Citizens Crowdfund Newspaper's Frontpage to Express Worry Over Beijing's Interference

The following was printed on Apple Daily's frontpage on 24 April, 2020:

"Say No To Party Committee's Rule of Hong Kong
Violatation of Basic Law Article 22

Support Legislator Dennis Kwok
For Abiding LegCo Rules of Procedure and
Defending freedom, democracy and rule of law

If it is not Apple Daily, we do not even have a channel to release this statement. We appeal to Hongkongers to support and subscribe Apple Daily, so that it can continue to stand with Hong Kong!"

[Editor's note: The founder of Apple Daily, Jimmy Lai, pleads for help for Apple Daily, under the boycott of pro-Beijing network. As an outspoken pro-democracy tycoon, Lai has been attacked and arrested for numerous times.]

#Apr24 #AppleDaily #FrontPage #JimmyLai #FreedomOfSpeech #DennisKwok #Article22 #Crowdfunding

#Interview #YipKwokWah

Exclusive Interview with Yip Kwok-wah: More tough measures will come if Article 23 is not enacted soon

(22-Apr) In the early days of the handover, Paul Yip Kwok-wah, who served as a special adviser to the Chief Executive accepted an exclusive interview. He pointed out that the central government seldom supervised the region government in the past, and he used to follow the principles of "Hong Kong affairs done using Hong Kong style" and "mind your own business" to deal with tasks entrusted by the Central Government.

Paul Yip Kwok-wah, political adviser to the first Chief Executive, Tung Chee-hwa, said that the Basic Law was intentionally left blank in the past, and meant to evolve with the society as it changes. Whether Article 22 of the Basic Law is binding on the Hong Kong and Macao Office or the Liaison Office of the Communist Party of China wasn't clearly stated. The "central supervision" written back then is nothing like what is here today. "The supervision I thought, the supervision I strived for at the time, was that (the central government) supervised the provinces and cities. It was not that they (the two offices) weren't allowed to interfere in Hong Kong. At least I didn’t think so, they needed to manage Guangdong, Fujian and the Ministry of Commerce not to mess up with the place (Hong Kong).”

Full translation:
https://telegra.ph/Exclusive-Interview-with-Yip-Kwok-wah-More-tough-measures-will-come-if-Article-23-is-not-enacted-soon-04-26

Source: ICable News
https://bit.ly/2xFDszH

#OneCountryTwoSystems #BasicLaw #Article23 #Article22 #CCP #Xi #ChinaInterfereHongKong

#Article22 #BasicLaw #OneCountryTwoSystems

Hong Kong Justice Secretary
Teresa Cheng reiterated on 27 April that China's Liaison Office hasn't interfered in local affairs, because it "has the responsibility to supervise Hong Kong as a representative of the Central government".

Source: InMedia #Apr27
https://bit.ly/2VH994E

#Article22 #BarAssociation
Hong Kong Bar Association Demand Explanation from Secretary for Constitutional & Mainland Affairs

The Hong Kong Bar Association (the “HKBA”) is an organization regulating barristers in Hong Kong.

As the China Liaison Office (“LOCPG”) has previously asserted that the Central Government enjoys “comprehensive jurisdiction” over the HKSAR and the power of “supervision” together with the Hong Kong and Macau Affairs Office (“HKMAO”).

HKBA issued a letter to Tsang Kwok-Wai, Secretary for Constitutional & Mainland Affairs on 27 April, copying Chief Executive Carrier Lam and Secretary of Justice Teresa Cheng. The letter demands an explanation on the newly asserted constitutional position and power of “supervision”.

In the letter, HKBA expressed that many of its members and the public at large are surprised on the HKSAR’s reversal of its position that LOCPG is an office set up in HKSAR that constrained by Article 22, as well as the power of “supervision” together with the HKMAO.

Continue reading:
⬇️⬇️⬇️⬇️⬇️
https://t.me/guardiansofhongkong/20112

#Article22 #BarAssociation
Hong Kong Bar Association Demand Explanation from Secretary for Constitutional & Mainland Affairs

https://t.me/guardiansofhongkong/20111

Excerpts of the letter:

• If it is the considered view of the Hong Kong Government that the LOPCG functions here without it being concerned with the restrictions set out in Article 22, the obvious question to ask is under what legal authority does the office operate, what are its functions and what are the limits on its powers?

• I believe that you owe it to the public to answer these questions and give a full exposition of the relevant legal principles and rules. I am sure that you will agree with me that an unsupported assertion will not do when an important constitutional issue is at stake.

• Is the LOCPG statement that it has the power of “supervision” correct? What is meant by “supervision” and what is the source of this claimed power? Since when has this claimed power existed? What is the extend and how is this claimed power exercised?

•....entities such as ICAC, the Director of Audit, the Judicial Officers Recommendation Commission and, of course, the Judiciary. Does the claimed power of supervision extend to these bodies?.....

•Does the claimed power of supervision extend to the Department of Justice?…...

