But some analysts say the Chinese citizens can expect a remake of the last five years, starring President Xi Jinping.

The party boss and head of China’s growing military is all but guaranteed a second term. In the last one alone, he has encroached upon the framework of government and the lives of ordinary citizens in ways not seen in decades. He has built the party up with loyal allies and vanquished rivals through his widespread anti-corruption campaign.

He’s even developed a mild cult of personality.

In fact, Xi protégé and party leader of Beijing Cai Qi has directed his officials to consider Xi’s compiled speeches as “the most important book on your desk, your main reference work, and your source of mottoes.”

Several official government meetings have even revolved around directing the rank and file to uphold the authority and to refrain from making “improper comments” about party policy.

And new policy is expected to be unveiled at the congress under Xi’s direction. Unessential government work will remain on hold until the congress. It likely will break down as follows.

A few thousand delegates will select a 200-member central committee. That committee will then create a roughly 20-member politburo. Xi will likely run unopposed for the role of party boss — his name likely to be the only one on the ballot.

The process echoes back to China’s first Communist leader Mao Zedong, who ruled until his death in 1976. Historically, the congress has been held to give the party leader another term and to retire the politburo standing committee of about five to nine people.

But some of Xi’s supporters argue the tone of the times may call for a third term under Xi, pushing his rule well into 2027.

Wong gained national attention in 2014 when he and two friends stormed the Legislative Council building, kicking off what came to be known as the Umbrella Movement. This was marked by thousands of Hong Kongers marching through the streets demanding for free elections for the post of city chief executive. It caught the sentiment of thousands who believe that China is exerting an unjust amount of power over the lives of Hong Kongers.

Along with two colleagues, Wong was found guilty last summer of unlawful assembly and given suspended sentences as well as orders to engage in community service. But the Hong Kong justice department appealed the decision and called for harsher punishments. Activists Nathan Law and Alex Chow are now sentenced to seven and eight months in jail, respectively.

But Wong said he’s willing to do the time, as others like him carry on the movement beyond the jail cells.

“I expect to pay the price, to be sent to prison,” he told AFP. “However, I have no regret at all. What we have done already proves that Hong Kong people will continue to show determination in the frontline against authoritarian rule.”

But that system is about to encroach even deeper into the lives of Chinese citizens. Without these VPNs, it would be virtually impossible for users to access unfiltered content from websites like Facebook and Twitter. It would essentially close China’s iron fist on the media. The government under President Xi Jinping already has directed traditional media to follow party lines and promote “positive propaganda.” It has also initiated an official government licensing policy for media.

China Mobile, China Telecom and China Unicom are the state-run telecom companies to receive the government directive, according to a report by Bloomberg.

China Mobile, China Unicom and the Ministry did not immediately respond to CNBC’s requests for comment. Meanwhile, a spokesperson from China Telecom denied receiving such a government directive.

But the growing, unchecked power of China in the Asia Pacific, which sees more $5 trillion worth of sea-borne trade each year, is raising concern among her neighbors—particularly a country China has for years vowed to take back by force if necessary: Taiwan.

Beijing has considered it a breakaway province since the end of the war and claims re-unification is inevitable and unification unacceptable. The U.S. even recognizes Beijing’s “One-China Policy” and has no formal diplomatic relations to Taiwan, but still sells arms to the island under the Taiwan Relations Act.

Some, however, believe Taiwan is about to need bigger guns and fighters willing to use them. And they want the U.S. to fight alongside them.

Enoch Y. Wu, a former non-commissioned officer in the Taiwanese Army special forces, and a defense advisor in a Taiwanese think-tank writes in a New York Times opinion piece: “China has become an economic powerhouse focused on building its military, investing in thousands of ballistic and cruise missiles that can damage Taiwan’s ports and runways many times over, neutralizing our navy and air force. These missiles have the range and accuracy to cripple American bases on Okinawa and Guam. This capacity — combined with a buildup of submarines, ‘carrier killer’ missiles and advanced air-defense systems — has all but ensured that the United States would be reluctant to interfere again on behalf of Taiwan in China’s backyard.”

Enoch also points at the major inefficiencies in the modern Taiwanese military, which has been crippled by shrinking defenses, scandal among the ranks, and an end to conscription. The latter began to erode in 2000 and now “alternative services” to fulfill these duties can range from playing competitive video games to working at fast food chains like 7-11.

