[ad_1]
HONG KONG (SCMP), known to the world as a model of free market economy, as in Milton Friedman’s Free to Choose television program, or a city with an impressive skyline, as in Christopher Nolan’s The Dark Knight, is it has united Tibet and Xinjiang as one. of human rights hot spots in China.
Australia, Hong Kong’s long-time trading partner and investor, made every effort before 1997 to enact a special statute to grant immunities and privileges to the Hong Kong Trade and Economic Office in Sydney.
However, after China enacted a national security law for Hong Kong, Australia asked its citizens to reconsider staying in the city. Australians were warned that they could be “at greater risk of being detained on loosely defined national security grounds”.
Local officials are busy rejecting accusations by Western governments and politicians of suppression of human rights. The national security law is denounced as being vague and “broad,” and legitimate law enforcement is denigrated as a purge or persecution of democracy activists.
However, Hong Kong has been late in enacting national security laws. It has much to learn from Australia, which enacted a series of laws in 2018 to improve the protection of national security.
The Foreign Espionage and Interference Act empowers Australian authorities to suppress “inherently harmful information” or information that could “damage or impair relations between the Commonwealth and a state or territory”. The Foreign Influence Transparency Scheme Act of 2018 puts a variety of individuals and organizations at risk of committing a crime.
Its Access and Assistance Act would allow authorities to “add, copy, delete or alter” data after individuals have been ordered to hand over their phones and computers under defined circumstances. Tech companies would have to comply with similar requests about their customers’ encrypted data.
Hong Kong’s new national security legislation pales in comparison to Australia’s much more detailed and comprehensive legislation. The Hong Kong Basic Law ensures that the provisions of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, commonly regarded as the gold standard for the protection of human rights, remain in force after 1997 and are enforced through the Ordinance on the Hong Kong Bill of Rights.
By comparison, many electoral democracies only incorporated certain rights provisions into their constitutions or laws passed by their parliaments.
Since 1991 and even more so after 1997, Hong Kong courts have become accustomed to conducting judicial reviews of executive decisions and local legislation involving constitutional rights.
Our courts are in uncharted territory and balance Hong Kong’s new constitutional reality with individual rights and freedoms. They deserve credit for finding the right balance after controversial cases made their way to the highest level.
China has waited 23 years for Hong Kong to fulfill its constitutional obligation under article 23 of the Basic Law to prohibit seven crimes that endanger national security. Yet China has come under attack both for the essence of Hong Kong’s national security law and its different enactment modus operandi, at lightning speed and in secrecy until it is ready for enactment.
China’s political, legal and judicial systems are certainly different from the common law system. A civil law system was introduced at the dawn of the first republic in 1911. The animosity of the Western world does not help its gradual and orderly convergence with international standards in terms of procedural transparency and protection of rights.
But the fundamental question remains: Doesn’t China have the right to protect itself and a vital part of its territory, even if its systems are different? Doesn’t China have a constitutional role to play in enacting laws to restore order and stability in its first special administrative region?
Let those populists and political opportunists who wage daily tirades about China’s supposed erosion of Hong Kong autonomy be reminded that 1997 is a sovereignty project. The Sino-British Joint Declaration deals with the transfer of sovereignty.
The first two paragraphs are a pair of linked statements by two sovereign powers: China declares its decision to establish a Hong Kong Special Administrative Region “by resuming the exercise of sovereignty over Hong Kong”, and the United Kingdom declares that it will restore Hong Kong to China with effect from July 1, 1997.
In paragraph 3, China details its 12 basic policies towards Hong Kong, which will be elaborated in legislation enacted by its National People’s Congress. Article 12 of the Basic Law confirms the policy enunciated by China in the Joint Declaration that the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region “will be a local administrative region” of China with “a high degree of autonomy and will depend directly on the Central People’s Government” .
To mark the 30th anniversary of the enactment of the Basic Law, senior officials from Beijing recently participated in a summit seminar in Hong Kong to reiterate the constitutional principles by which Hong Kong is governed.
Hong Kong does not have self-government or reserved powers as in a federal system. All its powers are authorized by the central government. The people of Hong Kong were reminded that only true patriots, people who truly support reunification and are loyal to China, can participate in the Hong Kong government. That includes the executive and legislative branches, and the judiciary.
Given that China is already facing a spate of protests over what the West perceives as violations of Hong Kong’s autonomy and suppression of rights, what is wrong with China standing firm in asserting its sovereignty over Hong Kong? – SCMP
[ad_2]
