Letter From the Chairs

Dear Delegates,

It is with great pleasure that I welcome you to BMKMUN’20. I’m Ada Turanlı, your

president chair. I’m a 12th grader and it’s my first time chairing, so I hope you’ll forgive me

if I make any small mistakes. My co-chair is Aslıhan Serra Bağ, however she goes by Serra.

She’s also a 12th grader, but it’s her 2nd time co-chairing in BMKMUN. We both believe

that we are going to have a very efficient and fun conference and are very excited to be your

chairs. We’d like to remind you of a few things. Firstly, please remember the conference

rules and be respectful. We want everyone to enjoy this conference and nobody has the right

to ruin it for the rest of the people. Secondly, please trust yourself. I know that many of you

may not be comfortable with your English, but this is an opportunity for you to practice and

test yourself. Push your limits and get out of your comfort zone. My co-chair and I will try

our best to help you in any situation where you may need it. Don’t be afraid to approach us

and remember that we are your friends! We’re both very much looking forward to meeting

you and spending 4 days working hard as well as having fun.

Sincerely,

Ada TURANLI

President Chair of SPECPOL

Aslıhan Serra BAĞ

Co-chair of SPECPOL

Conference: BMKMUN‘20

Committee: GA-4: Special Political and Decolonization Committee (SPECPOL)

Topic A: Combatting the use of violence against political prisoners

Topic B: Hong Kong protests 2019

Chair/Co-chair: Ada TURANLI, Serra BAĞ

Introduction to SPECPOL

The Fourth Committee of the UN General Assembly, referred to hereafter as the Special

Political and Decolonization Committee or SPECPOL for short, has a somewhat more

fragmented mandate than other committees of the General Assembly, such as DISEC,

ECOFIN, or SOCHUM. The UN itself describes the committee as concerning itself “with a

variety of subjects which include those related to decolonization, Palestinian refugees and

human rights, peacekeeping, mine action, outer space, public information, atomic radiation

and [the] University for Peace [sic]”. In short, SPECPOL covers both the issue of

decolonisation, as suggested by its full name, as well as any other political issues not directly

dealt with by the mandates of any other UN General Assembly committee. It should also be

noted that, as this is a General Assembly committee, all resolutions are non binding. What

this means is that operative clause language which is more indicative of a Security Council

resolution (e.g. ‘Demands’) should not be used, with non-binding language (e.g. ‘Urges’,

‘Recommends’) being used instead. This also means that any peacekeeping operations or

punitive measures (such as economic sanctions) cannot directly be authorised by this

committee, although it is within the committee’s power to suggest or recommend that the

Security Council take these actions in a manner stipulated by the committee. It is still

acceptable, however, to refer to resolutions passed previously by non-General Assembly

committees (including the Security Council) in the perambulatory clauses of a resolution.

TOPIC A: Combatting the use of violence against political prisonersA.1 Definition of Key Terms

Definition of a political prisoner

A political prisoner is a person who is imprisoned due to their political views and actions,

usually these being against the government. This can also be said as someone who was

imprisoned for their political activity. It is important to note that for someone to be termed a

political prisoner, the official reason for their detention must be of direct political origin. This

term should NOT be confused with “prisoner of conscience”, which is someone who was

imprisoned for their race, sexual orientation, religion OR political views. So, a political

prisoner is a prisoner of conscience, but not all prisoners of conscience are political prisoners.

There are, however, different organizations that coin the term slightly differently.

1. Amnesty International: Any person whose case has a significant political element.

What is a significant “political” element? Aspects to human relations related to

politics, such as the mechanisms of society and civil order, the conduct of

governments, public affairs, and the relation of these to other aspects such as

language, ethnicity, religion, public status, etc.

