I don't disagree in principle Santander, but It is already being re-eclipsed by Shanghai, isn't it? In what Dashushu was responding to specifically - the Allegation that HK integration into China means somehow supporting "higher rents", it is pretty obvious that the opposite is the case. I mean some of the protesters even live in Shenzhen for crying out loud. 1C2S - almost as unfettered neoliberalism as one can get - is responsible for the grotesque situation where a very small section of City has almost complete monopolistic control over it's Housing and ensures that usual mechanisms to increase supply cannot be utilized, because - unlike in the mainland - it has effective control over the levers of Government as well, and ensures Zoning laws remain extremely restrictive. And Pan-Democrats are perfectly fine with this arrangement, because they need to protect the narrative that the only reason for high rents are the evil mainlanders that come to live in HK. When in fact freer mobility between Mainland China and HK would force HK property owners to keep their prices in tack with those on the Mainland - the end to Border Controls would also make commuting into the City far easier. Integration would mean a very visible and clear improvement on one of the main underlying Issues that led to the protests in the first place.
Also on the point that comparing these Laws to their equivanents in Western Countries is invalid because they are far more overreaching - and you are not wrong, they are, actually to the point that I am also uncomfortable with them. But ultimately it, the fact that it had to come to this is down single-handedly to the responsibility of the Pan-Democrats. Once again these people, out of pure recalcitrance, refuse any compromise with the Mainland, allowing a bad situation to deteriorate out of some sort of accelerationist Idea that the longer things are bad in Hong Kong the more support they are going to get, and then are full surprised pikachu face when they end up shafting themselves - and Hong Kong - worse for it.
Same thing happened with the Chief Executive election, for instance. The Pan-Democrats had the option of the universal sufferage election with a nomination committee as accepted by the Central Government - that while still controlled by the pro-peking camp would have still effectively forced the nomination of a moderate pro-peking politican with popular appeal - or they could own the Chinese nats in the LegCo epic style and keep the current system where people have no say what so ever and that will always ensure the election of a pro-peking hardliner. They chose the latter obviously.
And same here. Everyone knew that Hong Kong needed some form of security law, like every other jurisdiction in the World. They could have worked with Beijing to implement the relatively moderate 2003 draft which had Hong kong input and was mostly in line with those of stricter democtratic countries like France or South Korea. But no, they blocked everything. So the Central Government said ok, if implementing the offences into HK law is too much, then there must at least be a way to try those offenders in China. But everyone got angry, the City was burned, and we know the rest. And eventually Beijing ran out of patience and bypassed hong kong altogether and is now going to railroad it's preferred draft which is going to be far more authoritarian than the 2003 Draft, and most likely the de facto end to One Country Two Systems.
Hong Kong has been destroyed by the very people who claim to be fighting for her. Who, of course can and will always just emigrate - but that is option that most in Hong Kong don't have. They have been sold down the river for some sweet USA university scholarships for Joshua Wong and his friends, and will be the real ones facing the consequences of this.
I guess it is only fitting that the tradegy of Hong Kong is heavily contributed to by well-intentioned but ultimately inept and naive people who do not really understand the art of compromising for tactical reasons.
