The Limited Times

Now you can see non-English news...

Reformed Youth on Hong Kong Version National Security Law|01 Weekly

2020-06-04T17:25:47.955Z


Last Thursday (May 28), the National People's Congress voted to authorize the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress to formulate the "Hong Kong version of the National Security Law", which will be implemented in Hong Kong in the form of Annex 3 of the Basic Law. "Hong Kong version of the National Security Law" launched triggered Hong Kong


weekly

Writer: Contributing Writer

2020-06-03 15:55

Last update date: 2020-06-03 15:55

Last Thursday (May 28), the National People's Congress voted to authorize the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress to formulate the "Hong Kong version of the National Security Law", which will be implemented in Hong Kong in the form of Annex 3 of the Basic Law. The introduction of the "Hong Kong version of the National Security Law" has caused anxiety among the people of Hong Kong, and has also provided another so-called "iron certificate" for the foreign consuls and the government who are eyeing the eye.

Written by: Shi Zhongjian

There are seven resolutions, which advocate punishment and prohibition of "acts and activities that endanger national security", "any division of the country and subversion of state power", "organization of terrorist activities" by anyone and "intervention of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region" by foreign forces, and request the SAR The government handles and implements the above points by itself.

In theory, the content of the "Hong Kong version of the National Security Law" does not violate the laws that most countries will necessarily support or establish in their land. In the eyes of most supporters of the establishment and the central government, the passage of this bill will naturally play a role in restoring the prosperity and stability of Hong Kong; but in the eyes of the general public and many citizens, the "Hong Kong version of the National Security Law" is regarded as a "flood beast" , Symbolizing the "further cannibalization" of Hong Kong's freedom by the central government. Some more violent people even said that "one country, two systems" was dead, and they became the real dead body in their eyes.

As reformers who believe in "one country, two systems," we must write our position here: We believe that safeguarding national security and interests is the responsibility of the Hong Kong government. We are not legal experts or scholars engaged in legal research. Therefore, we can only raise some common questions on this topic.

On May 28, the National People's Congress voted to authorize the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress to formulate the "Hong Kong version of the National Security Law." (Associated Press)

Since the reunification, the established and pan-political politicians have abandoned their responsibilities for constructive criticism in order to win elections, and have repeatedly neglected Article 23 of the Basic Law, which indirectly constituted the firing line of the Central Committee's shot. However, blindly expressing to the central government that "the vast majority of Hong Kong people welcome the National Security Law". Except for the very few establishments that are ideologically stunned, they may not mind speaking out, we do not feel that the establishment can be adopted. This kind of deceitful deception.

The reality is that there are many people in Hong Kong who have moderate or even cold political views who are surprised or even afraid of the Central Government's approach. Blindly decorating Taiping is irresponsible to the people of Hong Kong and the central government. Therefore, we put forward the following suggestions and suggestions regarding the actual implementation of the "Hong Kong version of the National Security Law" in Hong Kong. We hope that we can help those in the political system to strike a balance in safeguarding national security and responding to doubts and worries of all parties. To enable national security to be put into practice in the stormy Hong Kong, it will also minimize the impact on the lives of Hong Kong people or the way foreign businessmen do business.

1. Special Court Special Trial? On the Constitution of Judicial Judicial Organization

Some delegates suggested that a special "National Security Court" should be established in the Hong Kong courts, independent of the existing judicial procedures. There are also more radical voices that the "Hong Kong version of the National Security Law" should be tried in the Mainland or in courts dominated by Mainland judges.

Many voices criticizing such initiatives are advocating a fundamental distrust of the Mainland's judicial system. We do not believe that the Mainland’s judicial system is fundamentally flawed, but we cannot deny that the legal systems of the Mainland and Hong Kong are quite different. Hong Kong pursues common law and the use of civil law in the Mainland (European law). Hong Kong judges have a better grasp of Hong Kong’s civil conditions and social conditions, so that they can better reflect the judicial situation of serving Hong Kong people in applying and writing judicial principles.