“We seem to expect American sons and daughters to risk their lives to protect our home, while relieving our own of that very duty,” he writes.

And if the looming threat of China does spell out regional warfare for conquest of the region, people like Enoch fear Taiwan will be the first domino to fall.

Enoch concludes, “Whether Taiwan eventually falls to Beijing depends on the choices we make now. Taiwan needs a new approach for its security: The political leadership must correct decades of mismanagement of the military and accept ultimate responsibility for the defense of the country.”

“Currently, when we ship products out of America, many other countries make us pay very high tariffs and taxes – but when foreign companies ship their products into America, we charge them almost nothing,” Trump said.

But while Trump’s words gained applause from supporters in attendance, his language did not ring well with trade officials in China.

Huo Jianguo, vice-chairman of the Ministry of Commerce’s China Society for WTO Studies, warns China should be mentally and practically prepared for a trade war with the U.S. that is only a matter of time.

He says Trump’s views on policies of protectionism, which his voters expect him to deliver on, is getting Chinese government officials on the defensive.

He notes, however, that although Trump’s anti-China rhetoric has publicly stayed in tune, he has yet to impose his proposed 45% border tax on Chinese imports, and he may still be willing to stay true to the One-China policy.

The U.S. president has also had a phone conversation with his Chinese counterpart Xi Jinping and a face-to-face meeting is expected between the Communist leader and the negotiator-in-chief.

Still, Huo says China must remain vigilant.

It’s not a surprising stance for Beijing to take considering the uncertainty and unpredictability that seems to surround Trump and his inner circle.

“He isn’t showing friendship, nor weakness. He has been constantly testing Beijing’s bottom line,” Huo said.

The Trump administration’s streak of outlandish maneuvers continued on Tuesday when the administration published a proposal in the Federal Register that would have Chinese citizens who hold long-term US business and tourism visas be asked to disclose their social media handles before entering the United States.

The targeted group would be asked to answer this question online as part of the Electronic Visa Update System, of which all Chinese holders of 10-year visas to the US are a part of. The information disclosed could then be used by the US Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to “evaluate” an individual via his or her social media accounts before allowing entrance into the country.

Jennifer Evanitsky, a spokeswoman for the CBP gave Politico an adamant assurance that “The collection of social media identifiers will not be used to prevent travel based on an applicant’s race, ethnicity, religion, or sexual orientation.”

“The social media provider will not be asked to violate any privacy settings or policies,” she said.

A 60-day open-comment period will occur on the Federal Register following the proposal in which the government is encouraging people to voice their honest opinions and concerns. Also meaning that our country’s new Trump-nation bigots will have a platform on which to post their hateful, nonsensical, ignorant, and racist remarks.

The CBP also added in a separate, written notice regarding the proposal, that revealing one’s social media information would be optional. Furthermore, refusing to give up that personal information would not negatively affect that person’s chances at getting into the US.

With this addition to the online registry being optional for the applicant, many are incredulous as to the actual usefulness of the sanction. Hiding information from the CBP would be as simple as omitting it from the form, deleting parts of profiles, changing privacy settings, or simply making an “oops, I forgot to include that one” moment.  

However, others view this move not as innocuous, but rather as another way for Trump to incite hate in America.

“The Chinese community in the US appears certain to make a few ‘suggestions,’ as the proposal has left many spooked that the only thing it will do is contribute to a rise in anti-Chinese sentiment around the country,” online news source Shanghaiist wrote in an article Monday.

One advocacy group has already spoken out against the proposal. The Asian Americans Advancing Justice – Los Angeles (AAAJ-LA) told The Huffington Post earlier this week, “As a civil rights organization, we fear that proposals such as the proposed social media check will be largely ineffective as a national security screen and will serve primarily to allow the discriminatory targeting of Chinese immigrants and visitors at border checkpoints.”

The administration’s proposal is just Trump’s latest way to allow his followers to disseminate hate and racist ideology, and it is deeply concerning.

This is not only an “American” problem; whole groups of people around the globe are constantly being discriminated against, abused, or worse – and have been throughout history.

And China – one of the world’s most notorious violators of human rights –  is certainly no exception. China’s Communist government has begun confiscating passports from a marginalized ethnic group in the Xinjiang northwest region of China.