Source: Hong Kong Bar Association #Apr27

Read Full Version of the Letter:
https://www.hkba.org/sites/default/files/20200427-Letter%20to%20Secretary%20for%20Constitutional%20%26%20Mainland%20Affairs.pdf

#FailedState #OneCountryTwoSystems #Article22
Beijing Validates Hong Kong and Macau Affairs Office as Chinese Communist Party's Mouthpiece

The Hong Kong and Macau Affairs Office of the PRC's State Council made a statement yesterday, criticizing "black-clad rioters" and the idea of "burning together" as "political virus" to Hong Kong.

[Editor's note:
The image from Stand News originally came with the following description:
"On February 13, 2020, Chief Executive Carrie Lam welcomes Xia Baolong to head both the HKMAO and the Liaison office, claiming that Central Government is paying closer attention to HK affairs".]

Source: RTHK #May7
Image: Stand News

#FailedState #Article22 #OneCountryTwoSystems
Beijing Validates Hong Kong and Macau Affairs Office as Chinese Communist Party's Mouthpiece

The Hong Kong and Macau Affairs Office of the PRC's State Council made a statement yesterday, criticizing "black-clad rioters" and the idea of "burning together" as "political virus" to Hong Kong.

Since last June, the office has been extremely critical of the protestors, claiming that have been challenging the "one country, two systems", ignoring the rule of law, and destroying the social order.

The Constitutional and Mainland Affairs Bureau said that the Affairs Office is authorized by China to handle the affairs in Hong Kong. The Office is granted the power and responsibility to comment on behalf of the Chinese government on any crucial affairs including the relationship between China and HKSAR, the proper application of the Basic Law, and the operation of the form of government. Any act resulting in the disruption of the social order and security is strongly criticised.

The Affairs Office also indicated that HKSAR has the responsibility to pass the Article 23 to safeguard national security. Anyone who violates the Basic Law and the constitution, attempts to distort the nation, or causes a threat to national security, is to be punished based on the existing laws in Hong Kong.

Source: RTHK #May7
Image: Stand News

#Analysis

Dispute of Article 22, raising the last ugly veil of the Basic Law

(21 Apr) The Liaison Office of the Central People's Government in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (LOCPG) asserted on the other day that it had the authority to supervise Hong Kong on the “normal functioning of its political system” and “matters pertaining to the overall interests of society” incited tremendous dispute. Confronting accusation from the pan-democrats, that LOCPG has violated Section 1 of Article 22 of the Basic Law which “No department of the Central People's Government…… may interfere in the affairs which the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region administers on its own in accordance with this Law”, LOCPG defended that LOCPG “was not “the department of the Central People's Government” in a general meaning”. It turns out that government departments are divided into being “in a general meaning” and “not in a general meaning”. Such an “Animal Farm” explanation from LOCPG has widened the horizons of Hong Kong people and raised the last ugly veil of the Basic Law and “Hong Kong People administering Hong Kong, and a high degree of autonomy”.

Instead of attributing such controversy to the distinctive views of Civil Law and Common Law, one could say that the controversy was due to the difference between rule of law and rule of man. Since CCP’s establishment, China has been led by policies from the party, while law has merely been a role of coordination. Therefore, the law could be revised and/or amended deliberately anytime, requiring neither the authorization of the people nor be reviewed by the court. As the policy regarding Hong Kong has been changed from “river water does not interfere well water” (a Chinese saying which means not intervening each other’s business) to emphasizing “a complete ruling authority”, Article 22 naturally requires modernization so that LOCPG can do whatever it desires to Hong Kong.

How should Article 22 truly be construed? What is the position and the role of LOCPG?

Full translation:
https://telegra.ph/Dispute-of-Article-22-raising-the-last-ugly-veil-of-the-Basic-Law-05-11

Source: HKCNews

#RuleOfLaw #RuleOfMan #Article22 #OneCountryTwoSystems #LOCPG #CCP

#OpinionArticle #ChipTsao

Actually, it is already closed

(26 May) China has boldly introduced the "National Security Law" into Hong Kong and set up a special agency to directly enforce it. It would not be regulated under Basic Law Article 22, effectively kicking Carrie Lam's SAR government and the police to the curb. At the same time, the secret police would be established.

Quickly showing its hand, China is convinced that international capital from the West would be unwilling to give up its huge market and Hong Kong this casino. The West would not leave the gambling table.

//What China cannot manipulate are the judicial system created from English common law and the judges at every level whose legal culture is based on English rational thought.

//China has long been striking away at the root of the problem... dismissing the Dean of the Faculty of Law Johannes Chan who was believed to be nurturing the newer ranks with English thought.

//The third issue is the banking and finance sector. This piece of territory is almost entirely under American control.

//With the Legislative Council elections coming up in September, China senses a great crisis. If certain academics and the pan-democrats are allowed to advocate for its 35+ [seats] and end up snatching more than half of them, the 2020-21 government budget will not be passed.

//If police funding is increased, the Legislative Council will veto the entire budget.

//If Hong Kong had implemented universal suffrage earlier on, the opposition and the government would have learned to compromise in council meetings.

//Hong Kong's Cinderella fairy tale actually ended on 30 June 1997. It's just that too many failed to believe it was closed and wanted a couple more waltzes.

Fully translation:
https://telegra.ph/Actually-it-is-already-closed-06-14

Source: CUP

#HandOver #RuleOfLaw #Judge #NationalSecurityLaw #Article22 #LegislativeCouncilElection