#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.…
#FailedState #OneCountryTwoSystems
When Carrie Lam Contradicts Herself
Back in 2017, Hong Kong Chief Executive Carrie Lam once said, “My stance is clear. The internal affairs and the high autonomy of Hong Kong are approved by the Legislative Council and handled by the HKSAR government and its Administration. The Liaison Office should not be bothered. The people of Hong Kong governing Hong Kong should be taken as the guiding principle of the Administration. Should the liaison office become too concerned about the city’s internal affairs, this will upset the public.”
In April 2020, Carrie Lam said, “Those who regard the authorized speeches and the activities of the [China's] Liaison Office by the Central Government as interference must have ulterior motives.”
Carrie Lam considers Carrie Lam has ulterior motives.
Text: Simon's Glos World
Image: InMedia
#Apr22 #CarrieLam #Article22
Hong Kong Bar Association Chairman: Beijing is Intervening Hong Kong Affairs
https://t.me/guardiansofhongkong/19740
When Carrie Lam Contradicts Herself
Back in 2017, Hong Kong Chief Executive Carrie Lam once said, “My stance is clear. The internal affairs and the high autonomy of Hong Kong are approved by the Legislative Council and handled by the HKSAR government and its Administration. The Liaison Office should not be bothered. The people of Hong Kong governing Hong Kong should be taken as the guiding principle of the Administration. Should the liaison office become too concerned about the city’s internal affairs, this will upset the public.”
In April 2020, Carrie Lam said, “Those who regard the authorized speeches and the activities of the [China's] Liaison Office by the Central Government as interference must have ulterior motives.”
Carrie Lam considers Carrie Lam has ulterior motives.
Text: Simon's Glos World
Image: InMedia
#Apr22 #CarrieLam #Article22
Hong Kong Bar Association Chairman: Beijing is Intervening Hong Kong Affairs
https://t.me/guardiansofhongkong/19740
#Article22 #CCPLies
Hard evidence refutes China's Liaison Office’s Recent Forceful Interpretation of Hong Kong Basic Law Article 22
Last week, the Liaison Office of the Central People’s Government in Hong Kong forcefully re-interpreted Article 22 of Hong Kong's constitution the Basic Law. Beijing tried to justify their power to over the internal affairs of Hong Kong, which is in theory disallowed by law.
Although the pro-Beijing camp supported the Liaison Office’s statement, the memoir of Jiang EnZhu, the first director of the Liaison Office evidently stated that after the 1997 handover, Xinhua News Agency Hong Kong Branch was renamed into the Liaison Office to reflect its new mandates, including not interfering in Hong Kong affairs as the city enjoys autonomy.
Continue Reading
⬇️⬇️⬇️⬇️
https://t.me/guardiansofhongkong/19798
Hard evidence refutes China's Liaison Office’s Recent Forceful Interpretation of Hong Kong Basic Law Article 22
Last week, the Liaison Office of the Central People’s Government in Hong Kong forcefully re-interpreted Article 22 of Hong Kong's constitution the Basic Law. Beijing tried to justify their power to over the internal affairs of Hong Kong, which is in theory disallowed by law.
Although the pro-Beijing camp supported the Liaison Office’s statement, the memoir of Jiang EnZhu, the first director of the Liaison Office evidently stated that after the 1997 handover, Xinhua News Agency Hong Kong Branch was renamed into the Liaison Office to reflect its new mandates, including not interfering in Hong Kong affairs as the city enjoys autonomy.
Continue Reading
⬇️⬇️⬇️⬇️
https://t.me/guardiansofhongkong/19798
#Article22 #CCPLies
Hard evidence refutes China's Liaison Office’s Recent Forceful Interpretation of Hong Kong Basic Law Article 22
Image: https://t.me/guardiansofhongkong/19793
Last week, the Liaison Office of the Central People’s Government in Hong Kong forcefully re-interpreted Article 22 of Hong Kong's constitution the Basic Law. Beijing tried to justify their power to over the internal affairs of Hong Kong, which is in theory disallowed by law.
Although the pro-Beijing camp supported the Liaison Office’s statement, the memoir of Jiang EnZhu, the first director of the Liaison Office evidently stated that after the 1997 handover, Xinhua News Agency Hong Kong Branch was renamed into the Liaison Office to reflect its new mandates, including not interfering in Hong Kong affairs as the city enjoys autonomy.
Chinese official Jiang EnZhu was the President of Xinhua News Agency in 1997. The Agency was later restructured and renamed as Liaison office in January 2000 where Jiang was appointed as the Director. Two years later, he was elected as a member of the Foreign Affairs Committee of National People’s Congress.
In his memoir, Jiang mentioned several times that “there is no subordinate relations between the HKSAR government and the Liaison Office”. He also stated that the Office will "perform its duties strictly in accordance with the Central People's Government and abide by the policies of One Country, Two Systems, the people of Hong Kong governing Hong Kong and a high degree of autonomy.”