At the same time, the country does not have to worry too much about whether locally appointed judges have the ability to examine issues such as national security and political stability in the Mainland, because factors such as "social stability" and "public interest" have long taken root in Hong Kong’s long-standing judicial system Institutional tradition. If the country can rest assured that local judges will examine the case under the existing legal mechanism, I believe that it can calm the worries of most international capital and business that are not holding political interests or ideology, and let the international anti-bite of the "Hong Kong version of the National Security Law" To calm down. Then, when the system operates for a period of time and shows fairness and justice, it can naturally justify the "Hong Kong version of the National Security Law" while ensuring that the governance principle of "Hong Kong people ruling Hong Kong" can be maintained both visually and practically.

The local judiciary already has mechanisms and procedures for the demands of judges and the handling of arrogance by individual judges. Therefore, all parties should consider maintaining the status quo as far as possible and find organic reforms and outlets within the existing framework. (Profile picture)

Moreover, the opening of a special court will involve legal issues that require long and difficult public consultations, or are completely out of line with public opinion, which will cause unnecessary risks for the general public and citizens willing to abide by the national bottom line. Anxiety will also make them question the independence of the "Hong Kong version of the National Security Law". We believe that it is true that the governance of a great power must be hard when it is hard and soft when it is soft, but in this turbulent year, any unnecessary conflict between dry ports and ports can be relieved, and at the same time, it can ensure that the country will firmly hold the bottom line. Everyone should try and take urgent measures.

In addition, the local judiciary already has mechanisms and procedures for the demands of judges and the handling of arrogance by individual judges. Therefore, all parties should consider maintaining the status quo as far as possible and find organic reforms and outlets within the existing framework. Rather than starting from scratch, it is better to achieve a win-win situation at the level of personnel coordination and external perception, allowing the existing Hong Kong people-led system to try cases involving national security on its own.

2. Should foreign judges be banned?

Since the "Occupy Central" in 2014, the fairness of judges' trials has often been questioned by various parties in society. The case of District Court Judge Guo Weijian being disturbed by recent storms and the fact that the Chief Justice Judge Ma Daoli issued a rare statement are just clear examples. While the judges were openly divided into "yellow officials" and "blue officials", the judicial system was reduced to another venue for games outside the Legislative Council and street struggles. Under the pan-politicized environment of Hong Kong, the role and image halo of courts and judges who are impartial and out of politics have become more important, and we also need our protection.

Judges certainly cannot have personal political attitudes, but to define or infer the political bias of judges based on pure nationality and skin color, and even question their professional ethics. This approach is beyond exaggeration. Second, it is not particularly scientific (even ethnic (Suspicion of discrimination), and will provoke the doubts and dissatisfaction of many foreigners or moderate supporters who originally understood the "Hong Kong version of the National Security Law." In fact, if the judge’s personal conduct is really problematic, he must let him personally bear it, but the personal gap cannot be related to the entire race. On the contrary, such unscientific thinking will only provoke racial hatred, and it will not help to resolve social resentment or the concerns of the moderate people in the middle.

Of course, some people may say that foreign countries are not allowed to let non-citizens or non-native-born judges try national security-related bills, right? The fact is that the courts of most countries in the international community will not require judges with foreign residency to avoid related cases. It must be known that the right to reside abroad is not too strongly related to the judge’s professional judgment. If the qualified and professional judges are excluded from the system for the sake of a temporary ideological dispute, would it be even more terrible? The joke has discouraged many foreign investors who use the legal stability of Hong Kong as their stepping stones to enter the mainland, which is harmful to both the country and Hong Kong.

The chief judge of the Court of Final Appeal Ma Daoli (pictured) issued a statement saying that he had talked with Judge Guo Weijian and reminded him to avoid expressing any opinions in the judgment when performing his judicial duties. (Profile picture / photo by Li Zetong)

3. What is the definition of retrospective period?

If the "Hong Kong version of the National Security Law" will establish a retrospective period, I believe it will inevitably set off another huge controversy. In law, the retrospective period usually does not apply to criminal law. Take the United Kingdom, which uses common law as an example. Although in theory its legal system does allow Parliament to pass legislation with a retrospective period, according to Article 7 of the European Convention on Human Rights, criminal law must not set a retrospective period. There are several reasons for this: first, it is unfair to the suspects and suspects, thereby reducing the acceptance of the law in the eyes of the people and the acceptance actually obtained; second, as long as the law begins to be grasped now, Well grasped, naturally can block existing loopholes. On the contrary, if it is for retrospective purposes, it will only add unnecessary burden to the judicial system. Third, from the perspective of the mainland government, many foreign and domestic funds are still willing to take root in Hong Kong because they can respond in a timely manner. , Adapted to the newly applied legislation in Hong Kong. On the contrary, if the news of the retrospective period is set in place, the implementation will only shake the Hong Kong financial market and add more sorrow and fog to Hong Kong on the eve of the new cold war.

