi Jinping’s administration, not the Hu-Wen government of 2003. This administration has made clear its distinct governance approach toward Hong Kong. Regarding national security mechanisms, Hong Kongers have little room left for maneuvering. If they fail to swiftly adjust their strategy, the likelihood of facing consequences is extremely high. Yet large-scale protests have become second nature to Hong Kongers; under immense political inertia, braking or changing course is exceptionally difficult. The central government’s disciplinary measures are already prepared. Hong Kongers appear destined to take a beating—there seems no escape.

The same holds true for the British. The day of reckoning for the British is also drawing near. I have been warning the British since 2003. Unfortunately, they have consistently overestimated their political acumen. If my predictions ultimately come to pass, ha ha, it will prove that my political foresight far surpasses that of the diplomatic, intelligence, and policy-making institutions of both Britain and the United States.

 

 

---

advertise:  Currently, the ruling forces (Xi Jinping’s group ) , China’s backers in politics, and the Chinese military are all simultaneously mired in difficulties. None have been completely reborn, nor have any been completely destroyed. They could either suddenly be completely reborn or suddenly perish completely. At present, they all need to find a way out of their predicament .

The Dilemmas and Potential Solutions Facing the “Chinese Way of Tradition” (Xi Jinping Group) in 2026-2027 Offer of $ 1 million We provide corresponding written solutions and can also offer an additional interview opportunity. (The weakening of the deep-seated forces after the Fourth Plenary Session should not be seen as a victory for Xi Jinping’s side. Nor should the isolation of Zhang Youxia be considered a major victory. Unless Xi Jinping’s group is fully revived by February 2027, they can only “slowly but surely proceed towards complete defeat according to the established procedures.” )

Potential escape plans for current leaders within China’s deep political forces Offer: $500,000 We will provide a written proposal and offer an additional interview opportunity. (Don’t fantasize that the leaders of deep-seated political forces have definitely won just because we’ve dragged things out until February 2027. Someone will have to step up and take responsibility for the political turmoil of 2025. Historical reckoning can be delayed for many years, or it can happen quickly. The leaders of deep-seated political forces may win, may exit with a draw, or more likely, they will step up and take responsibility. The future is uncertain.)

The current predicament of China’s military leaders and potential solutions. Offer: $5 million Provide a written proposal; additional interview opportunities may be offered. (The military is both the strongest and the most vulnerable force. Chinese politics has never endowed the military with the armor of “moral authority.” Even if it smoothly passes February 2027, the slow demise of Xi Jinping’s side does not equate to a certain victory for the military leaders. Your current enemies may retaliate, your current allies may abandon you, and third-party unrelated parties will certainly not come to your rescue. Someone must be held accountable for the chaos of 2025. Generally speaking, military leaders are the most suitable candidates to take responsibility.)

The Last Chance to Build a Kingdom (Political Fantasy and Hypothetical Planning) Base offer: US$10 million Statement: This does not constitute political advice or investment opportunity. It is provided as background information for interested individuals, families, groups, nations, or alliances to make decisions. Please exercise caution when making payments. Before making payments, thoroughly investigate the other party’s political background and analytical capabilities. It is recommended to communicate and exchange ideas with the author repeatedly beforehand and to make a full assessment of the actual value of the subject matter. Content: No content was disclosed. Potential value hints: It possesses significant geopolitical value, thereby ensuring its investment value. Buyer qualifications: The leader or successor needs to have a certain level of political ability. You may need to fill out a series of assessment forms. It has the capacity to sustain initial investments (approximately $500 million) for three consecutive years. Furthermore, it has the ability to mobilize $12 billion at any time. Buyer qualification recommendations: 1. Individual or Family: The buyer or their family must have at least four direct male relatives or descendants. These male relatives or descendants must not only possess certain political and practical abilities, but also be trustworthy to the buyer. 2. Target countries: Japan, Russia, Israel, or China are recommended as potential buyers. Other countries are not advised to participate in this matter.