According to Jiang, the main duties of the new Liaison Office include maintaining contact with the Office of the Commissioner of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the PLA Garrison in the HKSAR. “The renaming exercise will not empower the liaison office to become the second power center.” The then representative of the National People's Congress of Hong Kong, Rita Fan Hsu Lai-tai also cited Jiang’s statement emphasizing that the office will abide by the Basic Law.
Source: Apple Daily #Apr20
Further reading :
Jiang Enzhu on Renaming Xinhua Hong Kong Branch
http://en.people.cn/english/200001/17/eng20000117N126.html
#Authoritarianism #OneCountryTwoSystems
Hard evidence refutes China's Liaison Office’s Recent Forceful Interpretation of Hong Kong Basic Law Article 22
Image: https://t.me/guardiansofhongkong/19793
Last week, the Liaison Office of the Central People’s Government in Hong Kong forcefully re-interpreted Article 22 of Hong Kong's constitution the Basic Law. Beijing tried to justify their power to over the internal affairs of Hong Kong, which is in theory disallowed by law.
Although the pro-Beijing camp supported the Liaison Office’s statement, the memoir of Jiang EnZhu, the first director of the Liaison Office evidently stated that after the 1997 handover, Xinhua News Agency Hong Kong Branch was renamed into the Liaison Office to reflect its new mandates, including not interfering in Hong Kong affairs as the city enjoys autonomy.
Chinese official Jiang EnZhu was the President of Xinhua News Agency in 1997. The Agency was later restructured and renamed as Liaison office in January 2000 where Jiang was appointed as the Director. Two years later, he was elected as a member of the Foreign Affairs Committee of National People’s Congress.
In his memoir, Jiang mentioned several times that “there is no subordinate relations between the HKSAR government and the Liaison Office”. He also stated that the Office will "perform its duties strictly in accordance with the Central People's Government and abide by the policies of One Country, Two Systems, the people of Hong Kong governing Hong Kong and a high degree of autonomy.”
According to Jiang, the main duties of the new Liaison Office include maintaining contact with the Office of the Commissioner of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the PLA Garrison in the HKSAR. “The renaming exercise will not empower the liaison office to become the second power center.” The then representative of the National People's Congress of Hong Kong, Rita Fan Hsu Lai-tai also cited Jiang’s statement emphasizing that the office will abide by the Basic Law.
Source: Apple Daily #Apr20
Further reading :
Jiang Enzhu on Renaming Xinhua Hong Kong Branch
http://en.people.cn/english/200001/17/eng20000117N126.html
#Authoritarianism #OneCountryTwoSystems
Telegram
📡Guardians of Hong Kong
#Article22 #CCPLies
Hard evidence refutes China's Liaison Office’s Recent Forceful Interpretation of Hong Kong Basic Law Article 22
Last week, the Liaison Office of the Central People’s Government in Hong Kong forcefully re-interpreted Article 22 of Hong…
Hard evidence refutes China's Liaison Office’s Recent Forceful Interpretation of Hong Kong Basic Law Article 22
Last week, the Liaison Office of the Central People’s Government in Hong Kong forcefully re-interpreted Article 22 of Hong…
A classic Political Doublethink : Carrie Lam’s interpretation of Liaison Office’s role in Hong Kong
March 28, 2017
Back in 2017, the then Hong Kong Chief Executive-elect Carrie Lam once said, “My stance is clear. The internal affairs and the high autonomy of Hong Kong are approved by the Legislative Council and handled by the HKSAR government and its Administration. The Liaison Office should not be bothered.
April 14, 2020
Carrie Lam stated that "the Liaison Office, being a state organization tasked to supervise Hong Kong Affairs, is legitimate to express care and concern to local affairs."
Source: DB Channel #Apr23
#Authoritarianism #OneCountryTwoSystems #Article22 #FailedState
March 28, 2017
Back in 2017, the then Hong Kong Chief Executive-elect Carrie Lam once said, “My stance is clear. The internal affairs and the high autonomy of Hong Kong are approved by the Legislative Council and handled by the HKSAR government and its Administration. The Liaison Office should not be bothered.
April 14, 2020
Carrie Lam stated that "the Liaison Office, being a state organization tasked to supervise Hong Kong Affairs, is legitimate to express care and concern to local affairs."
Source: DB Channel #Apr23
#Authoritarianism #OneCountryTwoSystems #Article22 #FailedState
Perfect illustration of a political doublethink by Carrie Lam
Of course her stance has always been clear - to follow the order of the Chinese Communist Party.
https://t.me/guardiansofhongkong/19816
#CarrieLam #CCP #Article22 #OneCountryTwoSystems
Of course her stance has always been clear - to follow the order of the Chinese Communist Party.
https://t.me/guardiansofhongkong/19816
#CarrieLam #CCP #Article22 #OneCountryTwoSystems
#FailedState #Article22
Carrie Lam flip-flops her own verbatim transcription, calling it a misinterpretation
On April 21, 2020 before her routine meeting with the Executive Council, Carrie Lam spoke to the press, “At the constitutional, the governmental and the day-to-day operational levels, the [China's] Liaison Office has the right to comment. The Office can also advise the HKSAR government, because it belongs to the Central Government. This, I believe, is the right and responsibility of the Central Authorities in Hong Kong.”
