關於 two rights in the declaration of independence ，我們在網路上蒐集到這些相關的討論、資訊與評價

My recent article😎😎😎

https://apps.orangenews.hk/app/common/details_html…

Opinion | Ulterior Motives behind Opposition Camp's refusal to recognize HKSAR political system

HK Current

2020.09.03 11:39

By Athena Kung

In fact, the political system adopted by the HKSAR is executive-led. Under this structure, the executive authorities, legislature and judiciary complement each other, with built-in checks and balances.

In the year of 1840, Hong Kong was occupied by Britain after the Opium War. In accordance with the Sino-British Joint Declaration signed on 19th of December, 1984, the Chinese and British Governments had a hand-over ceremony on 1st of July, 1997, which marked the resumption of sovereignty by China over Hong Kong. Meanwhile, the HKSAR of the PRC was formally established. The Hong Kong Basic Law, which was adopted in April 1990 at the Third Session of the Seventh National People's Congress, formally came into effect. The Basic Law clearly states and defines the specifications as to how the high degree of autonomy as well as the political, economic, cultural and educational systems of the HKSAR to be run.

To comply with the Basic Law, since 1st of July 1997, the Chinese government has been carrying out the basic policies of "One country, Two systems," "administration of Hong Kong by the Hong Kong people" and "a high degree of autonomy" in the HKSAR. Under "One country, Two systems", even though China is a unified country and the mainland practices the socialist system, Hong Kong's previous capitalist system before 1st of July 1997 and way of life has been remaining unchanged for 50 years. To properly implement "administration of Hong Kong by the Hong Kong people", the HKSAR has all along been administering by the Hong Kong people on their own, and the central authorities have never sent officials to the HKSAR to fill any local official posts. To fulfill "a high degree of autonomy", apart from foreign and national defense affairs which should be administered by the central authorities, the HKSAR has fully enjoyed the power to decide all other matters within its autonomous jurisdiction. The central authorities has never interfered in affairs within the scope of autonomy of the HKSAR. All along, the HKSAR government has been making the final decisions on all matters within its autonomous jurisdiction as prescribed in the Basic Law.

Under the political system of the HKSAR, its major organs of power include the Chief Executive, the Government, the Legislative Council and the Court of Final Appeal. The Executive Council assists the Chief Executive in policy-making and advises the Chief Executive on matters relating to the introduction of bills and subsidiary legislation. Being independent agencies, both the Commission Against Corruption and the Audit Commission are directly accountable to the Chief Executive. In accordance with the conditions procedures as prescribed by law, the Chief Executive shall have the power to dismiss the legislative organs whereas the legislative organs shall have the power to impeach the Chief Executive and the administrative organs shall be accountable to the legislative organs. The Chief Executive, administrative and legislative organs shall supervise and cooperate with each other, which is however not the separation of powers as described by the Opposite Camps from time to time.

The Chief Executive of the HKSAR is both the head of the HKSAR and the head of the HKSAR government. His or her dual status enables him or her to have extensive functions and powers. The Chief Executive shall be selected from among residents of the HKSAR by election or through consultations held locally, and be appointed by the Central Government. Thus, the Chief Executive who is appointed by the Chinese Government to manage the HKSAR plays a very superior role in the HKSAR political system.