Advertising (Political Fantasy and Hypothetical Planning)

Geopolitical and historical challenges to Israel’s national and ethnic strategy Base offer: US$10 million Abstract: Since its establishment, Israel has consistently achieved military victories and become a de facto regional power. These victories have created the illusion, among Israelites and others, that Israel’s success depends on its overall competitive advantage. The continued existence of the Israeli state relies on four fundamental pillars: geopolitical needs; geopolitical values; national competitive advantages; and philosophical values. With the advent of the new imperial order, all four factors have faced severe challenges. Payment Risk: Purchasing involves significant risks. Please carefully weigh the potential risks against the value. Attachment: An interview opportunity may be provided free of charge.

The most dangerous scenario for China to force the US to compromise Base offer: US$10 million Synopsis: Lack Target customers: national entities and national alliances. Risk Warning: The contents of the project proposal have not been, and will not be, disclosed in advance. Potential buyers are advised to carefully assess the transaction risks. In addition to the written proposal, we will provide a one-month opportunity for joint communication.

What kind of policy should major powers have towards Iran? Offer: $10 million Content disclosure: It’s difficult to say that major powers, including the United States, China, Russia, and Europe, have had successful policies toward Iran. The United States and Europe pursue a policy of containing Iran. Even with a series of tactical successes, their decades-long efforts can be summarized as “failure and frustration.” The repeated military strikes by the US-led coalition against Iran have not significantly weakened Iran’s overall national competitiveness and overall war-fighting capabilities. Russia’s and China’s policies toward Iran cannot be considered successful either. Neither country has gained significant economic or political benefits from their strategies toward Iran. Israel’s policy toward Iran can be summarized as a failure. Israel’s series of tactical successes cannot mask its strategic losses. Target customers: National entities, military alliances, and long-term investment capital that are deeply concerned with shifts in geopolitical power. risk: Before making any payments, please fully understand the seller’s political analysis capabilities, the potential returns of the investment, and the risks involved.

How can Japan shed its historical baggage and become a normal country and a regional leader ? Base price: $50 million Content: Japan’s long-standing mission is to reconnect with Asia. However, Japan’s historical baggage not only hinders this process but also prevents it from developing into a nation with equal standing in the region. Without revolutionary or groundbreaking ideas, Japan’s path to development will be extremely difficult. Risk Warning: Returns cannot be guaranteed. Please communicate thoroughly with the seller before making payment and carefully assess potential returns and investment risks.

China’s extreme governance plan for Taiwan after reunification Base price: $1 million (sales will only begin after at least ten orders are received) or an exclusive purchase for $100 million. Content: China’s reunification is projected to be completed within the next decade. The Chinese central government faces pressure to ensure political stability in Taiwan, yet fears the historical responsibility it would have to bear. This is not only a significant contradiction but also a psychological obstacle to achieving reunification. The Chinese central government urgently needs to take action to find a solution that can simultaneously achieve both goals. Meanwhile, global long-term investors, political investors, large Taiwanese conglomerates, and mainland Chinese monopoly capital can reap substantial profits by understanding China’s fundamental policies and adjusting their investment strategies accordingly. Disclaimer: This article does not constitute investment advice.

European Policy in China’s Unification Process Offer: $5 million Synopsis 1. How to fundamentally prevent Europe from joining the East Asian war as a whole, thereby eliminating the possibility of Europe becoming a production base for the United States’ war of attrition. 2. How to effectively compel the United States to accept a next-generation imperial order based on the “US-China axis” blueprint.

Predictions: Hong Kong ‘s political system, administrative divisions, and corresponding investment opportunities after 2047 . Price: $1 million This information can be used as background data by large corporations, long-term investors, and political forecasting and policy-making bodies when formulating long-term policies. (Not intended as investment advice.) Prediction: Hong Kong’s political system and administrative divisions after 2047 Price: $100 Provides general political predictions. Suitable as background information for personal interest, academic research, or background studies.