Open letter to the UK GOV about the BN(O) issue

posted 22 Jul 2020, 12:11 by Hong Kong Independence Party

Dear Mr Johnson, Ms Patel, Mr Raab, and all,

Suggestions on the 5+1 Route to Citizenship for BNOs

We recognize the need to relocate our fellow countrymen to avoid genocide as a short-term measure, and write to propose the following arrangement for the 5+1 route to citizenship:

- Protect UK’s sovereignty from manipulation by Chinese Spies
- Buy time for UK to make a “right” turn
- Save Hong Kong people

1. Applicants of the Visa must feel significantly endangered in China and Chinese Hong Kong. Any travels to Chinese territories during the course of 5+1 years will result in voluntarily giving up their Visa. Re-entering the UK will only be visit purpose, unless they re-apply for a new Visa.

2. Upon becoming British Citizens, the applicants are allowed to enter China and Hong Kong (same arrangement as all other British Citizens). This is one of the core differences between the 5+1 route and Political Asylum.

3. Similar to previously proposed by the UK Government, no governmental financial assistance will be received by the 5+1 applicants. The granting of Visa is also subject to UK’s standard background check. The arrangement will be extended to family members of BNO holders who are born after 1997.

Problem with 5+1 proposal
- It does not rebuild a safe business environment for your businesses
- It is not what Hong Kong protestors want in the first place
- The world knows that this proposal is for UK to avoid treaty responsibility
- This initiative suggests UK will not pursue countries that breach treaties

As part of the protest in Hong Kong and the ONLY group petitioning through camping at the British Embassy in Hong Kong, we, the Hong Kong Independence Party, have made it clear that we are not beggars of UK citizenship, and demand the termination of the Sino-British Joint Declaration.

Benefit Termination of JD
- Perform UK’s treaty responsibility and pursue China for compensation through sovereignty
- Upheld international security by attacking Chinazi’s core economic source
- Rebuild safe business environment between the West and East

Similar to Huawei, be that a S turn, a V turn or no turn. Do the right thing, and the right thing from the beginning is the termination of the treaty according to Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties."

HKIP Speaker's opinion

posted 6 Oct 2019, 08:25 by Hong Kong Independence Party   [ updated 7 Oct 2019, 01:41]

What are we left?
At this moment, the rest of us in Hong Kong have only one conviction, and we hope that tomorrow will be even better.
In the past few months, it seems that everything has come too suddenly. The people can no longer believe in the government. The government is brave about holding the resources from the people to oppress the people.
History means that human beings should learn from their mistakes and that human beings should continue to make progress. But some people want to challenge history and want to prove that they are different.
There is no perfect system in the world, just like no perfect person, but the system is much more important than the elite. Therefore, we believe in the rule of law, not the rule of man. We do not want to rule the country but the constitution of the monarchy. Politics is not dirty, dirty is the greed of mankind. Politics only refers to the solution to the problem, a set of tools, and neutral. Those in power can't let go of their selfishness and forget the most basic principle of compromise in politics. They will push the people to the streets step by step. 
Hong Kong is not a democratic system. The only Hong Kong future agreement that can protect the people of Hong Kong is the Sino-British Joint Declaration. A valid legal statement signed by two countries. But the reality is it is failed and certified. The Hong Kong people who enjoyed democracy and freedom in Hong Kong did not fight for democracy and freedom for this generation. They chose to leave quietly. This generation of Hong Kong people living under totalitarianism chose to fight for Hong Kong to defend the free air. Hong Kong people, the United Kingdom cannot regard itself as an outsider, all things have a cause and effect. The United Kingdom is responsible for China’s untrustworthiness and is responsible for the future of selling Hong Kong.
Hong Kong people, can you bravely say no to the dictatorship, why not try to appeal to the sovereign state that once brought to Hong Kong?

Opinion of HKIP members

posted 21 Jun 2019, 08:33 by Hong Kong Independence Party   [ updated 21 Jun 2019, 13:11]

Opinion from one of the HKIP trustee

posted 19 Jun 2019, 06:03 by Hong Kong Independence Party

Intriguing Liar Martin Lee and His Historic Embarrassment

posted 16 May 2019, 11:06 by Hong Kong Independence Party

As the relationship between Hong Kong and China become increasingly complicated and fraught with antagonism, and when the locals in Hong Kong have developed strong skeptical attitude to the conventional pan-democrats and activism since the failure of 2014 Umbrella Revolution, Hong Kong sees the rise of the historical atmosphere --- the historical retrospect and studies on Hong Kong politics since the 1982 Anglo -Sino negotiation. In response to this atmosphere, the organizations both with and without political affiliation, and the Facebook pages as to reviewing the old newspaper and archives emerge, such as Recall Hong Kong (世代懺悔錄:香港前途考古札記), and Decoding Hong Kong's History (香港前途研究計劃). There is an excerpt from the introduction of Recall Hong Kong: “I grew up experiencing the negotiations on Hong Kong future, the transfer of sovereignty, and over the past decades witnessed the CCP reneging on its promise. Not only did the entire generation not fight to resist, but also lost its memory and had been repeatedly deceived. Given the collapse of the homeland, I can do nothing but still want to rearrange the collective memory and deepen my self-observation.” 