In short, the Chief Executive is responsible for implementing the Basic Law, signing bills and budgets, promulgating laws, making decisions on government policies and issuing Executive Orders. Article 48 of the Basic Law empowers the Chief Executive a variety of powers and functions:
" Article 48
The Chief Executive of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region shall exercise the following powers and functions:
(1) To lead the government of the Region;
(2)To be responsible for the implementation of this Law and other laws which, in accordance with this Law, apply in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region;
(3)To sign bills passed by the Legislative Council and to promulgate laws;
To sign budgets passed by the Legislative Council and report the budgets and final accounts to the Central People's Government for the record;
(4)To decide on government policies and to issue executive orders;
(5)To nominate and to report to the Central People's Government for appointment the following principal officials: Secretaries and Deputy Secretaries of Departments, Directors of Bureaux, Commissioner Against Corruption, Director of Audit, Commissioner of Police, Director of Immigration and Commissioner of Customs and Excise; and to recommend to the Central People's Government the removal of the above-mentioned officials;
(6)To appoint or remove judges of the courts at all levels in accordance with legal procedures;
(7)To appoint or remove holders of public office in accordance with legal procedures;
(8)To implement the directives issued by the Central People's Government in respect of the relevant matters provided for in this Law;
(9)To conduct, on behalf of the Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, external affairs and other affairs as authorized by the Central Authorities;
(10) To approve the introduction of motions regarding revenues or expenditure to the Legislative Council;
(11)To decide, in the light of security and vital public interests, whether government officials or other personnel in charge of government affairs should testify or give evidence before the Legislative Council or its committees;
(12)To pardon persons convicted of criminal offences or commute their penalties; and
(13)To handle petitions and complaints.

Indeed, the judicial independence plays a vital role to ensure that the acts and policies of the executive and the legislature fully comply with the Basic Law whereas all fundamental rights and freedoms to be enjoyed by all Hong Kong citizens in accordance with the law can be completely safeguarded. However, from the point of view of separation of powers, the relationship between the executive, legislature and judiciary in the HKSAR should be one of mutual-supervision, checks and balances. It is purely a kind of division of work.

The Opposition Camps has been keeping on refusing to recognize the executive leadership role played by the Chief Executive in accordance with the Basic Law. On the other hand, they intentionally and wrongly deny the executive-led political system adopted in the HKSAR so as to weaken the powers, functions and authorities of the Chief Executive. At the same time, they have been trying their best to expand the powers of the Legislative Council. Clearly, the Opposition Camp aims at making a change in the political system of the HKSAR, namely from executive-led to legislative-led in the hope of controlling the whole HKSAR Government once they can obtain more than 35 seats in the Legislative Council Election. Such step is a common strategy adopted in “Colour Revolutions” instigated by the U.S. Government. In reality, the Opposition Camp has been keeping on spreading rumors to provoke the public's hatred towards the Chief Executive so as to crack down the prestige of the executive-led system in the HKSAR and achieve its ultimate goal of Hong Kong Independence.

The author is Barrister-at-law.

The views don't necessarily reflect those of Orange News.

責任編輯：CK Li
編輯：Whon

近一星期好多人覺得政治形勢好似坐過山車咁。美國高調出招，北京反彈持續。生於大時代，香港人並無投降的理由。黎明前的黑暗長夜，繼續行動就係唯一出路。

香港雖小，卻因香港人而強大，頂住。

Despite foreign doubts and Hongkongers’ criticism, NPC just passed national security legislation. # China unilaterally imposes the law with its legislation entirely under a black box, with no legislative scrutiny and public consultation.

Today’s decision is a direct assault on the will of Hongkongers. China is also scrapping its promise of autonomy under the Joint Declaration, a legally binding international treaty, and burying the One Country Two System framework when a secret police agency can enforce China’s laws within the territory of Hong Kong.

Up to now, Beijing loyalists keep downplaying the adverse impacts on the city’s judicial independence, human rights protections and civil liberties. Under the similar law in China, individuals seeking justice for Tiananmen Massacre, supporting Umbrella Movement and Hong Kong Protests were sentenced to prison. The law will kill HK’s democratic movements.

With the ill-defined law interpretation and a secret police agency imposed in Hong Kong, the law will harm all foreign interests and ex-pats in this global business centre. Xijinping proposed in 2017 that China’s national security covers economic and social aspects. Under China's wolf warrior diplomacy, foreign companies can be victims under this new evil law.

Clearly, China refuses to address the world's concerns and halt legislation through negotiation. International communities need to take a firmer stance and challenge its assault on our global rule-based system.