Prisoners of

Religious

Due to sexual orientation

Racial Politic

al

2. Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe: A person who has been

deprived of their personal liberty. It also defines being deprived of personal liberty as;

a. if the detention violates the fundamental guarantees set by the

European Convention on Human Rights, specifically freedom of

thought, conscience and religion, expression, information or assembly,

b. if the detention has been put in place based only on political reasons

with no offence,

c. if the person is detained in a discriminatory manner due to their

political views or actions,

d. if the person is given an unfair detention and this is the result of the

political motives of the authorities.

Yet another fairly general definition of the term is “any politically active prisoner who is held

in custody for a violent action which supporters deem ethically justified.”

Lysander Cooper (Political philosopher, 1808-1887) includes people convicted of treason and

espionage in the definition of political prisoner, however this is a very controversial

definition. In conclusion, the most general and accepted definition is that a political prisoner

is any person who is unfairly sentenced/punished due to obvious political reasons or crimes

primarily connected to these.

A.2 - Developments in Recent Years

Venezuela

Venezuela currently has 399 political prisoners, and 15,180 people were arrested for political

reasons in the last five years, reported Venezuelan nongovernmental organization (NGO)

Foro Penal on November 13. Gonzalo Himiob Santomé, the NGO’s director, said in a press

conference that 20 of the more than 390 political prisoners in the South American nation are

women and 109 are service members. The lawyer said that only 20 have been formally

charged, and that the rest must be considered innocent until proven otherwise, and be allowed

to follow the legal process as free citizens. Himiob said that 8,950 of those detained since

January 2014 remain subject to criminal proceedings under precautionary measures. “These

restrictions on freedom become a kind of preemptive, eternal sanction in which the person

cannot be certain of their freedom at any time,” he said. Ofelia Aguado, sister of political

prisoner and doctor William Aguado, whose case is being heard before military courts, said

that his trial, scheduled to begin in October 2019, has yet to start after almost two years. “I

wanted to ask the government to give us an answer […] because we are still in limbo. We

can’t do anything, because even requesting for him to receive medical care must be

authorized by the courts,” said Aguado. Ana Marulanda, daughter of surgeon José Alberto

Marulanda, also detained for political reasons since mid-2018, told the media they have not

received an answer about his case. His hearing took place in December 2018, and they have

yet to get a trial date. “It’s very easy sometimes to see political prisoners as a number. It’s

easy to just say 399. But when you consider those 399 people, [they] are fathers, mothers,

brothers, and relatives of people from whom they’re currently separated, who are unjustly

detained” said Marulanda. She said her father suffered hearing loss in one ear due to torture.

On November 12, the Organization of American States confirmed the numbers the NGO

provided.

Nicaragua

Scannierth Merlo, 22, was sentenced by Ortega’s justice to five years in prison for the alleged

crime of forced robbery to the detriment of a “CPC” (the FSLN party organization) of his

neighborhood. Merlo was captured on November 6 by paramilitaries and joins the list of at

least 161 political prisoners that the dictatorship has confined to the country’s prisons.

When the April Rebellion broke out, Merlo decided to join the peaceful protests when he saw

the violence with which the police attack the student’s demonstrations. For seven months he

actively participated in these peaceful protests. He was apprehended on November 6, 2018,

after being kidnapped by a paramilitary groups. The judge who was in charge of his case was

Edgard Altamirano, known for imposing 216 and 210 years in prison on the anti-canal

peasant leaders Medardo Mairena and Pedro Mena, respectively. “The judge sentenced him

to five years. He said that just with the word of the victim was enough to condemn him. He

did not accept any evidence in favor of him (her son) or a mediation to solve the problem that

they themselves had created,” maintains Merlo’s mother. As other political prisoners, Merlo

was confined to the cells of La Modelo Penitentiary System, in Tipitapa. His name is on the

conciliated list between the Civic Alliance and the Government, after the agreements of the

second attempt at national dialogue last March and, in theory, was going to leave with the

other political prisoners earlier this year. However, he was not released. “He was on the list;

he always was on the list. But with the death of the political prisoner Mr. Eddy Montes, the

negotiation table with the Alliance was lifted and he remained in there along with 27

Nicaraguan brothers who were also on that list,” regretted the mother of the political prisoner.