The Uighur people, who make up 45 percent of the population in the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region, mainly practice Islam. The Uighurs are ethnically Turkic Muslims, and they fear that their traditional culture will be destroyed.

The province has seen some unrest and occasional violence, which the Chinese government blames on Uighur muslims, claiming they are inspired or helped by foreign terrorists. Uighur leaders have denied any involvement in the attacks.

Last June, in a blatant act of discrimination, Xinjiang police put in place a regulation requiring all people in Xinjiang provide DNA samples and “other biological data” when applying for travel documents, according to BBC News.

The most recent policies order all residents in the region to hand in their travel documents (passports, etc.) to the police for “safekeeping”.

BBC’s Stephen McDonell in Beijing says that “all residents must now apply for permission to leave the country before they can retrieve their passports.”

The BBC article continues, “The World Uyghur Congress says that although the new measures are ostensibly aimed at all residents, they will in effect target the Uighur community.”

China’s discriminatory and hateful actions are all done “in the name of anti-terrorism”. Yeah, we’ve heard that one before.

The non-profit organization Human Rights Watch has deemed China’s new regulations as a direct violation of freedom of movement, a human right articulated in Article 13 of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

“Precautionary actions” such as the ones seen in Xinjiang are lies; they don’t help the world. No, they just help spread the venom. We need to stop the marginalization. Stop the injustice. Stop the bigotry. Stop the hate.

The Permanent Court of Arbitration in the Hague ruled July 12 in favor of the Philippines, saying that evidence as to China’s ‘historical claims’ to the region are unfounded, and that Beijing’s actions violated the Philippine’s sovereign rights.

China’s huge loss goes hand-in-hand with another country – Taiwan. In its ruling against China, the court also rejected Taiwan’s right to a 200 nautical-mile exclusive economic zone (EEZ) around Taiping Island, located smack in the middle of the South China Sea.

Taiping, the largest of the highly debated Spratly Islands, is administered by Taiwan. The 46- hectare island was deemed by the court a mere “rock” – and Taiwan just couldn’t accept that.

The country’s president Tsai Ing-wen boarded a Taiwanese warship last Wednesday, addressing the crew: “…The South China arbitration ruling, especially in the part about Taiping Island, has seriously hurt our rights to the South China Sea islands and their relevant waters.”

Just a week after President Tsai’s warship appearance, about 30 Taiwanese fishermen and lawmakers also made their way to Taiping Island to support their claims and fishing rights in the area.

At the forefront of this operation stands fisherman Cheng Chun-chung. “It’s a serious issue to reduce Taiping Island to a ‘reef’,” Central News Agency quoted Mr. Cheng as saying.

Mr. Cheng led approximately 20 fishermen from Pingtung county, located just east of Taiwan’s southern capital, Kaohsiung. The armada set off for Taipei at about noon Wednesday, all five boats decked out in Taiwanese flags and banners reading: “Safeguard fishing rights in the South China Sea,” and ­“Protect ancestral assets”.

South China Morning Post reported that the fishermen said they would spend the two-week trip fishing as a statement of protest and stressing Taiwan’s sovereign right over the waters.

Although ten boats had signed up for the protest-trip, five pulled out after warnings from fishing authorities came pouring in, organizers said.

Even Mr. Cheng himself was threatened by the authorities. He told the South China Morning Post that he was approached by a fisheries official, who told Mr. Cheng his boat license would be revoked if he went to the island because “his vessel was restricted to sailing between Taiwan, the mainland, and Hong Kong.” But Mr. Cheng was not deterred by the threat; he was adamant that he will not back down.

A few hours earlier, some of Taiwan’s lawmakers jetted off for the island at issue. Eight legislators from Taiwan’s two political parties – the presently in-power Democratic Progressive Party and the formerly in-charge Kuomintang (KMT) – boarded a military aircraft for a flight to Taiping, landing at about 10:50am, CNA reported.

Once on Taiping Island, the Taiwanese politicians visited a weather station and checked out solar power and satellite equipment. They also sampled coconut juice from trees planted on the island, KMT legislator Johnny Chiang Chi-chen told SCMP.  

Wang Ding-yu, another lawmaker on the trip, said the solar power facilities and a well had been established on the island.

