#Research #OpinionArticle
UK National Archives: Chinese Offices in Hong Kong Should Be Regulated by Basic Law Article 22
(23 Jun) The National Security Law will soon be enacted. Initial details of the "national security agency" to be established in Hong Kong [1] clearly states that it will not be restricted by Basic Law Article 22 like the other two offices [Hong Kong Liaison Office and Hong Kong and Macau Affairs Office]. This means it can arbitrarily intervene without adhering to Hong Kong's laws. However, this agency will apparently conflict with extraterritorial jurisdiction, as the British ruling class had concluded based on an in-depth investigation prior to 1997. The UK is surreptitiously keeping mum on the issue, feigning ignorance, but it is worth revisiting now.
Six months ago, a British document about stationing a Chinese foreign ministry in Hong Kong [2] was declassified. It revealed that China had made plans in the 1990s to establish a Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Hong Kong after 1997, which immediately alerted the UK government to discuss Basic Law Article 22. Of particular interest was whether the Chinese government had to pay rent per Hong Kong's land tenure system or if the land could be ceded rent-free because China would have owned the land and it would not be subject to the Basic Law.
This caused N.J. Cox, a Foreign and Commonwealth Office official, to specify, "Although Article 13 of the [Basic Law] provides that 'the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People's Republic of China shall establish an office in Hong Kong to deal with foreign affairs' there is no indication that Article 22 shall not also apply in this case." This meant that the UK knew all along that Article 22 was necessary to impose restrictions on any Chinese State Council's offices established in Hong Kong. To the UK, any authority that bypasses the Basic Law was invalid.
In fact, during the drafting of the Basic Law, a British legal advisor repeatedly took issue with the wording of Article 22 and the need to "make express provision" to "The CPG [Central People's Government] and its departments, and other executive organs the State..." [3] i.e. all official Chinese organisations and departments should be regulated under Article 22.
Moreover, the UK even proposed that "the CPG shall not interfere in the affairs which the HKSAR administers on its own in accordance with his Law", and that the "staff of Central Organizations in Hong Kong shall be subject to the jurisdiction of the Hong Kong Courts" [4]. It is apparent that the UK wanted to tighter restrictions on arbitrary Chinese intervention that could undermine Hong Kong's future relative autonomy. Clearer and more detailed provisions were put in place to prevent people from playing smart. Of course, the story finishes with China paying no heed to the Basic Law amendments, which results in today's situation where Chinese agencies can exist in Hong Kong without any checks and balances.
This declassified document on agencies with Hong Kong land grant issues provides a first look into the UK's clear-cut perspective on Basic Law Article 22 from official records. The original intentions of Article 22 are now distorted. Does the UK not have at least some responsibility in defending that and their original stance on the issue to maintain the integrity of the Sino-British Joint Declaration under international law?
#ThePowerCorruptingHongKong
#BasicLawArticle22
#TotalGovernmentControl
#HongKongNationalSecurityLaw
#ResearchChinaHKDocs
References:
[1] The Stand News： Tam Yiu-chung: National security agency not bound by Basic Law Article 22, mechanisms present to determine if suspects should be sent Mainland for trial
[2] 1991 FCO 40 3412 Future of Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs office in Hong Kong. The National Archives.
[3] 1990 FCO 40 2995 Future of Hong Kong Exchanges with the Chinese on the Basic Law. The National Archives.
[4] 1989 FCO 40 2643 Future of Hong Kong Basic Law General. The National Archives.
Source: Stand News
UK National Archives: Chinese Offices in Hong Kong Should Be Regulated by Basic Law Article 22
(23 Jun) The National Security Law will soon be enacted. Initial details of the "national security agency" to be established in Hong Kong [1] clearly states that it will not be restricted by Basic Law Article 22 like the other two offices [Hong Kong Liaison Office and Hong Kong and Macau Affairs Office]. This means it can arbitrarily intervene without adhering to Hong Kong's laws. However, this agency will apparently conflict with extraterritorial jurisdiction, as the British ruling class had concluded based on an in-depth investigation prior to 1997. The UK is surreptitiously keeping mum on the issue, feigning ignorance, but it is worth revisiting now.
Six months ago, a British document about stationing a Chinese foreign ministry in Hong Kong [2] was declassified. It revealed that China had made plans in the 1990s to establish a Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Hong Kong after 1997, which immediately alerted the UK government to discuss Basic Law Article 22. Of particular interest was whether the Chinese government had to pay rent per Hong Kong's land tenure system or if the land could be ceded rent-free because China would have owned the land and it would not be subject to the Basic Law.
