我也发个新加坡国家海峡日报最近的评论文章。作者是本报纸的前编辑。全文是英文，将近2千字。我无法翻译全文，只大约翻译了几段。请大家看：
Opinion
Hong Kong at a crossroads: Playing the waiting game may not work as before. The crackdown, when it comes, will be harsh.
［香港在十字路口。仅仅靠等待希望事态改变也许不像以前那样能行得通。来临的镇压将会很严酷］
Leslie FongFor The Straits Times
1,652 words
1 August 2019
The Straits Times
STIMES
English
(c) 2019 Singapore Press Holdings Limited
The organised violence in recent weeks of protesters seemingly bent on pushing Hong Kong ever closer to total anarchy has left not a few Singaporeans wondering why the authorities there have not cracked down on them hard. ［最近几个星期在香港游有组织的暴力活动看上去是非要把香港推向无政府状态。这让很多新加坡人质疑为甚么当局还不出手镇压］
Puzzled Singaporeans have lamented that the Hong Kong government led by Mrs Carrie Lam, the Chief Executive, is behaving like the proverbial deer caught in the blinding headlights of an oncoming truck - so petrified it cannot even blink. They cannot understand why it seems to baulk at taking decisive action, including calling in soldiers from the People's Liberation Army (PLA) garrison in Hong Kong to help restore order.
What should be beyond dispute is that few in Singapore condone the wanton violence. They could not have been among the 700 or so Singaporeans reported by survey company Blackbox Research as supportive of the mass protests there.
The self-styled freedom fighters in Hong Kong, who have been behaving more like Red Guards at the height of the madness that was the Cultural Revolution in China in the 60s and 70s, fool themselves if they think Singaporeans will cheer them on [这些我标榜自由战士的香港人，更像中国60、70年代文化大革命最疯狂时期的红卫兵们。要是他们以为新加坡人会为他们而加油，就大错特错了].
WEIGHING THE COSTS
As outsiders, Singaporeans, not knowing the political tightrope that the Hong Kong government has to walk, might be a little harsh in their judgment, though the spectacle of protesters left unchallenged to lay siege to the police headquarters does say something about its lack of leadership and fortitude.
To be fair, it is not just a simple matter of pressing the button and sending in the troops. That can result in a spilling of blood. It is inconceivable that Mrs Lam and her officials will take that kind of decision lightly and without informing Beijing. Very likely, they would want its endorsement first. After all, Chinese leader Xi Jinping has directed that there be neither retreat nor bloodshed.
Given that stricture, it should not surprise anyone that the Hong Kong government has to tread very carefully. And both Hong Kong and Beijing have to factor in not only the fast-changing state of play within the territory but also the bigger picture of how a massive, possibly lethal, crackdown will affect global perceptions about China's commitment to the "one country, two systems" arrangement that guarantees Hong Kong's autonomy.
Protests have erupted over the past few weeks in Hong Kong as tens of thousands clashed with the police to oppose a proposed extradition Bill that would send criminal suspects to face trial in mainland China. The legal cover for using force to quell widespread unrest is there. The Hong Kong people will have to choose in the decisive weeks and months ahead –llow the mobs to continue the rampage or stand up and say enough is enough. ST PHOTO: CHONG JUN LIANG
To clear-eyed observers, what is going on in Hong Kong is nothing less than a proxy war between the West and China. There is no doubt that Western forces, chiefly the United States, which is already engaged in a trade war with China, are encouraging, if not actively aiding, the protesters under the all-too-familiar guise of promoting freedom and democracy ［对于眼清的旁观者来说，在香港发生了根本就是西方代理人和中国的战争。毫无怀疑，西方势力，尤其是已经和中国发动贸易战争的美国，在鼓动示威者，而借口是我们再熟悉不过的所谓推动自由和民主］.
The US, British and several other Western governments have, between them, issued some 50 statements blaming Hong Kong and Beijing for trying to erode freedoms in the territory. US lawmakers Republican Senator Marco Rubio and Democratic Congressman Jim McGovern have introduced legislation that would require the US president to annually certify that Hong Kong is "sufficiently autonomous" in order to continue receiving US trade privileges.