Merlo’s political process was plagued with flaws. The judge “hurried” to condemn him and

admitted the crime for which he was accused despite the multiple evidence presented by the

defense in favor of the 22-year-old. Julio Montenegro, lawyer of the “Defensores del Pueblo”

(Public Defenders) group, explained that the political prisoners captured at the end of 2018

and throughout this 2019, are being accused of common crimes to rest credibility of family

members that Ortega’s justice system is holding them for having participated in the protests

against the Government. The lawyer explained that the decision to blame protestors for

common crimes has to do with the lack of credibility that the regime has at the international

level in accusing citizens of being terrorists. The lawyer said that other flaws are repeated in

these new processes in that they are closed hearings and trials. Likewise, the judge accepts all

the contentions of the prosecutors, even if they have no legal basis, while those of the defense

lawyers are denied. On November 15, the Police arrested 16 Nicaraguans who brought water

to the mothers of political prisoners who were on a hunger strike at the San Miguel church, in

Masaya. The Prosecutor’s Office accused them of alleged illegal arms trafficking, and they

will be subjected to a kangaroo court on January 30, 2020. Last week (the 2nd to 8th of

December) the National Unity movement and relatives of the prisoners of conscience

launched the campaign “Christmas without political prisoners!”, for the release of at least 161

detainees. The announcement was done in the parking lot of a building in Managua. “We,

family members of political prisoners, strongly denounce that today more than 161 people are

imprisoned by the dictatorship of the Ortega Murillo family, suffering all kinds of abuses,

aggressions and sufferings that harm their integrity and put their lives at risk,” the mothers of

political prisoners explained in a document.

Indonesia (2019)

Thirteen years ago, on Feb. 23, 2006, Indonesia ratified the International Covenant on Civil

and Political Rights (CCPR). “Indonesia is a nation based on law and since its founding in

1945, strongly upholds the principle of human rights,” is the first sentence explaining why it

ratified the CCPR. So clearly, the state made a promise to uphold the civil and political rights

of all its citizens. However, it doesn’t. The detention of six activists of the Indonesian

People’s Front for West Papua (FRI-WP) — Surya Anta Ginting, Charles Kossay, Dano

Tabuni, Isay Wenda, Ambrose Mulait and Arina Elopere — is a case in point. They have

been held at the National Police’s Mobile Brigade (Mako Brimob) detention center in Depok,

West Java since August. They were accused of treason for raising the Papuan Morning Star

separatist flag in front of the State Palace. They were demanding a referendum on self-

determination for Papua with this peaceful protest. When Papua was handed over from the

Dutch to Indonesia in 1969 through the farcical “Act of Free Choice”, or, as some call it,

“Act of No Choice”, it was like being handed over from one colonizer to another. As Richard

Chauvel wrote in his 2006 policy paper “Constructing Papuan Nationalism: History,

Ethnicity, And Adaptation”, “Rather than feeling liberated from [Dutch] colonial rule,

Papuans have felt subjugated, marginalized from the processes of economic development and

threatened by the mass influx of Indonesian settlers”. There have been numerous calls for a

referendum since 1998 in the post-Soeharto era alone and more than 70 violent related

incidents documented, included torture, rape and killings. Due to the ill treatment they

received from the Jakarta Police, the above six activists filed a pretrial motion. As plaintiffs,

they are being represented by five public lawyers across organizations grouped in the Papua

Advocacy Team. The defendants, the Jakarta Police, are also being represented by five

lawyers. The first hearing on Dec. 2 saw the reading of the reasons why the plaintiffs filed the

motion. The following days, the defendants responded. One of the members of the advocacy

team, M. Fuad, stated that the Jakarta Police “[committed] acts of deprivation, fraud,

discrimination and violence against the petitioners”. When the police arrested the activists on