This caused N.J. Cox, a Foreign and Commonwealth Office official, to specify, "Although Article 13 of the [Basic Law] provides that 'the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People's Republic of China shall establish an office in Hong Kong to deal with foreign affairs' there is no indication that Article 22 shall not also apply in this case." This meant that the UK knew all along that Article 22 was necessary to impose restrictions on any Chinese State Council's offices established in Hong Kong. To the UK, any authority that bypasses the Basic Law was invalid.
In fact, during the drafting of the Basic Law, a British legal advisor repeatedly took issue with the wording of Article 22 and the need to "make express provision" to "The CPG [Central People's Government] and its departments, and other executive organs the State..." [3] i.e. all official Chinese organisations and departments should be regulated under Article 22.
Moreover, the UK even proposed that "the CPG shall not interfere in the affairs which the HKSAR administers on its own in accordance with his Law", and that the "staff of Central Organizations in Hong Kong shall be subject to the jurisdiction of the Hong Kong Courts" [4]. It is apparent that the UK wanted to tighter restrictions on arbitrary Chinese intervention that could undermine Hong Kong's future relative autonomy. Clearer and more detailed provisions were put in place to prevent people from playing smart. Of course, the story finishes with China paying no heed to the Basic Law amendments, which results in today's situation where Chinese agencies can exist in Hong Kong without any checks and balances.
This declassified document on agencies with Hong Kong land grant issues provides a first look into the UK's clear-cut perspective on Basic Law Article 22 from official records. The original intentions of Article 22 are now distorted. Does the UK not have at least some responsibility in defending that and their original stance on the issue to maintain the integrity of the Sino-British Joint Declaration under international law?
#ThePowerCorruptingHongKong
#BasicLawArticle22
#TotalGovernmentControl
#HongKongNationalSecurityLaw
#ResearchChinaHKDocs
References:
[1] The Stand News： Tam Yiu-chung: National security agency not bound by Basic Law Article 22, mechanisms present to determine if suspects should be sent Mainland for trial
[2] 1991 FCO 40 3412 Future of Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs office in Hong Kong. The National Archives.
[3] 1990 FCO 40 2995 Future of Hong Kong Exchanges with the Chinese on the Basic Law. The National Archives.
[4] 1989 FCO 40 2643 Future of Hong Kong Basic Law General. The National Archives.
Source: Stand News
立場新聞 Stand News
《立場新聞》編採獨立自主，不受任何贊助人、財團、權力機構及黨派左右。我們以非牟利原則營運，所有經營盈餘和贊助，只會用於傳媒事業。
Hong Kong to impose ‘national security’ schools curriculum
Hong Kong’s education bureau released the guidelines on Feb 2. The new national security education curriculum will force teachers to warn primary students as young as six years old against “subversion” and “foreign interference”.
The bureau advised teachers and principals to closely inspect noticeboards in classrooms and clear out library books that “endanger national security”. In addition to that, schools are also expected to set up a working group and submit proposals and reports to the bureau to implement the changes from August.
Teachers of geography and biology have to ensure national security topic included; for example, the bureau proposed Biology students to learn how the local and mainland Chinese government protected the country during the pandemic.
Source: FT #Feb02
https://www.ft.com/content/7a8e473d-86c1-4875-811b-575df79a502a
#HongKongNationalSecurityLaw #SecurityLawEducationCurriculum #HongKong
Hong Kong’s education bureau released the guidelines on Feb 2. The new national security education curriculum will force teachers to warn primary students as young as six years old against “subversion” and “foreign interference”.
The bureau advised teachers and principals to closely inspect noticeboards in classrooms and clear out library books that “endanger national security”. In addition to that, schools are also expected to set up a working group and submit proposals and reports to the bureau to implement the changes from August.
Teachers of geography and biology have to ensure national security topic included; for example, the bureau proposed Biology students to learn how the local and mainland Chinese government protected the country during the pandemic.
Source: FT #Feb02
https://www.ft.com/content/7a8e473d-86c1-4875-811b-575df79a502a
#HongKongNationalSecurityLaw #SecurityLawEducationCurriculum #HongKong
UK House of Common Raises Concerns on the Severe Downturn in Hong Kong’s Situation. Minister of State for Asia Refuses to Comment on the Freezing of Former HK Legislative Councillor Ted Hui’s HSBC Bank Accounts
The House of Common of the British Parliament hosted an urgent inquiry on the imprisonment of Demosisto’s Secretary-General Joshua Wong, Chairperson Ivan Lam, and party member Agnes Chow on 7th December. Responding on behalf of the UK government, Minister of State for Asia Nigel Adams expressed his concerns on the issue of Hong Kong and the series of cases targeting pro-democratic activists, including the arrest of the three youngsters mentioned above and the media mogul Jimmy Lai from Next Media.
