The Odyssey - Democracy in Hong Kong

[Randy W]

Beijing steps in - from the SCMP

 

Beijing rejects Hong Kong leader’s plan to strengthen anti-corruption laws that would target gifts for the chief executive

• Central government will not accept enacting legislation in Hong Kong to extend anti-bribery law to govern the chief executive, whom Beijing appoints
• Hong Kong government says the plan is not dead and is trying to find a workaround

 

“Beijing’s position is that the chief executive is appointed by the central government,” the source said. “It can’t accept the move to enact local legislation to establish a committee to grant approval for the acceptance of advantages by the chief executive.”

 

Beijing was also worried that the city’s top official could become susceptible to politically motivated accusations of flouting the anti-graft law, the source added.

 

[Randy W]

A promise to Beijing . . .

 

in the SCMP

 

Crackdown on Hong Kong independence will continue, city’s leader Carrie Lam vows in report to Beijing on banning of separatist party

• 12-page document is result of an unprecedented state letter requesting a report on the outlawing of the Hong Kong National Party
• Lam says government has a responsibility to safeguard national security and its stance on independence is ‘very clear and unambiguous’

 

 

 

The 12-page document, submitted to the central government on Tuesday and revealed on Thursday, was the result of an unprecedented state letter issued weeks ago requesting a report from the chief executive on the outlawing of the Hong Kong National Party (HKNP) while backing the move.

In the report’s conclusion, Lam said the city government had a responsibility to safeguard national security and its stance on Hong Kong independence was “very clear and unambiguous”.

“Any act undermining national security is not in the interests of the nation, and will bring turmoil to Hong Kong society,” she wrote.

 

 

[Randy W]

Extradition Bill protest coverage split off to a separate topic -

see The Extradition Bill Protests

 

 

 

from the SCMP Op-Ed

 

How Dongguan’s sex trade plays into Hongkongers’ fears about an extradition deal with mainland China

• Hongkongers fear that there are many pretexts on which they could be extradited to the mainland – having patronised Dongguan’s sex trade may just be one
• The government created the crisis by introducing the ill-advised bill, now it must solve it

 

 

 

Since the 1997 reunification, three events have, in different ways, defined the emotions of Hongkongers – the mass 2003 protest against national security legislation, the 2014 Occupy uprising and now the resistance to a rendition arrangement with Beijing.

 

. . .

The difference between those two events and the extradition law is that Hongkongers and foreigners living or transiting here would face mainland justice if transferred there. That’s why it unnerves them far more than national security legislation or Beijing’s meddling.

We are facing a grave political crisis with no endgame. Withdrawing the bill would make Lam – who relishes her image as an iron lady – look weak, undermining her ability to govern. Establishment lawmakers have painted themselves into a corner by backing Lam even though many oppose the arrangement.

Beijing would lose face if Lam did a U-turn after mainland officials broke their silence to openly back the bill. The opposition would lose all credibility if it yielded to Lam after claiming the moral ground in opposing an agreement on extradition with Beijing.

. . .

Hongkongers are looking to the government to make the first move since it created the crisis by demanding an extradition law that includes the mainland instead of a one-off deal with Taiwan to extradite a Hongkonger who allegedly committed murder there.

The longer this political crisis lasts, the higher the chances of the international community losing faith in our high degree of autonomy.

 

Edited September 2, 2019 by Randy W (see edit history)

[Randy W]

from the Washington Post via the SCMP on Facebook - https://www.facebook.com/scmp/posts/10157228193769820

* This article is also a good summary of where things stand as far as the erosion of Hong Kong's liberties.

Boston student’s avowal of her Hongkonger identity ignites Chinese outrage

• An article in a student paper for Emerson College stirs harsh debate over what it means to be Chinese
• The controversy erupts amid what many see as the rapid erosion of Hong Kong’s autonomy

Frances Hui at Emerson College's library in Boston. The student penned a column title “I am from Hong Kong, not China,” which generated backlash from Chinese students. Photo: Andrew Baicker

South China Morning Post

7 hrs ·

Quote

“I am from a city owned by a country I don’t belong to.”

 

Edited June 25, 2021 by Randy W
* (see edit history)

[Randy W]

The issues and history behind the bill - from the SCMP

 

As I understand it, extradition of the Hong Kong youth to Taiwan was standard procedure - until the extradition bill (introduced ostensibly to AID the extradition procedure) was introduced. Taiwan wants nothing to do with this bill.

 

It could also have a very detrimental effect on foreign businesses in Hong Kong.

 

After Hong Kong’s extradition bill is passed, what next?