4. Definition of charge

Recently, the "Private Press Conference" published a report that pointed out that the vast majority of Hong Kong people (ninety-nine percent) oppose the establishment of the "Hong Kong version of the National Security Law." We have also discussed with many young partners their worries about the "Hong Kong version of the National Security Law." The most frequent occurrence is the definition of "crime" in the "Hong Kong version of the National Security Law", and the scale or rigor of the actual implementation. Of course, we also pointed out to them that if the center of the beast of floods in their mind really wants to "sin", why should we pass this law? Just as if the "Fugitive Offenders Ordinance" was originally intended to "cannibalize the people's rights of Hong Kong", then the amendment of the "Fugitive Offenders Ordinance" is undoubtedly a "shit bridge", which cannot pose an excessive threat to the people of Hong Kong. Just as the so-called sin of addiction, why don't you bother to say that if Hong Kong people think that the beasts of floods in their minds can only "persecute" Hong Kong people through certain specific laws, then it reflects the naive imagination of the concept of "persecution".

At the same time, we hope that the country will understand that many Hong Kong people are indeed uneasy about the possible areas covered by the charges, the details of their implementation, and what constitutes a violation of the criminal law. This will put tremendous pressure on the full implementation of the "Hong Kong version of the National Security Law" in Hong Kong and the degree of independence of the trial. Just like the national leadership policy, the policies for Hong Kong, the Mainland and other parts of the country must be "grasp the bottom line and allow the local government to play freely beyond the bottom line." If the "Hong Kong version of the National Security Law" legislation can fully reflect the local people's sentiments and opinions, or if it is led by Malay, a heavyweight who crosses the political spectrum in the local judiciary, I believe that the final result will be a solution to Hong Kong people's doubts. A good plan that can share the worries of the country at the same time.

Recently, the "Private Press Conference" published a report stating that the vast majority of Hong Kong people (ninety-nine percent) oppose the establishment of the "Hong Kong version of the National Security Law." (Profile picture / Photo by Kwong Xiaobin)

5. The role of national security agencies in Hong Kong

The fourth most important item in the "Hong Kong version of the National Security Law" is the fourth item, namely, "The relevant organs of the Central People's Government for maintaining national security shall establish institutions in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region as necessary to perform their duties related to maintaining national security." Excluding some extremists to "prove" that Hong Kong's "one country, two systems" no longer exists. This requirement is likely to bring all kinds of uncertainty to international companies investing in Hong Kong and many foreign workers working in Hong Kong. Irrational panic caused by uncertainty, ranging from negatively affecting the short-term competitiveness of Hong Kong, to causing some companies to withdraw their capital and returning overseas talents, even has a serious impact on the long-term economic development and social stability of Hong Kong. Therefore, we recommend that the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress should clarify as early as possible which agencies are covered by the bill (such as the Ministry of National Security, the Ministry of Public Security, the Armed Police Force, etc.), as well as the roles and responsibilities of these departments in Hong Kong. For the majority of Hong Kong citizens, especially young people, the most worrying thing is whether and how the Central Cyber ​​Security and Information Technology Commission Office will perform its duties in Hong Kong. Therefore, issues such as network censorship mechanisms, firewalls, social media speech regulation, and academic article regulation should be prioritized and explained to the public as soon as possible.

