#Article22 #PhilipDykes #BarAssociation
Hong Kong Bar Association Chairman: The Government Owes Honkongers a Proper Explanation
//The chairman of the Bar Association, Philip Dykes, said on April 19 that Hong Kong people are entitled to a proper explanation as to why that is the case. He said he personally thinks the situation remains as "clear as mud".
Dykes pointed out that even in the criminal court, if someone was accused of stealing, evidence must be listed in the court. He believes that the government ’s move is like the practice of an authoritarian government...//
Source: RTHK; Stand News #Apr19
Continue Reading
⬇️⬇️⬇️⬇️⬇️⬇️
https://t.me/guardiansofhongkong/19740
Hong Kong Bar Association Chairman: The Government Owes Honkongers a Proper Explanation
//The chairman of the Bar Association, Philip Dykes, said on April 19 that Hong Kong people are entitled to a proper explanation as to why that is the case. He said he personally thinks the situation remains as "clear as mud".
Dykes pointed out that even in the criminal court, if someone was accused of stealing, evidence must be listed in the court. He believes that the government ’s move is like the practice of an authoritarian government...//
Source: RTHK; Stand News #Apr19
Continue Reading
⬇️⬇️⬇️⬇️⬇️⬇️
https://t.me/guardiansofhongkong/19740
#Article22 #StateTerrorism
Hong Kong Bar Association Chairman: Beijing is Intervening Hong Kong Affairs
The chairman of the Bar Association, Philip Dykes, said on April 19, 2020, "[The Hong Kong government] switching the positions two, three times over a period of a few hours, indicates a lack of clarity... it's not enough to say, 'oh, we're not bound by Article 22, that's it'."
Dykes expresses that the Hong Kong people are entitled to a proper explanation as to why that is the case. He said he personally thinks the situation remains as "clear as mud".
He pointed out that even in the criminal court, if someone was accused of stealing, evidence must be listed in the court. He believes that the government ’s move is like the practice of an authoritarian government.
The Hong Kong and Macau Affairs Office and the Liaison Office of the People’s Republic of China recently issued a high-profile statement criticizing Legislative Councillor and barrister Dennis Kwok for delaying the election of the chairman and even misconduct of public officials.
Dykes pointed out that Beijing's statement is a serious accusation. In fact, what the council members says in the legislature and the committee is protected by law, and it is not enough to constitute a misconduct of public officials.
Besides, even if there is a real foul, external agencies should not speak up. He believes that the Hong Kong and Macao Affairs Office and the Liaison Office of the Chinese Communist Party of China are clearly intervening in the internal affairs of Hong Kong. "This is an intervention in the operation of the Legislative Council. The Legislative Council should say: No, thank you. We can handle our internal affairs ... One of the three powers of direct intervention in Hong Kong. "
After the Police arrested more than 15 democratic politicians on April 18 in a high-profile manner, Dykes believes that for the sake of Hong Kong ’s international reputation, the government has a responsibility to clearly explain such a large arrest.
Source: RTHK; Stand News #Apr19 #PhilipDykes #BarAssociation
Hong Kong Bar Association Chairman: Beijing is Intervening Hong Kong Affairs
The chairman of the Bar Association, Philip Dykes, said on April 19, 2020, "[The Hong Kong government] switching the positions two, three times over a period of a few hours, indicates a lack of clarity... it's not enough to say, 'oh, we're not bound by Article 22, that's it'."
Dykes expresses that the Hong Kong people are entitled to a proper explanation as to why that is the case. He said he personally thinks the situation remains as "clear as mud".
He pointed out that even in the criminal court, if someone was accused of stealing, evidence must be listed in the court. He believes that the government ’s move is like the practice of an authoritarian government.
The Hong Kong and Macau Affairs Office and the Liaison Office of the People’s Republic of China recently issued a high-profile statement criticizing Legislative Councillor and barrister Dennis Kwok for delaying the election of the chairman and even misconduct of public officials.
Dykes pointed out that Beijing's statement is a serious accusation. In fact, what the council members says in the legislature and the committee is protected by law, and it is not enough to constitute a misconduct of public officials.