Aug. 29, they had not shown their identification; they used force and did not have a search

warrant. Tigor Hutapea, one of the advocacy team members, said this contradicted Article 33

of the Criminal Law Procedures Code. “The police made an arbitrary arrest and a haphazard

police investigation report. We should win in the pretrial hearing, have the main trial

canceled and the accused activists freed unconditionally,” he said. But since this is a political

case, Suar was unsure if the judge could be objective. The pretrial hearings have been held

daily and continued until the decision was read out on Tuesday. The activists lost on Dec. 10.

Due to their treatment of its Papuan political prisoners — and not just the six at Mako

Brimob — they are getting a lot of international recognition. In London, Sydney, Amsterdam

and other cities, every week the Indonesian embassies have had to face the protests of

demonstrators demanding the release of Papuan political prisoners. Papuans feel that despite

the frequency of Jokowi’s (prime minister) visits to Papua — 13 times so far — it has not

made any difference to the fate of Papuans. The way the Papuan problem is dealt with is a

serious test for the nation — and Jokowi’s second term in office. Indonesia’s democracy is

said to be at its lowest in 20 years. It’s often the government apparatus that violates its own

laws and tramples on the civil, political and human rights of its own people.

A.3 Key Actors and Their Positions

Amnesty International: Amnesty International campaigns for the release of prisoners of

conscience, which include both political prisoners as well as those imprisoned for their

religious or philosophical beliefs. To reduce controversy, and as a matter of principle, the

organization's policy applies only to prisoners who have not committed or advocated

violence. Thus, there are political prisoners who do not fit the narrower criteria for POCs.

A.4 Timeline of Key Events

Overview of political crime (1780 to 1925)

The period 1780-1925 saw many changes in how political dissent was expressed and

controlled through legal channels.

In the late eighteenth century, political radicals were most likely to be prosecuted for “word

crimes”, particularly for the offences of seditious libel and seditious words. Yet these

offences were becoming difficult to prosecute, as society grew increasingly tolerant of debate

and freedom of expression. So, by the mid-nineteenth century, we see the government

increasingly opting for prosecutions relating to unlawful assembly, riot, and conspiracy, and

using laws based on the notions of public nuisance and obstruction (Lobban). This shift

reflected the growth of the mass political platform, famously central to the Chartist

movement.

These legal changes were often pragmatic. As one piece of legislation became unusable, or as

political dissent changed its form, the authorities would seek a new approach. Similarly, at

certain moments of political pressure or perceived national threat, some offences were

revived after years of disuse.

Political Prisoners in Soviet Russia (1930s - 1950s)

During Lenin and Stalin’s rule, prisons known as GULAG were opened throughout the

nation. A fair amount of the prisoners in these labor-camps were political prisoners.

According to the official data, the total number of sentences for political and anti-state

(espionage, terrorism) crimes in USSR in 1939–41 was 211,106. According to other

estimates, at the beginning of 1953 the total number of prisoners in prison camps was more

than 2.4 million of which more than 465,000 were political prisoners. About half of political

prisoners in the Gulag camps were imprisoned without trial; official data suggest that there

were over 2.6 million sentences to imprisonment on cases investigated by the secret police

throughout 1921–53. The amnesty in March 1953 was limited to non-political prisoners and

for political prisoners sentenced to not more than 5 years, therefore mostly those convicted

for common crimes were then freed. The release of political prisoners started in 1954 and

became widespread, and also coupled with mass rehabilitations, after Nikita Khrushchev's

denunciation of Stalinism in his Secret Speech at the 20th Congress of the CPSU in February

1956. Political prisoners continued to be kept in one of the most famous camps called Perm-

36 until 1987 when it was closed.

Political prisoners having lunch in the Intalag coal mine.