At the same time, based on the principle of "Hong Kong people ruling Hong Kong" under "One Country, Two Systems" and the constitutional responsibility as a special economic zone, Hong Kong should have an obligation to maintain national security. Therefore, even if a national security agency establishes an agency in Hong Kong, the SAR government itself has the responsibility to establish a department or committee that participates in the maintenance of national security. The department or committee should be led and composed by Hong Kong people, and be specifically responsible for communicating and coordinating with other national security departments in Hong Kong and ensuring that all departments perform their duties in accordance with the laws under the "Hong Kong version of the National Security Law". In order to enhance public transparency, the department or committee should submit annual reports related to national security affairs to the Legislative Council. This not only reflects Hong Kong's obligations as a "one country", but also reflects Hong Kong's responsibility relationship between the government and the people in a society ruled by law.

In addition, we believe that the "Hong Kong version of the National Security Law" should be consulted as widely as possible during the specific drafting stage to enable Hong Kong citizens to express their opinions. This aspect helps to relieve the panic atmosphere in the society, on the other hand, it helps to identify the legal and social problems that may arise in the future implementation of the bill, reduce unnecessary conflicts and disputes, and achieve a "stable public heart and a rainy day". effect.

Based on the "Hong Kong people ruling Hong Kong" policy under "One Country, Two Systems" and the constitutional responsibility of the SAR, Hong Kong should have an obligation to maintain national security. (Profile picture)

6. "Political inaction" with Hong Kong characteristics becomes "promising"

The "Hong Kong version of the National Security Law" should be taken seriously by Hong Kong political circles. The decision to pass direct legislation by the National People's Congress undoubtedly reflects that the central government has lost patience with the SAR government's long-term failure to effectively ensure national security. Looking back at the "lab war" and "the battle for the rostrum" of the Hong Kong Legislative Council in the past six months, various childish actions have also appeared one after another, which is only a sigh.

Now, when the SAR government and the local establishment faction chanted "Thanks for the Central Government" and the democratic faction chanted "Ignore one country, two systems", have you ever thought that the current situation is just another proof of the lack of political courage and wisdom of successive governments and politicians?

The "Hong Kong version of the National Security Law" was promulgated by the National People's Congress. Unlike the "National Anthem Law", which is implemented by the SAR Government through legislative procedures, it will undoubtedly make many Hong Kong people feel that the local legislative space is shrinking or even being deprived. At the same time, some established factions thought that "Hong Kong version of the National Security Law" would be passed and they would "shine for the whole day." This is not only stupid, but also reflects their misjudgment of the general sentiments of Hong Kong. However, as reformers, we should not be discouraged, nor should we give up lightly, but should think about what we should do next to gain more legislative autonomy for Hong Kong, get out of political difficulties, and guarantee to the greatest extent possible Hong Kong's vital interests. God bless Hong Kong.

Shi Zhongjian

A group of post-90s who have hope for the future of Hong Kong

I believe that Hong Kong must fundamentally improve governance

In the global politics and the rise of China

Maintain its unique status and allow "one country, two systems" to return to the right track

"Hong Kong 01" weekly contributor Shi Zhongjian's other articles:

Some myths about 23

【New Coronary Pneumonia】Social and economic problems gradually collapsed

【New Coronary Pneumonia】From "New Coronavirus" to "Bureaucratic Virus" in Hong Kong

The above was published in the 216th issue of "Hong Kong 01" Weekly News (June 1, 2020) "Reformed Youth on Hong Kong Version of National Security Law."

More weekly articles:【01 Weekly News Page】

[01 Initiative] Listen to the pains of the four generations to resolve deep-seated structural contradictions

"Hong Kong 01" Weekly, available at major newsstands, OK convenience stores and Vango convenience stores. You can also subscribe to the weekly report here, or click here to preview the weekly e-newsletter to read more in-depth reports.

01 Weekly Report Hong Kong version of the National Security Corporation of the People’s Republic of China Democratic People’s Democratic Party Basic Law Basic Law 23 Articles Court

Source: hk1

All news articles on 2020-06-04

You may like

News/Politics 2024-01-30T03:38:38.978Z
News/Politics 2024-03-07T08:05:51.578Z

Trends 24h

News/Politics 2024-03-28T06:04:53.137Z

Latest

© Communities 2019 - Privacy

The information on this site is from external sources that are not under our control.
The inclusion of any links does not necessarily imply a recommendation or endorse the views expressed within them.