The main skeptical view among the anti-Beijing new generation is that the pan-democrats had been ridiculously hooraying the “democratic reunification”, pinned their hope on “one country two systems”, and paid their trust to the CCP. Under the growing pressure of the accusation of “Communist espionage”, the leader of pan-democrats Martin Lee replied: “It has been three decades since June Forth Incident. I did not expect the CCP would take the way backward and become more and more tyrannical. But the problem is we simply had no choice. The then British Hong Kong government already officially determined that it would not let Hong Kong to be an independent country. Pan-democrats only have one option ‘One country two systems’. Under this circumstance, what we could do was to hope for the real democratic election in Hong Kong. I trusted in the CCP. I believed China will keep adherent to its own promise stated in the international treaty --- Sino-British Joint Declaration. Chine now go against the basic law, ‘one country two systems’ and continuously intervene Hong Kong autonomous affairs, which is leading to ‘one country one system’. Unfortunately, I did not see this coming.” It is felt that Martin’s reply is emetic and hypercritical. Recall Hong Kong immediately responded by reminding of the episode of Hong Kong Connection on 13th July 1989: Martin Lee was deeply convinced Hong Kong good future was in the hand of Deng Xiaoping. Hong Kong people held a very high expectation of Deng. In 1984, the 35th anniversary of the PRC nation-building, Deng’s popularity was sky-high. There was a lady interviewee said: “I wish Deng would live to over a hundred years, stay alive after 1997…we hope Deng must not have any trouble.”


Martin Lee certainly takes through his hat by shunting the full responsibility onto Britain and asserted the UK is fully blameworthy as if he was totally innocent. But history tells the fact which presented the other way around.


In accordance with the confidential record to the minute of Cabinet on 10th March 1983, Margret Thatcher referred to the fact that the vast majority of people in the colony wanted Britain to retain the ruling of Hong Kong whilst “the Chinese leaders in Hong Kong did not tell the truth to China”. Until Sep 1982, Margret Thatcher had always been insistent on British continuous ruling over Hong Kong: “the Chinese were seeking to make cession of sovereignty over Hong Kong by the British Government a precondition for starting the talks; and there was evidence to suggest that the Chinese Government was intending to use the occasion of a meeting of the Chinese Peoples Congress in June 1983 to announce that its intentions for Hong Kong were to assume full sovereignty over the whole colony, which would thereafter be administered as a special autonomous region of China. This would be disastrous for confidence in Hong Kong. Unless satisfactory arrangements could be negotiated with China for maintaining British administration along with the present legal and economic system in Hong Kong, the economy of the colony would collapse.”


It is vitally important and interesting to note that as early as before Margret Thatcher’s confession of her determination to stay in Hong Kong in the Cabinet, Meeting Point, the leading “democratic party” in Hong Kong stirring the people to the “democratic unification movement”, was formed in 1983. It was the most popular political party advocating the irredentism in Hong Kong. Its victory in alliance with the United Democrats in the 1991 LegCo election was a manifest evidence.


Leo Francis Goodstadt, an economist based in Hong Kong emphasized China officiously enlisted the local parties and elites’ support. In return, they would also be endorsed by China. “In the months before the Joint Declaration, China's leaders made a sustained effort to cultivate community support for their position although Hong Kong was denied any formal role in the negotiations. ‘Pro-democracy’ activists (notably Meeting Point) were endorsed after rallying early in support of Hong Kong's return to China…whose leaders came to enjoy the closest access to the Chinese leadership.” Subsequently, Martin Lee and Szeto Wah, who were the party leader of United Democrats and the icons of Hong Kong democracy irredentism movement, also joined the Hong Kong Basic Law Drafting Committee.


Compared with Gibraltar’s experience, it is nonsense to say Hong Kong had no choice simply because Britain made the final decision. While British government officially excluded Gibraltar from the British-Spanish negotiation, the local government held an unlawful referendum to deny the legitimacy of the negotiation without consulting the locals. The overwhelming majority of Gibraltarians voted against the negotiation and decided to stay British. The then British Prime minister denounced the referendum as “eccentric” and would not recognize it. Spain also said the referendum was unlawful. However, it turned out that the referendum result was respected. Britain was at an embarrassing place to be a colonizer. It is necessary for the locals to voice out and convey the clear message and willing to the global society what they really want. Under the trend of decolonization, Britain could not proactively do anything.


In 1983 Hong Kong, the then Governor Edward Youde, in quite the same way the British leaders dealing with Gibraltar, opposed the idea of holding a referendum.

Sir Sze-yuen Chung proposed that a referendum should be held. He even claimed that he would organize a referendum himself if Britain did not take action, but little attention and support from the local elites and community were paid to his appeal. Therefore, it is arbitrary to assert that Hong Kong had no choice but the option of handover.


