Earlier in the day, police in riot gear stopped and searched mainly young people outside Hong Kong’s MTR railway stations during morning rush hour and lined walkways as commuters shuffled past, prompting accusations on social media that the city had become “a police state”.
Roads around the Legislative Council building (LegCo) were blocked off as lawmakers held a debate on the anthem law.
[…] Police accused protesters of setting fire to debris and throwing objects at officers. “Police had no other option and needed to employ minimal force, including pepper balls to prevent the relevant illegal and violent behaviour,” the force said.
The crowds remained, swearing at police and chanting: “Hong Kong independence, it’s the only way.”
“I’ve come for something I care deeply about – ultimately it’s freedom,” said a 40-year-old lawyer who wished to remain anonymous, citing the national security laws, Beijing encroachment, and a recent report clearing police of wrongdoing. “If we keep quiet, they can get away with it. I don’t think we can change things but need to make sure our voices are heard.” [Source]
Riot police detained and arrested dozens of people in the busy shopping area of Causeway Bay and Central, the city’s main global business hub, during scattered and seemingly spontaneous protests over the law, which critics say threatens basic political freedoms and civil liberties.
Multiple protesters could be seen wrestled to the ground by police, and pepper spray and pellets were fired into crowds gathered in densely populated areas. Arrests were also made in Mong Kok, in Kowloon, police said.
“It’s like a de facto curfew now,” former lawmaker and pro-democracy activist Nathan Law told Hong Kong public broadcaster RTHK in the wake of the arrests. “I think the government has to understand why people are really angry,” he added.
[…] Police said people “occupied the nearby roads and blocked traffic,” disrupting “social peace.” They also released a photo showing dozens of people seated inside a police kettle, most of whom appear to be young and wearing regular clothes, rather than the heavy protest gear seen in previous unrest.
Compared to last year, when lunchtime protests were a semi-regular sight ahead of the coronavirus outbreak, often involving white collar business workers, police demonstrated far less tolerance for any obstruction of roads or other minor disruption. Police were seen detaining people for shouting protest slogans and displaying banners, and one police liaison officer told a crowd in Central through a loudspeaker: “After eating lunch, go back to your normal life and don’t stand here anymore.” [Source]
Dozens of kids — literally kids — being dragged away one by one, handcuffed. Again the press is held back by orange tape so we can’t get too close. pic.twitter.com/3Hl9sAPYtH
Hours before Beijing will hold a key vote on a controversial new security law on Hong Kong, Pompeo sent a notice to Congress that China was not living up to obligations from before it regained control of the territory from Britain in 1997.
“I certified to Congress today that Hong Kong does not continue to warrant treatment under United States laws in the same manner as US laws were applied to Hong Kong before July 1997,” Pompeo said in a statement.
“No reasonable person can assert today that Hong Kong maintains a high degree of autonomy from China, given facts on the ground.”
[…] “While the United States once hoped that free and prosperous Hong Kong would provide a model for authoritarian China, it is now clear that China is modeling Hong Kong after itself,” Pompeo said. [Source]
[…] Under the Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act passed by the US Congress in November, the administration must decide annually whether governance of Hong Kong is suitably distinct from China.
Options available to the administration – which may in part depend on Beijing’s reaction, analysts said – include higher trade tariffs, tougher investment rules, asset freezes and more onerous visa rules.
The move sent shock waves through China and Hong Kong policy circles.
[…] “I fully expect the US to proceed with sanctions on individuals and entities deemed to be undermining Hong Kong’s autonomy,” [Bonnie Glaser from the Centre for Strategic and International Studies] added. “Secondary sanctions are possible on banks that do business with entities found in violation of law guaranteeing Hong Kong’s autonomy.”
Analysts noted a long-standing dilemma faced by successive US administrations: if Washington imposes sanctions on Hong Kong, it risks hurting residents of the city at least as much as it penalises Beijing. […] [Source]
On Twitter, prominent pro-democracy activist Joshua Wong explained the likely global economic impact of both the imposition of a national security law and the termination of Hong Kong’s special trade status, to urge international leaders to oppose the former and reconsider the latter:
After @SecPompeo officially declares HK ‘no longer autonomous’, here is my msg to world leaders & foreign companies:
1/ National security law carries massive damage to expats & investors in HK. It will completely affect business interests in HK & leads to democratic backlashes.