• Getting legislation on statute book is just start of government’s problems, with implementation to serve as diplomatic flashpoint amid cross-strait and international tensions

 

 

The bill is bound to be passed this summer, as the government has secured enough support from its allies in the Legislative Council to produce the number of votes it needs.

That looks like a done deal, but what has not been touched upon much is the question of how viable the new law is, if it is to be implemented without making the city pay a further price.

. . .

This is local legislation in theory, but admit it or not, in reality this involves complicated features at a sensitive, or even bad, time for the government.

Firstly, there is the Taiwan factor.

It started with the case of a young Hongkonger accused of killing his girlfriend in Taipei. He fled to Hong Kong to avoid facing trial in Taiwan, prompting the government here to argue the bill would plug a legal loophole and bring justice to the victim and her family.

But that was followed by a twist as Taiwan entered its presidential election campaign period, with pro-independence incumbent Tsai Ing-wen saying “no” to the bill, which she regarded as undermining Taiwan’s status under the “one-China” principle.

To complicate matters, Taiwan police, who had earlier sought help from their Hong Kong counterparts to hunt down the fugitive, had nothing more to say.

 

Last week, when Chief Executive Carrie Lam Cheng Yuet-ngor was grilled by opposition lawmakers on which department in Taiwan would initiate extradition requests in future, she replied that her administration would discuss it with the “authorities concerned” on the island.

By tossing the ball into Taiwan’s court, it is understood that the Hong Kong government can take the moral high ground if Taipei eventually refuses to take back the murder suspect for political reasons.

Then, of course, there is the critical mainland China factor.

 

Beijing started as a passive supporter, if not just an observer, but later jumped into the troubled water to actively back Lam’s campaign and canvas votes for the bill.

The message was loud and clear: Beijing would not accept the opposition camp’s efforts to block the bill, especially with some taking their case to Washington.

The high-profile concerns and resistance from foreign business chambers and their governments also made Beijing uncomfortable and suspicious, against the backdrop of a deteriorating US-China trade war.

While the pro-establishment camp, willingly or under pressure, has thrown its full support behind the bill, a practical uncertainty is looming for the government’s allies – the possibility of a political backlash in the November District Council election and the 2020 Legco contest.

 

 

[Randy W]

Hong Kong has special economic status, including exemption from Trump's tariffs. That could change if it is found to NOT be ”sufficiently autonomous”

 

 

Nancy Pelosi threatens to reassess whether Hong Kong is “sufficiently autonomous”

[Randy W]

A flow chart showing the old vs. the new from the SCMP

 

I'm still unclear about what would have happened had the new bill not been brought up - my understanding is that he WOULD have been extradited, but I'm unsure of the mechanism.

 

Hong Kong extradition law: the current process and what will change under the proposed bill

The Hong Kong government argues the current Fugitive Offenders Ordinance needs updating in light of the ongoing Chan Tong-kai case. Due to a loophole in the law, Hong Kong is unable to extradite Chan, who is accused of killing his pregnant girlfriend in Taipei last year, to Taiwan.

The current regulations state Hong Kong can sign a transfer agreement with any country, except the Central People’s Government, or any other part of the government of the People’s Republic of China, and therefore cannot extradite fugitives to Taiwan

 

[Randy W]

from the SCMP

 

Apparently, use of the word "foreign" is okay when discussing Taiwan

 

 

Fugitives should only be extradited to Taiwan, not mainland China, Hong Kong opposition lawmakers and lawyers’ group urge government

• They fear judicial barrier under the ‘one country, two systems’ principle will be lowered under proposed changes
• Security minister John Lee dismisses their counterproposal during meeting with Civic Party

 

 

 

He stressed that any extradition agreement must ensure that fugitives sent from Hong Kong would face a legal system of comparable standard in the jurisdiction requesting their transfer. Dykes questioned whether the mainland fitted that criteria.

Hong Kong’s two laws related to extradition, the Fugitive Offenders Ordinance and Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Ordinance, exclude the transfer of fugitives to or from “any other part of the People’s Republic of China”.

. . .

New People’s Party chairwoman Regina Ip Lau Suk-yee, a former security minister, also dismissed the pan-democrats’ idea.

Will justice be served by proposed changes to fugitive laws?

Pointing out that Beijing was in charge of Hong Kong’s foreign affairs, she said it would be tough to set any agreements between the city and Taiwan.

Another former security minister, Lai Tung-kwok, sought to allay critics’ concerns that Hong Kong’s courts would be pressured to extradite fugitives who were political dissidents, calling for faith in the city's judicial system.

“We have to fully trust judges to decide only on legal perspectives, that's the foundation of our legal system,” he said.

Fugitives would receive no less legal protection before being handed over and would be free to seek asylum based on torture claims.

