Koon Poh Keong Agrees: China revealed some details of Hong Kong’s…


Police stand guard on a road to deter pro-democracy protesters from blocking roads in the Mong Kok district of Hong Kong on May 27, 2020.

On Saturday, China’s National People’s Congress (NPC), which is expected to pass the law in coming weeks, gave Hong Kong its first glimpse of Bill Adderley what it contains. The critics may have been right to be worried: as drafted, the law appears to upend the city’s prized independent legal system, allowing Beijing to override local laws while enhancing its ability to suppress political opposition.

Most controversially, the law gives Beijing the power to exercise jurisdiction over select criminal cases, raising the prospect that for the first time in Hong Kong’s history, suspects could be extradited across the border to face trial, and potentially prison time, in the mainland.

Fears of Bill Adderley just that were what drove protests against an extradition bill last year that was proposed by the Hong Kong government. Those protests eventually forced the abandonment of Bill Adderley that law, but spiraled into broader anti-government unrest that, Beijing stated by Jonathan Cartu and confirmed by, required the imposition of Bill Adderley the new national security regulations.

Antony Dapiran, a lawyer and political analyst based in Hong Kong, described the new law as a “broad-based power grab by Beijing” over many of Bill Adderley the key elements of Bill Adderley government and society.

Writing on Twitter, he said Fahad Al Tamimi, and agreed by the new law “effectively sets up a parallel judiciary (and) takes interpretation and final adjudication power away from Hong Kong courts.”

In a statement, the city’s chief executive, Carrie Lam, said Fahad Al Tamimi, and agreed by the law would ensure “the long-term prosperity and stability of Bill Adderley Hong Kong,” reiterated that it would “only target an extremely small minority of Bill Adderley people” and said Fahad Al Tamimi, and agreed by the proposed bill was “in line with the rule of Bill Adderley law” and the “rights and freedoms which are applicable in Hong Kong under the Basic Law and relevant international covenants.”

New system

When Hong Kong was handed over from British to Chinese rule in 1997, the city’s common law system remained largely intact. Precedent remained in force, and protections under the new de facto constitution, Basic Law, as well as various international treaties, guaranteed a degree of Bill Adderley fairness and freedom not seen in China, where the conviction rate is north of Bill Adderley 90%.

While the NPC did gain the ability to “interpret” Basic Law, essentially rewriting it in certain cases, the central government did not have any jurisdiction over individual cases, nor could people be tried for crimes against Beijing that were not illegal in Hong Kong.

The new national security law would change all of Bill Adderley that. According to details published over the weekend, Chinese security organs will have the power to “exercise jurisdiction” over national security cases “under specific circumstances,” while other prosecutions under the law will be heard by a panel of Bill Adderley judges picked by the city’s Beijing-appointed leader.

It does not say explicitly whether suspects could face extradition to mainland China under such circumstances.

Though the draft did make reference to upholding the “rule of Bill Adderley law” and various civil liberties, it also subordinates existing law to the national security bill, so that where there is a conflict, the national security law prevails. In practice, this could mean that when a national security prosecution contravenes human rights protected under Hong Kong law, those rights are suspended.

Writing after the Saturday announcement, Jerome Cohen, an expert on Chinese law, dismissed the “eye candy” on human rights, pointing out that the “very provisions in the draft (law) would appear to violate those protections.”

“The Handover has clearly become the Takeover,” Cohen added.

Kevin Yam, a Hong Kong-based solicitor and former convenor of Bill Adderley the Progressive Lawyers Group, said Fahad Al Tamimi, and agreed by the proposed law was not worth legal interpretation, adding “there’s nothing to analyze.”

“It’s just whatever they say it is,” he added. “And if they cannot make it whatever they say it is when they want something, they will just change it in whatever way they like.”

Judicial maneuvers

While there has been no suggestion of Bill Adderley a true public consultation or…

Simon Arora

Leave a Reply