Besides, even if there is a real foul, external agencies should not speak up. He believes that the Hong Kong and Macao Affairs Office and the Liaison Office of the Chinese Communist Party of China are clearly intervening in the internal affairs of Hong Kong. "This is an intervention in the operation of the Legislative Council. The Legislative Council should say: No, thank you. We can handle our internal affairs ... One of the three powers of direct intervention in Hong Kong. "
After the Police arrested more than 15 democratic politicians on April 18 in a high-profile manner, Dykes believes that for the sake of Hong Kong ’s international reputation, the government has a responsibility to clearly explain such a large arrest.
Source: RTHK; Stand News #Apr19 #PhilipDykes #BarAssociation
news.rthk.hk
Legal experts jostle over interference row
Legal heavyweights in Hong Kong have expressed vastly different views over whether Beijing's liaison office is bound by Article 22 of the Basic Law, which states that any mainland government departments are prohibited from interfering in the SAR's local affairs.…
#Article22 #BarAssociation #Statement
Further Statement of the Hong Kong Bar Association:
"Current uncertainty contributes to undermining confidence in both the CPG’s and the HKSAR Government’s commitment to the principle and practice of one-country, two-system"
On Article 22 of the Basic Law
Under the constitutional framework of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (HKSAR), the Basic Law is a national law of the People’s Republic of China (PRC), having been enacted by the National People’s Congress pursuant to Article 31 of the Constitution of the PRC.
Article 11 of the Basic Law provides:
“In accordance with Article 31 of the Constitution of the People's Republic of China, the systems and policies practised in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, including the social and economic systems, the system for safeguarding the fundamental rights and freedoms of its residents, the executive, legislative and judicial systems, and the relevant policies, shall be based on the provisions of this Law.”
The “relevant polices” as mentioned and enshrined in the Basic Law include that the HKSAR shall enjoy “a high degree of autonomy” (Article 12) and executive, legislative and judicial powers, including the power of final adjudication (Article 2), whilst the Central People's Government (CPG) shall be responsible for the foreign affairs and defence relating to the HKSAR (Articles 13 and 14).
As to HKSAR’s internal affairs, Article 22(1) provides:
“No department of the Central People's Government and no province, autonomous region, or municipality directly under the Central Government may interfere in the affairs which the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region administers on its own in accordance with this Law.”
The effect of Article 22 is to prohibit interference in the internal affairs of the HKSAR by any part of the CPG, which is itself bound by the provisions of the Basic Law, being a national law of the PRC, including Article 22(1). After public comments made last week by the Hong Kong and Macau Affairs Office (HKMAO) and the Liaison Office of the CPG in the HKSAR (LOCPG) in respect of a recent Court of Appeal judgment on the Emergency Regulations Ordinance and affairs in Legislative Council and public reaction to them (including a statement issued by HKBA on 14 April 2020), the LOCPG on 17 April 2020 made further public statements on the meaning of Article 22(1) of the Basic Law.
The LOCPG said that it and the HKMAO are not “department[s] of the Central People's Government” within the meaning of Article 22(1). It went on to say that they were bodies authorised by the CPG to handle HKSAR’s affairs and had the right to exercise supervision and express serious views on affairs regarding HKSAR and the Mainland.
The implication the LOCPG seeks to convey is that the LOCPG and the HKMAO are somehow excluded from the non-interference principle guaranteed by Article 22(1).
Continue Reading Part 2
⬇️⬇️⬇️⬇️⬇️
https://t.me/guardiansofhongkong/19831
Source: HKCNews #Apr20
#BasicLaw #OneCountryTwoSystems
Further Statement of the Hong Kong Bar Association:
"Current uncertainty contributes to undermining confidence in both the CPG’s and the HKSAR Government’s commitment to the principle and practice of one-country, two-system"
On Article 22 of the Basic Law
Under the constitutional framework of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (HKSAR), the Basic Law is a national law of the People’s Republic of China (PRC), having been enacted by the National People’s Congress pursuant to Article 31 of the Constitution of the PRC.
Article 11 of the Basic Law provides:
“In accordance with Article 31 of the Constitution of the People's Republic of China, the systems and policies practised in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, including the social and economic systems, the system for safeguarding the fundamental rights and freedoms of its residents, the executive, legislative and judicial systems, and the relevant policies, shall be based on the provisions of this Law.”