Political Prisoners in Nazi Germany (1933-1945)

In order to ensure total obedience and conformity to their regime, the Nazis suppressed all of

their political opponents. Following the Reichstag Fire1, Hindenburg declared a state of

emergency. Amongst other aspects, this move removed people’s right to trial before

1 The Reichstag was the German parliament building at the time. The Nazi party lacked power in the Reichstag. Towards the end of their election campaign, the Reichstag building was burned down. The Nazi Party used the atmosphere of terror and panic to encourage anti-communism.

imprisonment. The Nazis used this to their advantage in the immediate period following the

declaration, rounding up any political opponents and imprisoning them in concentration

camps. Concentration camps were built almost immediately after the Nazi rise to power. The

primary purpose of these initially was to house political prisoners. Examples of early camps

include Oranienburg and Dachau. In the camps political prisoners were often forced to carry

out heavy labor to ‘correct’ and ‘reeducate’ them of their views. The awful conditions in the

camps forced many prisoners to starve or die of the unsanitary conditions. Those that were

released, primarily in the early period, were forbidden to speak of their experiences, and told

to leave Germany immediately. These camps were under the control of the SA and SS. It

could also be seen that the guards did often use violence against the prisoners even though

early camps like Oranienburg and Dachau were not meant to kill the prisoners. “Every

prisoner – young and old, male and female – was fair game for SA and SS guards. They beat

inmates with hands and fists, and an array of weapons like truncheons, whips and sticks. Skin

was slashed, jaws smashed, organs ruptured, bones broken.’

Political Prisoners in Modern Turkey

Since a 2016 coup attempt, the Erdogan regime in Turkey has been sensitive about any

opposition, viewing valid criticism as a challenge to its policies and control. “Sixteen people

are facing life imprisonment without parole for allegedly organizing and financing the 2013

Istanbul Gezi Park protests.” The number of political prisoners remained a subject of debate

at year’s (2018) end. In November the Interior Ministry reported that the government had

detained 217,971 persons in connection with the 2016 coup attempt. Of those, the courts had

convicted 16,684, and another 14,750 were in prison awaiting trial. An exact breakdown of

numbers of alleged members or supporters of the PKK, ISIS, and “FETO” was not available

at year’s end, though in public remarks on December 11, Vice President Fuat Oktay stated

that 47,778 individuals remained detained as “FETO” suspects. Some observers considered

many of these individuals political prisoners, a charge sharply disputed by the government.

Students, artists, and association members, including 11 senior members of the Turkish

Medical Association, faced criminal investigations for alleged terror related activities,

primarily due to their social media posts. The government did not consider those in custody

for alleged PKK or “FETO” ties to be political prisoners and did not permit access to them by

human rights or humanitarian organizations. Continued allegations of torture, ill-treatment,

and cruel and inhuman or degrading treatment in police custody and prison and the lack of

any meaningful investigation into them remained a deep concern. These issues were raised by

the UN special rapporteur on torture in a February statement.

A.5 Useful Websites

● https://www.amnesty.org/en/

● https://www.ohchr.org/en/professionalinterest/pages/

basicprinciplestreatmentofprisoners.aspx

● https://www.digitalpanopticon.org/

A.6 Bibliography

Milne, F. (2018, August). A Guide to Researching Political Prisoners. Retrieved December 8, 2019, from https://www.digitalpanopticon.org/A_Guide_to_Researching_Political_Prisoners.

Oppression. (n.d.). Retrieved December 9, 2019, from https://www.theholocaustexplained.org/life-in-nazi-occupied-europe/oppression/political-prisoners/.

Nik Wachsmann, KL, A History of the Nazi Concentration Camps, (Great Britain: Little, Brown, 2015), p39

Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 2018

Roth, K. (2019, February 28). World Report 2019: Rights Trends in Turkey. Retrieved December 9, 2019, from https://www.hrw.org/world-report/2019/country-chapters/turkey.