2/ In the past, Hong Kong has firewalls to fend off the political influence from China, such as guarantees of human rights protections, an independent judiciary and loose business regulations. These are the reasons why businesses choose Hong Kong as the destination of investment.
3/ However, the law will profoundly erode the city’s firewalls, especially when a Beijing-led secret police branch is to be set up, & when Beijing’s board definition of national security is imposed. China treated stock markets & flow of capital as part of its national security.
4/ The proposed law is the stepping stone for its future intervention. In order to protect the business interest in the city, especially those choosing Hong Kong as the regional headquarters, it is crucial for companies to voice out and oppose the passing of the law.
5/ To maintain the autonomy status of HK is the only way to maintain business interest. Therefore, I call upon world leaders jointly express opposition against this law. Since the security law is hugely controversial, it can’t be full legislative scrutiny & public consultation.
6/ I also urge US, European and Asia’s leaders to reconsider whether Hongkong’s special trade status can still be held since, once the law is implemented, Hong Kong will be assimilated into China’s authoritarian regime, on both rule of law and human rights protections.
An estimated $38 billion in trade between Hong Kong and the U.S. could be jeopardized. “Longer term, people might have a second thought about raising money or doing business in Hong Kong,” said Kevin Lai, chief economist for Asia excluding Japan at Daiwa Capital Markets. It would be “the nuclear option” and “the beginning of the death of Hong Kong as we know it,” said Steve Tsang, director of the University of London’s SOAS China Institute.
3. What about for the U.S.?
It has its own reasons for not rocking the boat too much. Hong Kong, the only semi-democratic jurisdiction under Chinese rule, offers U.S. companies a relatively safe way to access the Chinese market and employs a U.S. dollar peg, linking it with the American financial system. According to the Congressional Research Service, the largest U.S. trade surplus in 2018 was with Hong Kong — $31.1 billion. Some 290 U.S. companies had regional headquarters in the city that year and another 434 had regional offices, it said. Hong Kong’s first justice minister after the handover to China in 1997, Elsie Leung, told the South China Morning Post in May that any damage would be mutual: “We are not just getting the benefits – it’s a free-trade arrangement which is good for both sides.”
4. And more broadly?
Any sanctions or move to rescind the special status would further strain the relationship between the U.S. and China, already under pressure from the coronavirus pandemic, the Hong Kong protests, an ongoing trade war and other issues. In addition to the annual review of Hong Kong’s trading status, the new law requires the president to freeze U.S.-based assets of, and deny entry to the U.S. by, any individuals found responsible for abducting and torturing human rights activists in Hong Kong. Such sanctions could come sooner than a suspension of the trading status, and would obviously complicate things further. […] [Source]
On Sunday and in defiance of social distancing rules, thousands of protesters gathered in Causeway Bay to demonstrate against Beijing’s move to bypass Hong Kong’s democratic process in violation of the “one country, two systems” principle. Police reacted with tear gas, pepper spray, water cannons, and nearly 200 arrests. At The Wall Street Journal, Neil Western and Joyu Wang report on the police crackdown that ensued, and cite protesterswho in a state of desperation are sharpening their demands:
“I think this is the termination of one country, two systems,” one protester said Sunday, describing how police descended quickly on the early marchers, squeezing them from two sides and prompting many to flee. “Hong Kong is lost. The most important thing is to fight back against the Communist Party,” added the 25-year-old insurance-company employee.
Heavily armed police in full riot gear stayed out in force throughout the day as protesters chanted Hong Kong’s protest anthem. Police said they were forced to use tear gas because demonstrators had assaulted police officers, thrown objects at them and obstructed traffic.
Calls for Hong Kong to be free from Chinese rule rang out, while some protesters waved independence flags. Chinese leader Xi Jinping said in 2017 that Beijing wouldn’t tolerate demands for independence, calling it China’s red line.
“One country, two systems has gone now,” said Chris Hon, a 25-year-old engineer among the crowd Sunday. “The only option left to restore our own system is independence.” [Source]
“Terrorism is growing in the city and activities which harm national security, such as ‘Hong Kong independence’, become more rampant,” Secretary for Security John Lee said in a statement.
