Change in Hong Kong must come from within the city, not from the US

In Wanchai last week. Marching with an American flag!
I always thought it distasteful - me a fan of America…
Imagine Beijing. Try marching in America with a Chinese flag 

Michael Chugani asks “How can the United States enforcing its own laws be [construed as] interference?” The US is a democracy, with freedom of speech and expression. Ergo, there is nothing wrong with US politicians making statements or standing in solidarity with the protesters in Hong Kong (“National security law leaves too many unanswered questions to feel safe”, May 28).
What is worrying is that US politicians, too, are using their government’s power to influence and intervene in Hong Kong, under a humanitarian garb, to ensure that things here run the way they deem fit.
The US passed the Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act [HKHRDA] with bipartisan support and consensus because, if there is one thing that unites both parties in Washington, it is their compulsion to intervene in other nations’ affairs. Despite some good things built into this Act, isn’t it an attempt to leverage Hong Kong’s economic strength to foster policies that the US government prefers?
An essential feature of the legislation is an annual certification by the US State Department on the social and political status of Hong Kong, and it is the department’s report that determines whether Hong Kong retains its “special” status. A negative report could have repercussions like the special status being revoked, because the political or commercial climate in Hong Kong does not suit the needs or wants of the US government.

[ADDED: Related posts by Alex Lo and Tom Plate. In short: America, mind your own house.]

Take the US response to the national security legislation, for instance.
The US government will decide, based on the report and its whims, whether to extend the carrot or the stick. How is that not interference on the part of the US in Hong Kong affairs? Truth be told, the US has a long history of meddling in the political affairs of other nations, extending to all regions of the globe.
Isn’t it logical that only people who will be directly impacted by the laws or policies have a say in the city’s governance? If this ideal applies to policies being laid down by Beijing, it should equally apply to Washington, too.
People like Joshua Wong Chi-fung, kowtowing to US hegemony and looking towards President Donald Trump as a patron saint, must remember that change in Hong Kong needs to come from within the city itself. When fighting for democracy, universal suffrage and autonomy, why allow Hong Kong affairs to be dictated by another foreign power?
Does this “licence to interfere” not go against the crux of democracy and self-rule that the people now seek?

Gauri Venkitaraman, Lam Tin