The “relevant polices” as mentioned and enshrined in the Basic Law include that the HKSAR shall enjoy “a high degree of autonomy” (Article 12) and executive, legislative and judicial powers, including the power of final adjudication (Article 2), whilst the Central People's Government (CPG) shall be responsible for the foreign affairs and defence relating to the HKSAR (Articles 13 and 14).
As to HKSAR’s internal affairs, Article 22(1) provides:
“No department of the Central People's Government and no province, autonomous region, or municipality directly under the Central Government may interfere in the affairs which the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region administers on its own in accordance with this Law.”
The effect of Article 22 is to prohibit interference in the internal affairs of the HKSAR by any part of the CPG, which is itself bound by the provisions of the Basic Law, being a national law of the PRC, including Article 22(1). After public comments made last week by the Hong Kong and Macau Affairs Office (HKMAO) and the Liaison Office of the CPG in the HKSAR (LOCPG) in respect of a recent Court of Appeal judgment on the Emergency Regulations Ordinance and affairs in Legislative Council and public reaction to them (including a statement issued by HKBA on 14 April 2020), the LOCPG on 17 April 2020 made further public statements on the meaning of Article 22(1) of the Basic Law.
The LOCPG said that it and the HKMAO are not “department[s] of the Central People's Government” within the meaning of Article 22(1). It went on to say that they were bodies authorised by the CPG to handle HKSAR’s affairs and had the right to exercise supervision and express serious views on affairs regarding HKSAR and the Mainland.
The implication the LOCPG seeks to convey is that the LOCPG and the HKMAO are somehow excluded from the non-interference principle guaranteed by Article 22(1).
Continue Reading Part 2
⬇️⬇️⬇️⬇️⬇️
https://t.me/guardiansofhongkong/19831
Source: HKCNews #Apr20
#BasicLaw #OneCountryTwoSystems
Telegram
📡Guardians of Hong Kong
#Article22 #BarAssociation #Statement
Further Statement of the Hong Kong Bar Association:
"Current uncertainty contributes to undermining confidence in both the CPG’s and the HKSAR Government’s commitment to the principle and practice of one-country, two…
Further Statement of the Hong Kong Bar Association:
"Current uncertainty contributes to undermining confidence in both the CPG’s and the HKSAR Government’s commitment to the principle and practice of one-country, two…
#Article22 #BarAssociation #Statement
Further Statement of the Hong Kong Bar Association:
"Current uncertainty contributes to undermining confidence in both the CPG’s and the HKSAR Government’s commitment to the principle and practice of one-country, two-system"
Part 1:
https://t.me/guardiansofhongkong/19830
⬆️⬆️⬆️⬆️⬆️
Over the weekend of 18-19 April 2020, the HKSAR Government issued no fewer than 3 public
statements reflecting a degree of hesitation and confusion about the status of the LOCPG under Article 22. The HKBA notes that the HKSAR Government had previously presented a paper to the Legislative Council in 2007, unequivocally confirming that the LOCPG is an office of the CPG set up in Hong Kong with the consent of HKSARG Government under Art 22(3), and that the HKSAR Government had published the details of the LOCPG as one of 3 offices of the CPG set up in HKSAR in Gazette No. 3/2000 after its name change from “Xinhua News Agency”.
The Secretary for Constitutional and Mainland Affairs had also in 2018 confirmed that personnel of the LOCPG must abide by the laws of Hong Kong in accordance with Article 22. Regrettably, the recent public statements made by the LOCPG and the HKSAR Government
on such a highly important legal issue have caused deep public unease. As mentioned, the CPG is itself bound by the Basic Law.
There would appear to be no question but that the HKMAO, being an administrative agency of the State Council of the PRC, and the LOCPG, being the Liaison Office of the CPG in HKSAR, are bound by the Basic Law, including the prohibition of interference in the internal affairs of the HKSAR under Article 22(1).
In any event, there is no provision in the Basic Law which confers on the HKMAO and LOCPG the power of “supervision” over affairs which the HKSAR administers on its own. If "supervision" by the HKMAO and LOCPG is intended to connote their intervention in matters falling within the remit of the HKSAR's autonomy under the Basic Law, as opposed to observing and reporting back to the CPG, such a role would be inconsistent with Articles 11, 12 and 22 of the Basic Law.