“In just a few months, Hong Kong has changed from one of the safest cities in the world to a city shrouded in the shadow of violence,” he said, adding that national security laws were needed to safeguard the city’s prosperity and stability.
Tam Yiu-chung, Hong Kong’s sole delegate to China’s National People’s Congress Standing Committee, told the public broadcaster RTHK on Monday that said he did not expect any delay in the drafting of the national security law.
[…] Earlier, Ray Chan, a pro-democracy member of Hong Kong’s Legislative Council, wrote on social media: “Call us terrorists, whatever you want, after the Wuhan Virus outbreak, China has no more credibility in the world.” [Source]
The protests erupted just hours after Chinese Vice-Premier Han Zheng, Beijing’s top leader in charge of Hong Kong, told local delegates to the national legislature that Beijing’s determination to push through the national security law should not be underestimated, and that mainland authorities would “implement it till the end”.
[…] At the ongoing National People’s Congress session in Beijing, Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi sought to ease concerns about the new law, saying it would not damage the city’s autonomy or freedoms.
[…] The law would have “no impact on Hong Kong’s high degree of autonomy, the rights and freedoms of Hong Kong residents, or the legitimate rights and interests of foreign investors in Hong Kong”, Wang said. “Instead of becoming unnecessarily worried, people should have more confidence in Hong Kong’s future. This will improve Hong Kong’s legal system and bring more stability, a stronger rule of law and a better business environment to Hong Kong.” [Source]
Hong Kong’s leader Carrie Lam has said other countries “have no place” interfering in the territory, as she robustly defended a controversial national security law planned by China.
[…] She denied that the law would curtail the rights of Hong Kongers.
These rights – set out in the Basic Law which is Hong Kong’s mini-constitution – have been in place since it was handed back to China in 1997 by the UK. The Basic Law guarantees certain freedoms to the territory, such as the right to protest, which do not exist on the mainland.
[…] She also spoke of the “positive response” from the public in the past few days, saying it “flies in the face of what those overseas politicians are saying”.
[…] Carrie Lam tried to assure the public that the law will only target “small groups of illegal criminals” – but could offer little when pressed for details. [Source]
As Lam claims a positive public response to Beijing’s draft law—an assertion thinly supported by a pro-government think-tank survey—online calls suggest another large turnout should be expected for a Wednesday demonstration against the second review of a national anthem law that would criminalize “insulting” China’s national anthem.
A sense of deja vu in #HongKong as posters for protest pass around online, shops announce they’re joining the general strike and police ramp up security around LegCo, all in preparation for the reading of the controversial National Anthem bill tomorrow. pic.twitter.com/4eK7lX6euR
On Twitter in an affirmative response to the NPC Observer’s detailed explanation of the situation, PRC law expert Jerome Cohen urges caution in accepting claims from the chief executive and other pro-establishment Hong Kong authorities that only a “small group” of people engaged in “terrorist” activity should be concerned by the law:
THREAD. @NPC_Observer‘s analysis below highlights the serious legal challenges that the draft Decision presents to a conventional interpretation of the #BasicLaw & also the anticipated rationalizations for overcoming them, at least to the satisfaction of pro-Beijing advocates.1/n https://t.co/JKw4sA2EyC
Various pro-Beijing HK political figures have recently spoken out with ostensible knowledge of the contemplated legislation, as has the Politburo leader responsible for HK affairs, offering assurances that… 6/n
Apparently to provide assurance that the agents of the Ministry of National Security & the Ministry of Public Security who will now be authorized to openly operate in HK will not run amok and usurp the role of the HK police, it has been suggested that the HK government… 8/n
Mr. Xi’s move against Hong Kong has nonviolent echoes of President Vladimir V. Putin’s forceful seizure of Crimea from Ukraine in 2014, which was a violation of international law and of Russia’s previous diplomatic commitments. The annexation made Mr. Putin an international pariah for a while, but Russia still remains firmly in control of Crimea.
[…] While Mr. Xi is using legislation rather than military force in a territory already under Chinese rule, it is nonetheless a brash move by an autocratic leader willing to risk international condemnation to resist what he views as foreign encroachment on his country’s security.
“The Communist Party doesn’t care anymore about the reactions, because it’s about survival, the stability of the one-party system, avoiding the fate of the Soviet Union,” [professor at Hong Kong Baptist University Jean-Pierre] Cabestan said. “Hong Kong is being perceived more and more as a base of surveillance, as a factor in the destabilization of the Chinese state.”