出賣民族的奶支垃圾-HKIP Trustee's opinion

posted 27 Jan 2018, 10:37 by Hong Kong Independence Party   [ updated 27 Jan 2018, 10:44]

HKIP trustee:


posted 23 Nov 2017, 08:14 by Hong Kong Independence Party   [ updated 24 Nov 2017, 04:04]

Fung Anthony:
1. 由今日起請隨時留意香港,中國以及海外英文新聞,情報搜集比任何事情都重要,你比別人早一步搜集到重要訊息就能比別人有更大機會安全離開,舉個例子 A君每天都有睇香港同海外英文新聞既習慣而B君只睇蘋果日報,有一日美國國會通過取消香港關係法從此將香港視為中國一個普通城市,由於A君有睇英文新聞所以佢已經執定行李去機場而B君重等緊睇蘋果突發,當B君終於等到果報導Ituu個陣香港股市已經大崩潰全城陷入混亂狀態,係呢個時候A君飛機已經起飛安全去到第三國家。
2. 由今日起準備一個緊急逃生背包,因為走難係分秒必爭既事情所以無時間比你慢慢再執行李,行李內必備護照,衫褲鞋襪,幾千蚊美金,無法係第三國可購買到既重要物品(例如全家福),總之你要以當一揹起呢個背包既一刻就會有一段長時間唔會返香港既心態去執所需既物品
3. 事前計畫如何離開香港,係去第三方國家之前第一個難題就係點樣可以離開香港,假如發生緊急事件而你又好似B君咁未能及時離開香港咁你就要諗下點樣離開到香港,因為當緊急事件發生時政府可能會禁止香港人正常出入境,所以要未雨綢繆係現今暫時安全既時候準備多幾個計劃點樣離開香港
4. 假如你係A君一早收到風要走既話可以請選擇去你本護照可以免簽去既地方,我個人強烈建議去加拿大因為無論BNO或者特區護照去加拿大都係免簽證,你隨時都有一個合法身份入境而免去未入境就被遣返既危機,假如你係B君我建議你先去台灣作中轉站再去其他地區
5. 到最重要部份!!如何係第三國申請政治庇護,當抵達第三國時切忌在入境關口要求政治庇護,咁做海關移民官會同你用筆錄你申請既理由但只會寫低對佢有利既供詞,當去到移民局審理個陣有九成都會被拒絕然後遣返香港,應該到抵第三國時如第4點所說用合法身份入境,然後再在第三國境內尋求移民律師幫忙申請政治庇護,依個時候係第2點所準備既美金就有用途,係有移民律師在場既時間移民官係唔會亂咁寫野,咁對你既申請係極為有利而且部份移民律師都有相關經驗只要你如實講出點解你害怕返香港會被迫害佢地就會幫你準備應有既資料。


posted 11 Oct 2017, 08:04 by Hong Kong Independence Party

都唔洗諗,下次《半年報告》一樣會寫"一支兩制運作良好"。成件事好民主:冇人出嚟,咪so far so good,有乜唔啱?


posted 1 Oct 2017, 12:45 by Hong Kong Independence Party

基於此人對支那情況極不熟悉,又要自吹自擂,又要奶支誤導香港人。本黨以最簡單的看圖識字方式,教他一課支那語文課,residence card的支那文字正解。學完後本黨相信係佢腦袋中只有合法入境同非法入境者,legal immigrant and illegal immigrant.


posted 1 Oct 2017, 03:29 by Hong Kong Independence Party   [ updated 1 Oct 2017, 15:06]

分化?唔洗。無知便是無敵,全程自動波:望下張咭,背面不是寫明你有"居留權"?稍有少少常識都知道這是一張居住證, residence card.身份證?你繼續樂意為奴,咪繼續揹住一世。奴隸值得浪費時間去分化?
其實你叫居住證,居留咭也罷。本黨仝人係帶護照出街,一係UK Driving licence ,有咭係Citizen card。身份證?你自欺欺人,咪用埋本黨的份。反正好快帶身份證會target為恐怖分子,境都出唔到。到時叫英國公民燈神救你?
乜嘢叫獨立?最基本就係完全否定,無視敵人政權及其一切。連基本之事也不做,反而樂於接受其俾你奴隸身份加一組奴隸號碼,便不應狂妄自大,自視過高,外力就可以分化你。話本黨冇做嘢,叫你衝果啲更好笑:不需睇你面色的M P見到你咁,仲有甚麼資格要求人哋義務呢樣果樣?難聽啲講,你自己都無料到,又憑乜要外人白白為你犧牲?相反,你做奴隸,又不反枱,正正不是生活不錯?依照路線圖,《聯合聲明》正正不是非常有效地實行?它不是保證你不會自然地變成敘利亞?當然,你自己反枱,向世界展示你不惜一切立國的決心,國際才可能另眼相看。
都係果句:你自己仲FF今日仲係英治時代,this is your business.你手上的,的確只係一張居住證,仲可以累到你被恐怖份子送入監倉居住。