The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea says that an island must be able to sustain human habitation or economic life. Both of the places the legislators visited prove that these UN requirements are being fulfilled , and thus serve to refute the international tribunal’s ruling on the status of Taiping.

Mr. Chiang, who led the lawmakers’ expedition, also criticized the Taiwanese government for “not taking substantial action to defend the island’s sovereignty in the region,” according to SCMP.

Taiwan did not take part in the hearings at the Hague.

The Chinese government’s dominance over its citizens has much to do with its stringent control of media outlets; from going through people’s personal emails and messages to what is broadcast on television and printed in newspapers.

A large aspect of this dominance is to control the Internet, which China has long sought to codify into law. Now they are one step closer in achieving this frightening goal.

The law’s draft was presented before the standing committee of the National People’s Congress and details requirements that network operators adhere to social morals, as well as accept the supervision of the government and public, according to state news agency Xinhua.

The first draft of the cybersecurity law, published almost a year ago, aimed to tighten user privacy protection from hackers and data resellers. Also tucked into that proposed draft was to heighten government power to be able to both access and block any circulation of private information records of which China’s leaders deem illegal.  

This second draft adds to these stipulations, saying that Chinese citizens’ personal data, as well as “important business information” must be stored domestically and that those who wish to provide that information overseas face government security evaluation, Fortune Magazine reports.

If adopted, this law carries with it serious consequences to not only China’s own people but to companies and nations across the globe that do business with China.

In fact, China’s strict cybersecurity policies has been a sensitive and contentious topic for China’s economic partners abroad. Those partners, including the European Union and the United States, view China’s regulations as truly unfair to foreign businesses.

For instance: the companies Facebook and Google, widespread throughout the world (never mind popular and successful), are blocked from the Internet in China. Chinese authorities, however, claim that restrictions such as the aforementioned are “needed to ensure security against growing threats, such as terrorism.”

Parliament has not yet published the second draft in its entirety and it is still unclear when this new cybersecurity law may be passed.

Each year, June 4th is filled with deep anguish and mourning of the thousands of innocent lives unmercifully lost that day.

To commemorate the anniversary this year, hundreds of demonstrators marched the streets of Hong Kong.

Hong Kong legislator Lee Cheuk-yan is quoted by Asia One as saying, “This is the 27th year after 1989 and the people in Hong Kong, we, are still persistently calling for the vindication of June 4 and the end of one-party rule and democratic China. And also, everyone can see that, the suppression is not just back in 1989, it is also today in China, today in Hong Kong.”

Hong Kong Free Press puts the number of protestors at approximately 1,500 people, though the official police statement, not surprisingly, estimated the size at half that. Last year’s commemoration attracted nearly 3,000 people.

The crowd was passionate, calling for equality and democracy as well as voicing their agony over the cruelty and callousness of the tyrannical Chinese Communist Party.  “Persist until the end! Never give up! Redress June 4! End one-party rule!” they chanted, Nikkei Asian Review reported.

Like most protests, however, groups of opposition were present as well. News platform Asia One wrote that Monday’s march was met by “dozens of pro-Beijing supporters,” who claim that reports agreed upon worldwide of civilian casualties at Tiananmen Square were enormously inflated.

One such CCP “patriot” was Peter Lam. “For 27 years, they (pro-democratic leaders) have been holding marches to draw attention to the Tiananmen Square massacre. I think this is not the truth. There are casualties in the 1989 riots, but the majority of those who died were military, as well as innocent civilians and students,” the loyalist said.

Mainland China works hard effacing what happened that tragic day 27 years ago; you won’t find the terms ‘Tiananmen Square Massacre’, ‘Tank Man’, or even the innocuous-sounding ‘June 4th’ anywhere on the web, and those who were alive then are too scared to mention the word, fearing persecution and imprisonment. The only version of Tiananmen Square is the Party’s version.

While people in mainland China are either clueless to the atrocious event or simply remain docilely silent on the matter, it is somewhat encouraging – even if ever-so-slightly – that the people of Hong Kong are taking an outspoken stand against the oppression and brutality of the Communist Party, paying tribute to and continuing on the message of the demonstrators who protested on June 4th, 1989.

Hong Kong’s unique legal status makes it the only place where commemorative demonstrations are allowed.