[…] Victoria Hui, a political scientist at the University of Notre Dame and author of a book on the 2014 Hong Kong protests known as the Umbrella Movement, said the international community had often spoken out against China’s steady accretion of power over the territory but had exacted no real punishment. […] [Source]
Financial Times’ Tom Mitchell and Xinning Li cite anonymous pro-Beijing politicians who say the surprise unilateral move to force the legislation had been planned for months, and reflected “Beijing’s frustration with Hong Kong officials and its fear that election losses in September would further weaken their hand.”
The garrison commander, Maj. Gen. Chen Daoxiang, addressed the situation in Hong Kong in an interview on the sidelines of the National People’s Congress in Beijing, where he serves as one of nearly 3,000 delegates to the annual legislative gathering.
General Chen said the new legislation would deter “all kinds of separatist forces and external intervention forces,” echoing the view of Mrs. Lam and others in China’s political leadership that the protests have international support intended to undermine the Communist Party’s rule over the city.
“Garrison officers and soldiers are determined, confident, and capable of safeguarding national sovereignty, security and development interests and maintaining the long-term prosperity and stability of Hong Kong,” General Chen said in an interview with China’s state television network, CCTV.
[…] “I have never heard of a garrison official in Hong Kong publicly commenting on Hong Kong’s affairs, even though of course the legislation is being done in Beijing,” said the pro-democracy lawmaker Tanya Chan, calling the move “shocking.” [Source]
The state will unflinchingly and accurately implement the principles of “one country, two systems”, “Hong Kong people ruling Hong Kong” and a high degree of autonomy, and uphold the principle of governing Hong Kong according to law, to preserve the constitutional order of Hong Kong Special Administrative Region as determined by the Constitution and the Basic Law of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, and employ necessary measures to establish and complete the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region’s legal system and enforcement mechanisms for preserving national security, and lawfully preventing, stopping, and punishing, conduct and activities that endanger national security.
[…] The Hong Kong Special Administrative Region shall complete legislation for preserving national security as provided for in the Basic Law of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region as soon as possible. The administrative, legislative and judicial organs of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region shall, in accordance with relevant laws and regulations, effectively prevent, stop, and punish conduct endangering national security. [Source]
Four key provisions in national security law framework: -directly applied in HK -BJ may choose to set up security agencies in HK, plus a local one in HK -HK still needs to enact own security law -judiciary asked to prohibit and punish acts threatening national security pic.twitter.com/lVRFwhyARY
The document said the laws will safeguard the central government’s “overall jurisdiction” as well as Hong Kong’s “high autonomy” given Hong Kong’s “increasingly notable national security risks”.
“When needed, relevant national security organs of the Central People’s Government will set up agencies” in Hong Kong to safeguard national security, the draft said.
Hong Kong’s judiciary, along with the government and legislature, must “effectively prevent, stop and punish acts endangering national security”, it states. The reference to Hong Kong’s staunchly independent legal system has rattled some Hong Kong lawyers.
[…] “It is essentially declaring directly that ‘one country, two systems’ is null and a failure,” said Eric Cheung, principal lecturer at Hong Kong University’s department of law, of the legislation. [Source]
However, there remained some uncertainty over whether Chinese law enforcement would be allowed to operate in Hong Kong under the Basic Law:
Beijing has already asserted that BL Article 22 doesn't bind the existing Liaison Office (purportedly because it is a direct emanation of the Central Government, rather than a department "set up by" the Central Government). So they could use the same logic for any new agency.
The National People’s Congress Observer Blog explained the legality of the new resolution on Twitter:
The Decision confirms that (1) it itself isn't the new nat sec law; (2) it does authorize the NPC Standing Committee to write such a law for HK; and (3) the law will be listed in Annex III and implemented upon promulgation. The HK legislature thus won't have any role to play.
1. The new law need not be exclusively criminal, given the broad scope of the authorization. 2. But the new law will create new "nat sec" crimes, including separatism, "subversion of state power," organizing or carrying out terrorism & foreign forces' interference in HK affairs.