 

 

[Randy W]

SCMP

 

As the extradition row erodes confidence in Hong Kong, Singapore is looking attractive to businesspeople who are quietly moving their money out

• Hong Kong’s leader Carrie Lam has, by insisting on pushing through the contentious bill, lost all credibility. More worryingly for the city, perhaps, professionals report it is increasingly tough to do international business here

 

The extradition bill has already damaged our reputation as a global money centre. The Nordic Chamber of Commerce said that the fugitive offender ordinance “represents a major change to Hong Kong’s external legal and judicial arrangements” that sits uneasily with a “stable and transparent centre for commerce and trade”.

 

[Randy W]

from the SCMP


The US could make Hong Kong – and China – pay an economic price for the extradition bill

• The US-Hong Kong Policy Act has teeth to deter China from violating its commitment to ‘one country, two systems’ in Hong Kong. Beijing needs to remember Hong Kong’s value as a financial centre, especially as the trade war drags on

 

The proposed extradition law would violate China’s pledge to adhere to the model of “one country, two systems” in Hong Kong. And by giving Beijing a convenient legal tool to grab individuals deemed to be enemies of the Chinese state, the legislation would imperil the liberty of Hongkongers – and that of foreigners residing here.

Top adviser suggests Hong Kong extradition bill could be delayed

Although the draft law does not formally apply to political offences, this will offer no protection in practice. Under the Chinese legal system – which is controlled by the Chinese Communist Party – the distinction between political offences and conventional crimes is hopelessly blurred. Increasingly, in fact, the Chinese party-state persecutes human rights activists by accusing them of criminal, not political, offences. Common charges include “running an illegal business” and “picking quarrels and provoking trouble”.

If the proposed law is adopted, the mainland authorities will be able to arrest anyone in Hong Kong easily, by charging the target with an extraditable crime. Given the low threshold of proof – prosecutors would not need to provide evidence beyond probable cause – the protection against politically motivated extradition requests is frighteningly slim.

 

Since Hong Kong returned to Chinese rule in 1997, Western governments have maintained special economic privileges to help bolster confidence in the city. In 1992, the US Congress passed the US-Hong Kong Policy Act, in order to continue treating the city as a separate entity from mainland China. The law grants Hong Kong economic and trading privileges, such as continued access to sensitive technologies and the free exchange of the US dollar with the Hong Kong dollar.

 

But such benefits are contingent upon China fulfilling its commitments under the 1984 Sino-British Joint Declaration on Hong Kong, which set out the terms of the city’s future handover. Among other things, China pledged to maintain Hong Kong’s high degree of autonomy, freedom, and rule of law for 50 years.

The US-Hong Kong Policy Act has teeth to deter China from violating its commitments. In particular, it explicitly empowers the US president to issue an executive order suspending some or all of Hong Kong’s privileges if he or she determines that “Hong Kong is not sufficiently autonomous to justify treatment under a particular law of the United States”. In making such a determination, the president should consider “the terms, obligations, and expectations expressed in the Joint Declaration with respect to Hong Kong”.

 

[amberjack1234]

That all sounds good but has Beijing ever kept their word about anything? I think Xi is on a power roll and wants total control over everything. My wife says in her news outlets that she reads in China they are calling him the new Emperor of China.

[Randy W]

Lam says that since Taiwan authorities said they would not request the extradition of the murder suspect, the government’s bill is no longer urgent.

"After studying the matter in the last two days, I announce that we will pause the amendment," she says.

 

[Randy W]

My own opinion? Carrie Lam needs to leave - from the SCMP

Like Aung San Suu Kyi, Carrie Lam has let her one weakness overpower her better qualities

• The Hong Kong chief executive, who has stressed her Catholic faith and has a long record of being an honest civil servant, has betrayed the expectations of Hongkongers by doing the bidding of Beijing

 

Quote

The grim-faced chief executive has almost certainly been following orders but that merely shows that she is more concerned with staying in power than listening to the people or healing such wounds as the “umbrella movement” in 2014 reflected.

To write off the mass of opposition to the extradition bill as based on “misunderstanding”, as her underling Chief Secretary Matthew Cheung Kin-chung has done, displays nothing less than contempt not merely for the hundreds of thousands of Hongkongers who took to the streets, but the lawyers, the chambers of commerce, and the diplomats concerned about Hong Kong’s separate status.

Equally insulting is the insinuation from government sources, let alone Beijing, that this is all part of a Western plot against China. However, foreigners have less to lose than others. They can move. Not so most Hong Kong people. There is real concern, already reflected in the property market, that mainland money is worried about the economic and social stability impact of the bill.