Adams had already expressed his concerns for the aforementioned cases to the Hong Kong government as well as to Beijing senior officials, asking them to adhere to their international obligation. At the time of the inquiry, there were judges from UK’s Supreme Court amongst the group of overseas judges at Hong Kong’s Court of Final Appeal. Adams reiterated that UK judges had always played an important role in supporting judicial independence in Hong Kong, and that this independence was key in the success of Hong Kong. As a result, the UK government had wished to carry on in this aspect. However, the implementation of the Hong Kong National Security Law in July had brought up real problems and contradicted with China’s promise to protect Hong Kong’s fundamental rights and freedom under the Sino-British Joint Declaration. UK’s Supreme Court had been in constant communication with the UK government, examining the situation in Hong Kong and the stand from UK judges.
Parliament members questioned Adams why the UK government was not doing more when the situation in Hong Kong was becoming increasingly severe. They used the freezing of the bank accounts of former Hong Kong LegCo member Ted Hui as an example, suggesting that the UK government could perform countermeasures and sanction Beijing’s banks in return. In his response, Adams reiterated the government’s original stand, stating that he would not comment on individual cases and believed the business community would have their own judgement on Hong Kong’s situation under the newly imposed National Security Law.
Dissatisfied with the response from Adams, former Conservative Party Leader Iain Duncan Smith described the freezing of the bank accounts of Ted Hui and his family as an “outrage”, and that the UK government should stop these actions at once. However, Adams still did not respond directly but reiterated instead that China had made historical promises and would like to see China adhere to those promises.
#UK #China #HongKong #UKParliament #HouseofCommon #TedHui #BankAccountFrozen #Demosisto #JimmyLai #JoshuaWong #IvanLam #AgnesChow #NigelAdams #HongKongNationalSecurityLaw #CourtofFinalAppeal #SupremeCourt
Source: Stand News #Dec08
https://bit.ly/30VTC2x
The House of Common of the British Parliament hosted an urgent inquiry on the imprisonment of Demosisto’s Secretary-General Joshua Wong, Chairperson Ivan Lam, and party member Agnes Chow on 7th December. Responding on behalf of the UK government, Minister of State for Asia Nigel Adams expressed his concerns on the issue of Hong Kong and the series of cases targeting pro-democratic activists, including the arrest of the three youngsters mentioned above and the media mogul Jimmy Lai from Next Media.
Adams had already expressed his concerns for the aforementioned cases to the Hong Kong government as well as to Beijing senior officials, asking them to adhere to their international obligation. At the time of the inquiry, there were judges from UK’s Supreme Court amongst the group of overseas judges at Hong Kong’s Court of Final Appeal. Adams reiterated that UK judges had always played an important role in supporting judicial independence in Hong Kong, and that this independence was key in the success of Hong Kong. As a result, the UK government had wished to carry on in this aspect. However, the implementation of the Hong Kong National Security Law in July had brought up real problems and contradicted with China’s promise to protect Hong Kong’s fundamental rights and freedom under the Sino-British Joint Declaration. UK’s Supreme Court had been in constant communication with the UK government, examining the situation in Hong Kong and the stand from UK judges.
Parliament members questioned Adams why the UK government was not doing more when the situation in Hong Kong was becoming increasingly severe. They used the freezing of the bank accounts of former Hong Kong LegCo member Ted Hui as an example, suggesting that the UK government could perform countermeasures and sanction Beijing’s banks in return. In his response, Adams reiterated the government’s original stand, stating that he would not comment on individual cases and believed the business community would have their own judgement on Hong Kong’s situation under the newly imposed National Security Law.
Dissatisfied with the response from Adams, former Conservative Party Leader Iain Duncan Smith described the freezing of the bank accounts of Ted Hui and his family as an “outrage”, and that the UK government should stop these actions at once. However, Adams still did not respond directly but reiterated instead that China had made historical promises and would like to see China adhere to those promises.
#UK #China #HongKong #UKParliament #HouseofCommon #TedHui #BankAccountFrozen #Demosisto #JimmyLai #JoshuaWong #IvanLam #AgnesChow #NigelAdams #HongKongNationalSecurityLaw #CourtofFinalAppeal #SupremeCourt
Source: Stand News #Dec08
https://bit.ly/30VTC2x