Legal scholar Jerome Cohen weighs in further on the impact of Beijing’s move on Hong Kong’s government and citizens:
The NPCSC will prevail in legal terms, given the wording & structure of the Basic Law, the provisions for its interpretation & the way those provisions have been applied in recent years. But the political costs to the Central Gov't & the people of Hong Kong will be very high. 4/n
The work report itself deals only very briefly with the question of Hong Kong in the final section (in the fourth to last paragraph, in fact), following general language about the CCP’s leadership of the armed forces and the determined protection of “national sovereignty, security and development interests.” Hong Kong and Macau follow together, without any particular emphasis, before the issue of Taiwan is addressed.
[…] The work report is intended as a broad overview of goals and a summary of supposed achievements, so we should not be surprised that it glosses right over this major development. The details were more forthcoming, and the language far more astringent, in the speech this afternoon (on video here) from Wang Chen, vice-chairman of the NPC Standing Committee, specifically addressing the question of new legislation for Hong Kong. Wang said, to a chilling chorus of pre-scripted applause (his voice even rose in anticipation at precisely this point) that “strong measures must be taken to stop and to punish” what he characterized as actions “seriously challenging the bottom line of the principle of ‘One Country Two Systems’, and seriously damaging national sovereignty, security, and development interests.” [Source]
Lam backed the NPC’s proposal to include national security laws in Annex lll of the Basic Law, saying that it was “undoubtedly within the purview of the Central Authorities.”
She added the decision would not amend the Basic Law, nor replace or repeal Article 23 in Hong Kong’s mini-constitution, which allows the city to make laws to ban actions that they see as endangering national security.
“In other words, the HKSAR still has the responsibility to complete legislation for Article 23 of the Basic Law as soon as possible,” she said.
[…] “After the passage of the Decision, the HKSAR Government will fully co-operate with the Standing Committee of the NPC to complete the legislation as soon as possible to discharge its responsibility of safeguarding national security to ensure the long-term prosperity and stability of Hong Kong under “One Country, Two Systems,” she said. [Source]
This effectively bans a broad spectrum of political activity, which would include much of what we’ve seen from the Hong Kong movement thus far. The enforcement of sedition and subversion laws diminishes Hongkongers’ right to free speech and press freedom. Any relationships with foreign political organizations could be categorized as foreign interference. Clashing with the police, even if in self-defense against their unaccountable violence, could be labeled as terrorist activity.
However, national security clauses aren’t new to Hong Kong. Many of them are found in Article 23 of Hong Kong’s Basic Law, the city’s mini-constitution, but efforts to pass these laws were ultimately scrapped after half a million people protested its passage in 2003. So what’s different this time? Why has this news caused such an uproar? Why has the pro-democracy lawmaker Dennis Kwok called it “the most devastating thing to happen to Hong Kong since the handover”?
This is because after this past year of protests, Beijing has arrived at the conclusion that the Hong Kong government (and its Legislative Council) can no longer be trusted with the passing and enforcement of national security laws.
In other words, the Xi administration is fed up with Hong Kong and is no longer satisfied with letting Hong Kong Chief Executive Carrie Lam “manage” the Hong Kong protest movement. Instead of observing from afar, the Xi administration has decided to directly intervene in Hong Kong’s lawmaking processes and intends to beat Hongkongers into submission using “rule by law.” [Source]
“I don’t know which is worse: the law itself, or the process of allowing the standing committee to pass the law for Hong Kong,” [veteran pro-democracy activist and legislator Martin Lee] said, referring to Beijing’s plan to use its highest political body to introduce laws for Hong Kong and override the city’s lawmakers. “It’s a dangerous precedent set at a critical stage, and in the future they can repeat the same thing again and again.”
[…] While many dissidents vowed on Thursday to continue their fight, they said protest tactics may change from mass rallies to underground resistance, with some resorting to lone-wolf attacks to highlight their cause. Police in recent months have warned of rising threats of bombs and other violent acts.
Ivan Choy, a senior lecturer at Chinese University of Hong Kong’s school of government and public administration, said Beijing’s tougher stance may lead to more extreme protests.
“This will provoke further reaction from younger generations,” he said. “It will be very difficult for more moderate voices in society to tell them to stay calm and see a political solution now.” [Source]
Stunned and saddened, many protesters on Friday seemed demoralized and uncertain of their next move. While some on social media called for rallies or singalongs, several organizers said they would focus on events already planned for the coming days. Those demonstrations include a rally scheduled for Sunday to oppose a separate drive by Hong Kong officials to criminalize disrespect of the Chinese national anthem.