More Than 15,000 Political Detainees In The Last Five Years In Venezuela, Says NGO Foro Penal. (2019, December 10). Retrieved December 13, 2019, from https://dialogo-americas.com/more-than-15000-political-detainees-in-the-last-five-years-in-venezuela-says-ngo-foro-penal/.

TOPIC B: Hong Kong Protests 2019B.1 - Introduction to the Topic

What is Hong Kong's status?

Hong Kong is a former British colony which was handed back to China in 1997. It has its

own judiciary and a separate legal system from mainland China. Those rights include

freedom of assembly and freedom of speech. But those freedoms - the Basic Law - expire in

2047 and it is not clear what Hong Kong's status will then be.

B.2 - Developments in Recent Years

2019 Hong Kong protests

The extradition bill which triggered the first protest was introduced in April. It would have

allowed for criminal suspects to be extradited to mainland China under certain circumstances.

Opponents said this risked exposing citizens of Hong Kong to unfair trials and violent

treatment. They also argued the bill would give China greater influence over Hong Kong and

could be used to target activists and journalists. Hundreds of thousands of people took to the

streets. After weeks of protests, leader Carrie Lam eventually said the bill would be

suspended indefinitely.

How did the protests escalate?

Protesters feared the bill could be revived, so demonstrations continued, calling for it to be

withdrawn completely. By then clashes between police and protesters had become more

frequent and violent. In September, the bill was finally withdrawn, but protesters said this

was "too little, too late". On October 1st, while China was celebrating the 70th year of the

Communist Party rule, Hong Kong experienced one of its most "violent and chaotic days".

An 18-year-old was shot in the chest while protesters fought officers with poles, petrol bombs

and other projectiles. The government then banned protesters wearing face masks, and in

early November a pro-Beijing lawmaker was stabbed in the street by a man pretending to be a

supporter. One week later, a policeman shot one protester at close range when activists were

trying to set up a roadblock. Later that day, another man was set on fire by anti-government

protesters. In November, a standoff between police and students on the campus of Hong

Kong's Polytechnic University became another defining moment. Later that month, the

territory held local council elections that were seen as a barometer of public opinion. The

vote saw a landslide victory for the pro-democracy movement, with 17 of the 18 councils

now controlled by pro-democracy councilors.

What do the protesters want?

Some protesters have adopted the motto: "Five demands, not one less!" These are:

1. For the protests not to be characterized as a "riot" 2. Amnesty for arrested protesters 3. An independent inquiry into alleged police brutality 4. Implementation of complete universal suffrage

The fifth demand, the withdrawal of the bill, has already been met.

Protests supporting the Hong Kong movement have spread across the globe, with rallies

taking place in the UK, France, US, Canada and Australia. In many cases, people supporting

the demonstrators were confronted by pro-Beijing rallies.

Chinese president Xi Jinping has warned against separatism, saying any attempt to divide

China would end in "bodies smashed and bones ground to powder".

B.3 Key Actors and Their Positions

China: Since 1997, Hong Kong is a part of China under the "one country, two systems"

approach. Within the Hong Kong society, there are different views of this arrangement.

Within the political spectrum, the Pro-Beijing camp tends to focus on "one country" aspect,

where Hong Kong will gradually integrate into China, while following and supporting the

Central government policies as being a guarantee for stability and prosperity in Hong Kong.

However, in the Pro-democracy camp, the focus is on the "two systems" approach, where

Hong Kong, while acknowledging that it is a part of China and thus has an obligation to

cooperate with it, should strive to develop more democratic institutions and preserve

freedoms and human rights to achieve prosperity.

UK: As Hong Kong’s former colonial power, Britain played a primary role in the city’s

return to Chinese sovereignty more than two decades ago. It’s also a signatory to the

agreement guaranteeing Hong Kong’s limited autonomy from Beijing—a status protesters

fear is now under threat. But the political impasse over Brexit is dominating British political

discourse, ensuring that issues like Hong Kong remain in the foreign-policy periphery.