Since this new regime will undeniably harm foreign interests, I call upon world leaders to urge China to withdraw the bill. Since the law casts more doubt on HK’s autonomy, I urge the world to reconsider the current HK's special status and take all necessary actions to send a warning signal to China for its reckless move.

MPs raise extradition law and Umbrella Movement trial in UK Parliament debate ( Click link for video)

On 10 April 2019, the UK Parliament held a debate on the status of freedoms and the rule of law in Hong Kong. The debate was called by Alistair Carmichael, the Liberal Democrat MP for Orkney and Shetland, and 19 MPs from 6 political parties joined a wide-ranging discussion about the proposed amendments to the extradition law, the 9 April 2019 verdict of the trial of Umbrella Movement leaders, the status of the rule of law, and the implementation of the Sino-British Joint Declaration.

Mr Carmichael opened the debate with a comment on the Umbrella Movement trial, saying:

“The prosecution and now conviction of nine leaders of the Umbrella movement is the latest in a series of egregious human rights abuses by the Government in China. Using the criminal justice system and public order offences in this way is an abuse of fundamental and internationally protected human rights…”

Mark Field MP, the Minister of State at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office responsible for Asia, refused to directly comment on the case, as sentencing is on 24th April, but referred to the Foreign Secretary’s recent statement that “on civil and political freedoms, Hong Kong’s high degree of autonomy is being reduced.” He added that:

“It would be deeply concerning if the [Umbrella Movement trial] ruling discourages legitimate protest in future or discourages Hong Kong citizens from engaging in political activity.”

Mr Carmichael also highlighted wider concerns about Hong Kong’s rights and freedoms, arguing that:

“…these convictions are not an isolated incident. Over the past five years, we have seen the abduction of Hong Kong booksellers who published titles critical of China’s rulers; a political party banned; a senior Financial Times journalist, Victor Mallet, expelled from the city; and, now, proposals to change Hong Kong’s extradition laws to enable suspected criminals to be extradited from Hong Kong to mainland China, which is something that not only political activists but businesspeople fear, as they believe they could be in danger if the change goes ahead.”

Other MPs also highlighted concerns about Hong Kong’s proposed new extradition law. Helen Goodman MP, the Labour Shadow Minister for Asia; Fiona Bruce, the Conservative MP for Congleton; Geraint Davies, the Labour MP for Swansea West; and David Morris, the Conservative MP for Morecombe and Lunesdale, all raised this issue. Fiona Bruce MP, Chair of the Conservative Party Human Rights Commission, asked:

“Does the Minister agree that Hong Kong’s proposed new extradition laws, which may result in political activists and even international business people being in danger of extradition to mainland China, would fundamentally undermine Hong Kong’s autonomy, do irreparable damage to one country, two systems, and destroy business confidence in Hong Kong as a result? Is it not in all our interests, especially business, to defend Hong Kong’s freedom, autonomy and rule of law, which underpin its status as an open, international financial centre?”

In response, Mark Field MP said that:
“We are seriously considering the implications of these changes, including how the proposals might affect UK citizens and, indeed our current extradition arrangement with Hong Kong. Considerably more time should be given for a full and wide consultation with interested parties.

“…it is important that any changes to extradition arrangements from Hong Kong to mainland China must respect Hong Kong’s high degree of autonomy and cannot and must not affect the rights and freedoms set out in the joint declaration.”

Labour’s Shadow Asia Minister, Helen Goodman MP issued a strong challenge to the UK government:

“A serious discussion in this House on the situation in Hong Kong is overdue. China’s erosion of the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Hong Kong Basic Law has been growing since the pro-democracy Umbrella protests in 2014. The last few years have seen an increasing crackdown on dissent and protest, with political parties banned, pro-democracy candidates blocked and journalists expelled. The conviction of nine leaders of the Hong Kong Umbrella movement yesterday—they could face seven years in prison for organising peaceful protests—is totally disproportionate and clearly politically motivated. The proposals to change Hong Kong’s extradition law means they could serve sentences thousands of miles away in mainland China.