Hong Kong opposition figure Martin Lee has been warmly received on Capitol Hill. Washington has also arranged high-profile meetings with Vice-President Mike Pence, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and National Security Adviser John Bolton for Hong Kong media tycoon Jimmy Lai, who is known to have been an active backer of the protests.
And the agitators, using young men and women who do not know any better as battering rams, would give a right arm - not their own of course - to provoke a Tiananmen Square-style crackdown in the hope that all hell will then break loose and Beijing will find itself in the international doghouse.
Both the Hong Kong and Chinese governments know that this is the gambit. They are also aware that a sudden cataclysmic move might derail the delicate talks now going on between the US and China to reach at least a temporary truce in the tussle for strategic dominance, as well as help pro-independence forces win the presidential election in Taiwan next year.
So more likely than not, they would not want to lose their nerve and fall into the trap of rushing into precipitate action. Of course, they are also hoping for public opinion to turn in their favour and for the protests to lose steam, as was the case during the 2014 Occupy Central demonstrations which petered out in less than three months.
However, playing the waiting game is looking increasingly risky as the tide of public opinion does not seem to be turning fast enough even as cracks are beginning to show within the Hong Kong government. It is also anyone's bet how long the morale of the embattled police force can hold up.
TRIGGER POINTS
So which are the trigger points? Obviously, if violence escalates in terms of frequency and ferocity to a point when no self-respecting police force and the government behind it can stay on the defensive any more, when China's Central Liaison Office and other institutions in Hong Kong are the targets of more than just black paint, and when the economy as well as daily life are disrupted to breaking point.
The legal cover for using force to quell widespread unrest is there. Under the Emergency Regulations Ordinance, the Chief Executive, after consulting the Executive Council, can declare a state of emergency and, with that, order pre-emptive arrests, confiscate whatever is deemed to have been used to foment public disturbance, ban all media, online or offline, that have incited unrest, expel foreign agents known to be instigators, and so on.
All this sounds draconian - until one grasps that an insurrection in all but name is being mounted to bring down the Hong Kong government. It would be an astounding dereliction of duty if the Hong Kong authorities continue to sit on their hands. If and when a crackdown can no longer be put off, chances are it will be swift and massive. Top of the hit list will doubtless be the estimated 700 hardcore agitators and rioters whom the police have reportedly identified.
If Beijing has to put up with international condemnation of any massive use of force, then it stands to reason that it will not be handing out just a slap on the wrist. It will make virtue of this necessity and clean out the stables in Hong Kong once and for all, starting with opposition politicians and their financial backers who have been inciting the street violence and who, because of their foreign connections, think they are untouchable.
Can Mrs Lam marshal the necessary force to take back control? Well, if the 30,000-strong police force is deemed insufficient, under the territory's Constitution or Basic Law, she can call on the PLA garrison to help. If further reinforcement is necessary, forces stationed in nearby Guangdong province are just about a five minutes' helicopter ride away. In fact, under the Basic Law, if China deems that the situation is spinning out of control, it can move in, call or no call.
In that disastrous event, both China and Hong Kong will suffer. For the former, probably not too much and not for long. Remember - a much weaker and poorer China took some years to recover from Tiananmen in 1989 but recover it did. Today, the mainland is a market so huge and so coveted that not many economies will put principle before profit for long.
LESSON FROM WEIHAI
Hong Kong? It is unlikely to ever become what it used to be. Beijing knows that but given the territory's declining worth to China, that may not be deemed too heavy a price to pay as the alternative, yielding to the rioters and the black hand behind them, is almost certain to encourage similar outbreaks elsewhere. Think Tibet and Xinjiang.
In the worst-case scenario, Hong Kong will simply wither on the vine and, over time, become just a third-or even fourth-tier Chinese city like Weihai in Shandong province. As in the case of Hong Kong, Weihai was handed over to Britain under coercion in 1898. The British changed its name to Port Edward and used it as the summer station for the Royal Navy. Weihai was returned voluntarily to China in 1930 when it was of no more use to Britain.
Today, it is just a quiet coastal city, with tourism and fishery as the main contributors to its economy. Will Hong Kong end up like that? That depends on how the Hong Kong people choose in the decisive weeks and months ahead - allow the mobs to continue the rampage or stand up and say enough is enough.
•Leslie Fong is a former editor of The Straits Times.