B.4 Timeline of Key Events

History of the Conflict

Hong Kong was initially under the rule of China until the Qing administration took control in

1842. This is when the Treaty of Nanking surrendered the island (Hong Kong) to the British

Empire. Later, this was extended to remember the Kowloon Peninsula for 1860 after the

Second Opium War and later by the Convention for the Extension of Hong Kong Territory in

1898 to rent the New Territories. From 1941 to 1945, the island was taken over by the

Japanese Empire.

In 1972, after the change in the Chinese seat in the United Nations, the People's Republic of

China (PRC for short) which was formed in 1949 after the civil war, requested that Hong

Kong be expelled from the United Nations rundown of Non-Self-Governing Territories,

denying Hong Kong its autonomy. The Sino-British Joint Declaration of December 1984

spread out the terms for the exchange of power of Hong Kong from the United Kingdom to

the PRC, which finished with an extraordinary handover service on July 1, 1997.

The terms concurred between the administrations for the exchange included a progression of

assurances for the support of Hong Kong's contrasting financial, political and lawful

frameworks after the exchange, and the further advancement of Hong Kong's political

framework with an objective of a law-based government. These certifications were set out in

the Sino-British Joint Declaration and esteemed

in the semi-protected Basic Law of Hong Kong.

At first, numerous Hong Kongers were excited

about Hong Kong's arrival to China.

Kong Qingdong calling Hong Kongers "old

dogs"

Kong Qingdong, a professor at Peking

University, publicly called Hong Kongers "old

dogs" in early 2012, after an uproar over a

Chinese mainland child eating on Hong Kong's

subway.

CUHK democracy wall tensions

In September 2017, tensions arose between Mainland students, Hong Kong students, CUHK

staff and CUHK student union staff members over the content of posters/banners put up on

Democracy Wall in the Chinese University of Hong Kong. With issues of vandalism,

disobeying the rules, freedom of speech, respecting different opinions and displaying hateful

messages reaching the spotlight, as well similar incidents occurring in other Hong Kong

universities 'Democracy Walls' such as at Education University of Hong Kong, University of

Hong Kong, Polytechnic University of Hong Kong. This also reignited the Hong Kong

Independence debate within the society.

Anti-mainlandisation motion

On November 19, 2015, an anti-mainlandisation movement was presented in the Legislative

Council by administrator Claudia Mo, however it was opposed support and 34 restricting.

The movement tried to safeguard neighboring history and culture from the impact of the

territory of China. Supporters contended that mainlandisation would prompt progressively

fake and phony items, uncontrolled defilement and the maltreatment of intensity, while Hong

Kong risked turning into another territory city. Rivals of the movement contended that the

movement was viewing various societies within a restricted point of view, and planned to

part the Chinese country and create a struggle.

Parallel business in Hong Kong

There has been a sharp increase in mainland parallel traders coming to the northern parts of

Hong Kong to import and export goods back to the mainland since 2012. Products popular

among these include baby formula and household products. Due to long-term milk powder

shortages in Hong Kong, the government has put restrictions on milk quantities.

B.5 Useful Websites

● https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2019/07/britains-responsibility-to-

hong-kong/594142/

B.6 Bibliography

Hong Kong protests: Two people in critical condition after day of chaos. (2019, November 11). Retrieved December 12, 2019, from https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-50370715

Hong Kong elections: Pro-democracy groups makes big gains. (2019, November 25). Retrieved December 12, 2019, from https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-50531408.

Hong Kong Polytechnic University: Protesters attempt sewer escapes. (2019, November 20). Retrieved December 11, 2019, from https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-50486757.

Pro-Beijing lawmaker stabbed by 'fake supporter' in Hong Kong. (2019, November 6). Retrieved December 11, 2019, from https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-50312310. Hong Kong: Anger as face masks banned after months of protests. (2019, October 4). Retrieved December 9, 2019, from https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-49931598.