Now, Hong Kong’s future as an international business hub has been put further at risk by Lam’s vastly excessive use of force. Like the Tiananmen Square crackdown, the administration was determined to clear the streets, whatever the cost, as the huge phalanxes of heavily armoured police officers advanced following repeated barrages of tear gas and rubber bullets. For this bystander at Admiralty, a journalist who has felt tear gas before, it was deliberately brutal.

From a later article -

Quote

To appreciate the importance of Hong Kong as a political trope on the island, even Terry Gou C the Foxconn chairman and largest private employer on the Chinese mainland who is vying for the KMT’s presidential nomination C said he would personally fight against Hong Kong’s extradition bill.
There were, of course, other factors that went into Lam’s decision to suspend the extradition bill, but she was likely to have been made aware of Beijing’s alarm that her debacle in Hong Kong was being turned into major political capital for Tsai.

Carrie Lam is probably the only government official ANYWHERE who could piss off EVERYBODY - including the foreign entity she was trying to return him to - by trying to allow extradition of a murder suspect.

I'm getting tired of reading about it, so I'll just quote the headline - it looks like the extradition bill will be allowed to die a slow death, in order to save the embarrassment of withdrawing it.

 

 

When suspending Hong Kong’s extradition bill versus withdrawing it has a different meaning politically and legally but the same outcome: death of the legislation

• Administration has made it clear that there is no timetable to relaunch the suspended bill, source stresses
• Suspension effectively the best face-saving option Lam and her political bosses could stomach without being seen as being weak, Beijing watchers say

Edited June 25, 2021 by Randy W (see edit history)

[Randy W]

from the SCMP

 

Calls for an apology and a resignation: what can Carrie Lam do to soothe an angry Hong Kong public?

• Insiders and observers admit the room for manoeuvre for chief executive and her own standing with the people remains limited
• Loss of trust created by her handling of the bill will take a long time to redress, they say

 

 

 

“She attaches importance to following the procedures of legislative process … but members of the public do not have much interest in procedural matters. They are worried that the government has a conspiracy to restart the legislative process later if the bill is not withdrawn,” he said. “Full withdrawal of the bill is the most effective way to ease public concerns.”

While such a concession could be possible, those close to Lam categorically ruled out her resigning to accept responsibility for the damage wrought by the bill. Beijing, which appointed her after her selection by a 1,200-member committee, was clearly not in favour of her quitting, they pointed out.

They said such a resignation would signal weakness on the part of the central government and make future chief executives vulnerable to such pressures, making it harder to find willing and able candidates.

“We have never seen a chief executive step down because of public pressure. Most people in Hong Kong realise the fate of a chief executive is decided by Beijing, not Hong Kong people,” Ivan Choy Chi-keung, a political scientist at Chinese University, said.

 

[Randy W]

from an Englishman still in Hong Kong and working for the SCMP

 

Cliff Buddle

A journalist for more than 30 years, Cliff Buddle began his career as a court reporter in London and moved to Hong Kong in 1994 to join the Post. Specialising in court reporting and legal affairs, he has held a variety of editorial positions, including deputy editor and acting editor-in-chief.

 

Can Beijing let Hong Kong be Hong Kong and allow the city the room it needs to breathe?

• The extradition controversy is a symptom of a deeper problem: the chief executive is seen as Beijing-friendly and Hong Kong’s political system, too business-friendly. To ensure stability, our core values, separate system and way of life must be respected

 

Desperate to calm these troubled waters, the government has gone into hiding. It is in a state of near paralysis. This week’s cabinet meeting was cancelled, key policy initiatives have been postponed and legislative business disrupted. Chief Executive Carrie Lam Cheng Yuet-ngor has disappeared from public view. The city is supposed to have “executive-led” government. But the executive is no longer leading.

 

. . .

 

One fundamental problem is Hong Kong’s leader has no mandate from the people. The chief executive is elected by a committee of 1,200 people who are guaranteed to pick Beijing’s preferred candidate. The leader is therefore seen by Hongkongers as Beijing’s representative in the city, rather than the city’s representative in China. This has led to a lack of trust, especially concerning policy issues with a mainland dimension.

This means Hong Kong has to be governed with great sensitivity. There is a need for consultation and building of consensus. It is difficult to proceed with controversial issues. Attempts to push through unpopular policies ultimately lead to protests. This is the only option open to Hongkongers. They do not have the power to vote their government out of office. All they can do is take to the streets.

The problem is compounded by the composition of the Legislative Council. Almost half of the seats are small, trade- and profession-based functional constituencies which mostly return lawmakers sympathetic to the government. The system is meant to protect the business sector, seen as key to Hong Kong’s financial success. But what it does is allow vested interests too much influence over government policy.