[…] Hong Kong’s reaction to the Chinese government’s plan likely won’t stay muted for long. Many in the anti-Beijing camp said they believed the protests would mushroom as social distancing measures eased. The Hong Kong government recently extended the restrictions through at least June 4.
The city’s democracy activists also emphasized that the details of Beijing’s plan remain unclear and that any law would likely not go into effect for several months, giving them time to mobilize.
“Next week, the main thing might be the national anthem law, but in the coming months, the main thing will be the national security law,” said Agnes Chow, a prominent student activist. “I believe there will be a lot of mass protests in the coming weeks and months.” [Source]
A former pro-democracy lawmaker, Lee Cheuk-yan, said at a news briefing by opposition parties and activists that Chinese leader Xi Jinping “has torn away the whole pretense of ‘one country, two systems’” and that Beijing is “directly taking control.”
“They’re trying to ban every organization in Hong Kong who dares to speak out against the Communist Party,” he said, describing it as a challenge to global values such as freedom and liberty.
Office worker Tiffany Chung called it ridiculous. “They promised ‘one-country, two-systems, but the content of the security law is basically implementing ‘one country, one system,’” she said. [Source]
Mr. President @realDonaldTrump, I hope you find out what it is soon, and do indeed address the issue very strongly. The bipartisan #HKHRDA, which you signed into law last November, provides some important tools to respond. #HongKong needs the world now. https://t.co/f1Df1EIgGX
“If agents of China’s national security apparatus can operate in Hong Kong, they can use the same methods that they use in China,” said Leung Kwok-hung, a political activist in Hong Kong. “That is the end for us.”
Beijing’s gambit — imposing its will by decree, bypassing legislative procedures it promised Hong Kong under the terms of the 1997 handover — prompted warnings and indignation from Washington. And it marked a decisive blow in China’s efforts to undermine Hong Kong’s constitution, the Basic Law, and the “one country, two systems” formula that is supposed to preserve the city’s political rights and autonomy until 2047.
Armed with new tools, namely the Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act, the question now is how far the Trump administration will go in its response. Attention is falling on whether the United States will end Hong Kong’s trade privileges by certifying that the territory should no longer be treated separately from China — a step many regard as a nuclear option because of the implications for business — or sanction key officials. [Source]
The intl community must take necessary & appropriate actions to stop China’s violations of Basic Law. This includes enacting and implementing sanctions legislation targeting govt’s continuing & escalating violations of human rights in the mainland, Hong Kong, Tibet & Xinjiang.
At the Guardian, Ilaria Maria Sala and Louisa Lim writethat the new legislation “threatens to undermine all the cherished institutions and rights that distinguish this international city from mainland China”:
In Hong Kong, the news was met with numb disbelief. It was “the saddest day in Hong Kong’s history” according to the pro-democratic Civic party politician Tanya Chan. The very vagueness of mainland Chinese definitions of sedition, subversion and secession could criminalise groups such as religious believers, political parties advocating greater autonomy and even those who organised Hong Kong’s massive protests, some of which saw more than 1 million participants.
Given that Hong Kong’s future autonomy is now uncertain, the move also brings into question the city’s future as an international business centre. The news was met by protests in the legislative council and calls for more street action in spite of the ongoing restrictions on gatherings of more than eight people due to the pandemic.
Hong Kong’s defenders have often hoped the city would be protected by its role as a world city, thanks in no small part to the institutions that distinguish it from mainland China. Some warned that this would not be enough to protect Hong Kong from the Communist party. Before the handover, tycoon Vincent Lo Hong-shui, then chairman of the General Chamber of Commerce, issued a stark warning: “It’s really a myth to think that they will not kill the goose that lays the golden egg.” Through the enactment of this legislation, two decades later, those fears have now come true. [Source]
Coverage of HK nat'l security legislation is on pg 4 of today's People's Daily. Quotes pro-Bejing labor head saying "collusion between HK opposition parties and outside forces is a clear fomenting of color revolution." https://t.co/WWZSK5DoLnpic.twitter.com/wMdWXIQD2K