Carrie Lam's statement was documented as a verbatim transcription; however, one day later on April 22, 2020 Carrie Lam denied what she had said.
“My statement has been misinterpreted. What I said about operation was misunderstood as day-to-day operation and as that the Liaison Office could comment and advise on matter like arrangements for contract."
Source: Apple Daily #Apr23 #OneCountryTwoSystems #CarrieLam #LiaisonOffice
Carrie Lam flip-flops her own verbatim transcription, calling it a misinterpretation
On April 21, 2020 before her routine meeting with the Executive Council, Carrie Lam spoke to the press, “At the constitutional, the governmental and the day-to-day operational levels, the [China's] Liaison Office has the right to comment. The Office can also advise the HKSAR government, because it belongs to the Central Government. This, I believe, is the right and responsibility of the Central Authorities in Hong Kong.”
Carrie Lam's statement was documented as a verbatim transcription; however, one day later on April 22, 2020 Carrie Lam denied what she had said.
“My statement has been misinterpreted. What I said about operation was misunderstood as day-to-day operation and as that the Liaison Office could comment and advise on matter like arrangements for contract."
Source: Apple Daily #Apr23 #OneCountryTwoSystems #CarrieLam #LiaisonOffice
#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…
#FirstHand #Apr26
Civilians Bring Slogans Expressing Their Anger Towards the Government's Recent Actions
In their petitions, citizens condemned police-triad collusion and Beijing's interference in Hong Kong's internal affairs.
#Taikoo #SingwithYou #Article22 #PoliceTriadCollusion
Civilians Bring Slogans Expressing Their Anger Towards the Government's Recent Actions
In their petitions, citizens condemned police-triad collusion and Beijing's interference in Hong Kong's internal affairs.
#Taikoo #SingwithYou #Article22 #PoliceTriadCollusion
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
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
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
Telegraph
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…
#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
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
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…
#BasicLaw #Article22
Former Hong Kong Governor Chris Patten: Beijing statements on Liaison Office role a "flagrant breach of the Joint Declaration and the Basic Law"
Patten wrote in a letter dated on April 26, 2020:
"Beijing officials have made statements about their role in Hong Kong which are a flagrant breach of the Joint Declaration and the Basic Law.
They claim the right to call all the shots in Hong Kong thus destroying once and for all the promises that Hong Kong would have a high degree of local autonomy. They seem intent on destroying Deng Xiaoping’s concept of “one country, two systems”.
At the same time a group of fifteen moderate and highly respected Democrats have been arrested for taking part in demonstrations last year as far back as August when 1.7 million people had taken to the streets...
I have spoken to respected members of Hong Kong’s civil society this week, and they fear that this is only the beginning..."
Source: Hong Kong Watch; The Guardian; RTHK #Apr30 #ChrisPatten #UK
Former Hong Kong Governor Chris Patten: Beijing statements on Liaison Office role a "flagrant breach of the Joint Declaration and the Basic Law"
Patten wrote in a letter dated on April 26, 2020:
"Beijing officials have made statements about their role in Hong Kong which are a flagrant breach of the Joint Declaration and the Basic Law.
They claim the right to call all the shots in Hong Kong thus destroying once and for all the promises that Hong Kong would have a high degree of local autonomy. They seem intent on destroying Deng Xiaoping’s concept of “one country, two systems”.
At the same time a group of fifteen moderate and highly respected Democrats have been arrested for taking part in demonstrations last year as far back as August when 1.7 million people had taken to the streets...
I have spoken to respected members of Hong Kong’s civil society this week, and they fear that this is only the beginning..."
Source: Hong Kong Watch; The Guardian; RTHK #Apr30 #ChrisPatten #UK
#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
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
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
news.rthk.hk
政府稱港澳辦絶對有權力和責任代表中央政府發表意見
國務院港澳辦昨日指，「黑暴」和「攬炒」是香港社會的政治病毒，去年6月以來，他們公然挑戰「一國兩制」原則底線，踐踏法治，破壞社會秩序。 政制及內地事務局表示，港澳辦獲中央授權，專責處理香港事務，絶對有權力和責任代表中央政府，就涉及中央與特區關係、《基本法》的正確實施、政治體制的正常運作等重大事項，發表意見。對於任何擾亂社會秩序、破壞社會安寧的違法行為，特區政府予以嚴厲譴責。 當局又指，特區政府有憲制責任為《基本法》廿三條立法，以確保有所需法律維護國家安全。政府亦會適當地運用香港的現行法例，處理違反憲法和《…
#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
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
Telegraph
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…
#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
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
Telegraph
Actually, it is already closed
(Photo caption: On 1 July 1997, China and the United Kingdom signed a document to formally return Hong Kong to China. Image Source: Staff Photographer／South China Morning Post via Getty Images) (26 May) China has boldly introduced the "National Security…