The Sino-British joint declaration is a legally binding treaty registered with the United Nations, and the British Government are a joint guarantor, with China, of the rights of Hong Kong citizens. I have one simple question for the Minister: how will the Government fulfil their legal responsibilities to the citizens of Hong Kong?”

In response to this challenge, Mark Field MP highlighted the ongoing commitment of the UK to Hong Kong, as well as the belief that the ‘one-country, two-systems’ approach is in China’s interests:

“We take one country, two systems very seriously, and we will continue to do so… Our view is that the approach is very much in China’s interests, and China has implicitly recognised the importance of Hong Kong as a financial capital market and business centre. It is therefore equally important that we impress upon China that the uniqueness of Hong Kong will be properly maintained, with Hong Kong reaching its full potential, only if we ensure that “two systems,” as set out in the joint declaration, is every bit as important as “one country.””

Stephen Gethins, the international affairs spokesperson of the Scottish National Party argued that judicial independence was in the best interests of Hong Kong as a commercial hub and was therefore in China’s interest:

“Does the Minister agree that judicial independence is absolutely critical to commercial investment and certainty, and that it is in the interests of China as well? Secondly, what Hong Kong-related discussions have he and his colleagues had with regard to trade talks, and what reassurances have Ministers sought over China’s commitment to Hong Kong’s autonomy and the independence of the legal system?”

The Minister, Mark Field said:
“We have made it very clear that for Hong Kong to fulfil its potential—and, indeed, for China to do so in areas such as the belt and road initiative—the independence of, dare I say it, a common law system such as the British legal system is seen as more reliable for investors than perhaps the more doubtful, or at least less orthodox, systems in Shanghai and elsewhere. Although Pudong in Shanghai is a very important financial centre for China and does a lot of domestic work, Hong Kong still enjoys the confidence of many international capital markets.

On the specifics of free trade agreements in a post-Brexit world, clearly Hong Kong would be towards the top of the list, given the strength of our relationship. We have made it very clear to China that one of the reasons we want one country, two systems to be properly promoted is that it is very much in the interests of China’s plans for its own economic development in the years to come. I thank the hon. Gentleman for his focus on that particular issue, but we should not deny that human rights issues will remain extremely important as far as our own commitment to one country, two systems is concerned.”

Richard Graham MP, the Chair of the China All Party Parliamentary Group, raised the importance of Hong Kong’s rule of law. He said:

“The six-monthly Foreign Office report on Hong Kong, which is circulated by the all-party China group that I have the honour to chair, recognises the close bilateral Hong Kong-UK relations on culture and trade in many sectors, but the Minister is right to highlight the continuing pressures on Hong Kong’s high degree of autonomy. Will he confirm that, in relation to the pro-democracy activists found guilty of public nuisance, the appeal process is still very much open and that the higher courts including, if needed, the Court of Final Appeal must take into consideration the freedoms of assembly and speech guaranteed under the joint declaration?”

Mark Field responded by saying:
“I am happy to confirm that. As I said, we have highlighted our hope that a range of recent court rulings do not discourage lawful protest in the future. I stress that Hong Kong citizens are guaranteed the rights to freedom of assembly and demonstration under the joint declaration and the Basic Law.”

For details of the remaining 13 speeches, please read Hansard here https://hansard.parliament.uk/…/HongKongPro-DemocracyActivi…

or watch the Hong Kong Free Press Video link below. Party members of the Conservative Party, Labour Party, Liberal Democrat Party, Scottish National Party, Democratic Unionist Party and Plaid Cymru were all represented in the debate.

April 10, 2019

Video link:
https://www.hongkongwatch.org/…/mps-raise-extradition-law-a…