The recent statements of the LOCPG and the HKSAR Government are plainly inconsistent with what was said by the HKSAR Government in 2007 and 2018. On such an important issue, and given the plain and obvious meaning of Article 22 of the Basic Law, the people of Hong Kong are entitled to a clear, reasoned and properly supported exposition of the legal position. The current uncertainty contributes to undermining confidence in both the CPG’s and the HKSAR Government’s commitment to the principle and practice of one-country, two-system enshrined in the Basic Law.
Source: HKCNews #Apr20
#BasicLaw #OneCountryTwoSystems
Further Statement of the Hong Kong Bar Association:
"Current uncertainty contributes to undermining confidence in both the CPG’s and the HKSAR Government’s commitment to the principle and practice of one-country, two-system"
Part 1:
https://t.me/guardiansofhongkong/19830
⬆️⬆️⬆️⬆️⬆️
Over the weekend of 18-19 April 2020, the HKSAR Government issued no fewer than 3 public
statements reflecting a degree of hesitation and confusion about the status of the LOCPG under Article 22. The HKBA notes that the HKSAR Government had previously presented a paper to the Legislative Council in 2007, unequivocally confirming that the LOCPG is an office of the CPG set up in Hong Kong with the consent of HKSARG Government under Art 22(3), and that the HKSAR Government had published the details of the LOCPG as one of 3 offices of the CPG set up in HKSAR in Gazette No. 3/2000 after its name change from “Xinhua News Agency”.
The Secretary for Constitutional and Mainland Affairs had also in 2018 confirmed that personnel of the LOCPG must abide by the laws of Hong Kong in accordance with Article 22. Regrettably, the recent public statements made by the LOCPG and the HKSAR Government
on such a highly important legal issue have caused deep public unease. As mentioned, the CPG is itself bound by the Basic Law.
There would appear to be no question but that the HKMAO, being an administrative agency of the State Council of the PRC, and the LOCPG, being the Liaison Office of the CPG in HKSAR, are bound by the Basic Law, including the prohibition of interference in the internal affairs of the HKSAR under Article 22(1).
In any event, there is no provision in the Basic Law which confers on the HKMAO and LOCPG the power of “supervision” over affairs which the HKSAR administers on its own. If "supervision" by the HKMAO and LOCPG is intended to connote their intervention in matters falling within the remit of the HKSAR's autonomy under the Basic Law, as opposed to observing and reporting back to the CPG, such a role would be inconsistent with Articles 11, 12 and 22 of the Basic Law.
The recent statements of the LOCPG and the HKSAR Government are plainly inconsistent with what was said by the HKSAR Government in 2007 and 2018. On such an important issue, and given the plain and obvious meaning of Article 22 of the Basic Law, the people of Hong Kong are entitled to a clear, reasoned and properly supported exposition of the legal position. The current uncertainty contributes to undermining confidence in both the CPG’s and the HKSAR Government’s commitment to the principle and practice of one-country, two-system enshrined in the Basic Law.
Source: HKCNews #Apr20
#BasicLaw #OneCountryTwoSystems
Telegram
📡Guardians of Hong Kong
#Article22 #BarAssociation #Statement
Further Statement of the Hong Kong Bar Association:
"Current uncertainty contributes to undermining confidence in both the CPG’s and the HKSAR Government’s commitment to the principle and practice of one-country, two…
Further Statement of the Hong Kong Bar Association:
"Current uncertainty contributes to undermining confidence in both the CPG’s and the HKSAR Government’s commitment to the principle and practice of one-country, two…
#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
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
Telegram
📡Guardians of Hong Kong
#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…
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…
#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
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
Telegram
📡Guardians of Hong Kong
#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…
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…
The Immigration Amendment Bill will take effect from 1 Aug that black-listed people may not have the right to travel or to leave Hong Kong.
#RighttoTravel #ImmigrationAmendmentBill #BarAssociation #SecurityBureau #GoHKgraphics
#RighttoTravel #ImmigrationAmendmentBill #BarAssociation #SecurityBureau #GoHKgraphics