有可能違反港區國安法、籌備單位被警方上門調查，在恐慌與打壓之下，香港民主派初選首日，投票人數已破紀錄，至今錄得逾41.2萬人投票。「投誰都不重要，唯一重要的是展現民意。」
投票选举真的是非常民主的制度，它的过程体现了每一个人民自己的想法；至于选举结果，固然重要，但投票的民众更在乎自己是否拥有并行使了应有的权利。从这个角度来理解不接受投票制度的政府就很容易了：他们更在乎选举结果，而不是过程，所以投票选举对他们来说没有任何好处。
鄧女士說，從前不說粗口，但經歷過去一年，她看到特首林鄭月娥已會情不自禁地「爆粗」，與身邊朋友也理解年輕人的激進行為。是次初選，突顯民主派內部分歧：傳統政黨與素人、泛民與本土，鄧女士希望兩派可互相包容及尊重，「有著同一目標，只是所用的方法不同，大家都是同路人。」她認為，在立法會中，需要有經驗者去帶領年輕人，亦要有新面孔接替舊人，故在超區及地區直選，分為支持傳統泛民及本土派的候選人。
最常见谴责香港“暴乱”的观点之一，就是这些都是香港“废青”造成的。这一波人因为上学就业压力对社会不满，转而借反修例泄愤。甚至年龄稍大的香港人不仅不参与，反而都很反感他们的作为。那么真正的情况到底如何？也许只有通过真正能体现民意的投票选举才能知道。
A less common way to do it is the SPAC, the special purpose acquisition company (or “blank-check company”). 1 The SPAC is an empty shell that raises a bunch of money publicly (in an IPO) and then tries to find a target company to merge with; the merger makes the target company public. The simple way to think of this is that the SPAC will agree to buy a private company’s entire IPO at a fixed price: Instead of launching a deal and marketing it to investors and seeing what price it can get, you just negotiate the price with the SPAC and announce it with a fixed price and size. The SPAC gives the cash to the company, the company gives shares back to the SPAC, the SPAC gives those shares to its investors, and now those investors are the owners of shares in a newly public company.
I will freely admit, as I have all along, that I come at these issues as a Westerner, as an American, and as a believer in liberalism. This is not about being anti-China; rather, it is about respecting China, and recognizing the Chinese Communist Party for the ideological foe that it is, which Garnaut’s essay details.
It is shaping up to be a summer of US sanctions and visa restrictions against the PRC.
Although they might serve re-election campaign more than actually punishing anyone.
Chris Buckley is one of the best foreign reporters on China of his generation. He was effectively expelled from the PRC earlier this year, and now his application for a visa to report from Hong Kong has been rejected.
The biggest victim of Chinese gov expelling US reporters out of China and HK is the journalism in China and the global audience. Not only it eliminates any possibility for Chinese journalists to learn from US counterparts, but also scare the hell out of them for even trying to do independent journalism. On the other hand, losing the independent (of China) journalism from US means global audience has one less option to understand China.
I think a blanket US visa ban on CCP members is misguided, incendiary, self-defeating and counterproductive, but I have little patience for the argument that being a Party member is meaningless and most are always harmless non-believers. That is not how Xi’s CCP works.
Again this is nothing more than a trick for re-election campaign.
On the other hand, 2 things come up in my mind. One is how ironic that CCP fuels the anti-US nationalism among Chinese citizens while its elite members all send kids and assets to US; the other is how effective a CCP visa ban would have been if white house is really determined to make a dent: they can simply just target with elite group, instead of all members.