What Chinese Citizens Have and Haven’t Learned About Hong Kong’s Protests

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-06-17/china-censors-turn-the-blame-for-hong-kong-protests-to-the-u-s

by blondie9x • 7 years ago

27 10 7 years ago

baby• 7 years ago

What is the UN stance on this issue btw?

ardy42• 7 years ago

Probably silence, since China can veto any security council resolution, and a lot of the countries in the general assembly probably don't care to make waves (if they even care at all) since they want Chinese money.

NotPaidToPost• 7 years ago

Why would the UN have a stance on this?

It's been hugely magnified the media, but it is no more than a government bringing a bill forward and people demonstrating against it.

This often happens in most Western countries and no-one asks the UN what they think about it.

Perhaps time to put things into perspective.

Maken2• 7 years ago

It's only an international affair because the Chinese government has gone full paranoid and blame other countries because their people didn't like the bill.

Anyway, massive demonstrations are usually newsworthy, like the Yellow Vests in France until a few months ago.

calyth20183• 7 years ago

Sure, China great firewalling the protest, which is very expected.

Ever noticed that none of the articles so far has actually articulated what's bad about the extradition bill? The reporting language is typically either "Beijing-backed extradition bill", or some form of "extradition bill opposed by Hong Kongers"

https://www.legco.gov.hk/yr18-19/english/bills/brief/b201903... is the older version of the bill, which did not contain the concession that bumped the minimum prison sentence requirement from 3-years to 7-years, before the protest started, from one of the news article I read.

SCMP, which is basically the English language newspaper of record in HK, has this infographic https://multimedia.scmp.com/infographics/news/hong-kong/arti...

Maken2• 7 years ago

For what I have understood, the issue is that the bill is a loophole in which they can essentially indict a individual with dubious charges until they fullfill the threshold, and then absorb him into mainland China, at which point he's outside any legal guarantee and the real trial can begin.

calyth20183• 7 years ago

The first part of the PDF from the legco.gov.hk states that it must be double-criminalty, which means the act that the person being extradited must be a crime for both jurisdiction. There's also no double jeopardy, no political indictments.

Suppose the CE is in cahoots, it then goes to the courts, which has been the least affected because the elites in HK depends on it for their business dealings.

hker2• 7 years ago

Ever noticed that none of the articles so far has actually articulated what's bad about the extradition bill?

To see why Hong Kong people think the extradition bill and its amendment is bad, let me cite a section from Leung Kai Chi (in Chinese [1], translated as [2] with help from Google translate):

3. Why do Hong Kong people oppose this amendment?
Four reasons. First of all, after the abolition of the provisions of the "Central People's Government or any other part of the government of the People's Republic of China", not only can the suspects be handed over to Taiwan, but also can be handed over to mainland China, which will greatly undermine Hong Kong's unique position. After all, the judicial system in mainland China is not independent, and it is often politically affected and cannot be fair and just. For example, Zhao Lianhai, who was vocalized by the family members of the tainted milk powder, was jailed for being convicted of causing trouble. If the amendment to the Fugitive Offenders Ordinance is passed, it means that mainland China can borrow Hong Kong's judicial system to send Hong Kong people to mainland China for trial. Public opinion believes that this will make many people feel scared, and Hong Kong people will no longer enjoy the freedom guaranteed by the Basic Law.
Secondly, Hong Kong is an international commercial city. Merchants from all over the world use Hong Kong as a regional headquarters to facilitate business in mainland China. They chose to set up regional headquarters in Hong Kong instead of directly in mainland China because of the guarantees brought about by the independence of Hong Kong's judiciary. Without this guarantee, they have to face various legal problems. For example, mainland China's officialdom and business circles have various unspoken rules. Doing business in mainland China often touches some legal gray areas. If the amendment to the Fugitive Offenders Ordinance is passed, these businessmen will have to worry about whether they will be sent to mainland China for trial. Even businessmen who are cautious and never break the law will be worried that they will be accused of being accused of lawsuits and being guilty of crimes. In this regard, many chambers of commerce in Hong Kong have issued a statement against the revision, and some companies have cancelled over 10 billion business investment because of fear of economic prospects. Public opinion is more worried that foreign capital will move the regional headquarters to other places, and foreign governments are more likely to withdraw special preferential policies for Hong Kong (relative to mainland China). These developments will seriously hit the Hong Kong economy and affect people's livelihood.
Thirdly, according to the existing provisions, whether it is a long-term agreement or a case transfer, it must be considered by the Legislative Council. According to the proposed amendment, the Chief Executive will no longer need the consent of the Legislative Council to initiate a case transfer. In this regard, public opinion believes that the supervision of the Chief Executive has been substantially removed, which has greatly reduced the protection of suspects. Since the Chief Executive of Hong Kong is not produced by Hong Kong people by one person, it will be difficult for the public to be held accountable if the relevant power is abused.
Fourthly, this amendment has caused a lot of social controversy and it is reasonable to give the public sufficient time to understand, discuss and reflect their opinions. However, this time the Government only has 20 days of public consultation. After the Bar Association, the Law Society, and even some religious groups and educational groups that were relatively conservative in their usual positions, the government still insisted on proposing amendments and demanded that the Legislative Council pass as soon as possible, triggering a strong rebound in public opinion.

[1] https://medium.com/@leungkaichihk/%E5%8F%8D%E9%80%81%E4%B8%A... [2]: https://pastebin.com/6JqR1EsR

calyth20183• 7 years ago

An upvote for you, because finally a rational argument has been put forth.

Four reasons. First of all, after the abolition of the provisions of the "Central People's Government or any other part of the government of the People's Republic of China", not only can the suspects be handed over to Taiwan, but also can be handed over to mainland China, which will greatly undermine Hong Kong's unique position. After all, the judicial system in mainland China is not independent, and it is often politically affected and cannot be fair and just. For example, Zhao Lianhai, who was vocalized by the family members of the tainted milk powder, was jailed for being convicted of causing trouble. If the amendment to the Fugitive Offenders Ordinance is passed, it means that mainland China can borrow Hong Kong's judicial system to send Hong Kong people to mainland China for trial. Public opinion believes that this will make many people feel scared, and Hong Kong people will no longer enjoy the freedom guaranteed by the Basic Law.

That is true, it's even stated in the legco PDF, that in order to open it up to Taiwan, it will open up to the mainland, because of the particular way mainland defines the PRC.

Zhao's was convicted, according to wikipedia in English, on "disturbing social order". The FOO amendment has the following (I've included the strikeouts that were excluded, so there are 46 points from the Schedule 1, but only 37 applies)

1. Murder or manslaughter, including criminal negligence causing death; culpable homicide; assault with intent to commit murder.

2. Aiding, abetting, counselling or procuring suicide.

3. Maliciously wounding; maiming; inflicting grievous or actual bodily harm; assault occasioning actual bodily harm; threats to kill; intentional or reckless endangering of life whether by means of a weapon, a dangerous substance or otherwise; offences relating to unlawful wounding or injuring.

4. Offences of a sexual nature including rape; sexual assault; indecent assault; unlawful sexual acts on children; statutory sexual offences.

5. Gross indecency with a child, a mental defective or an unconscious person.

6. Kidnapping; abduction; false imprisonment; unlawful confinement; dealing or trafficking in slaves or other persons; taking a hostage.

7. Criminal intimidation.

8. Offences against the law relating to dangerous drugs including narcotics, psychotropic substances, precursors and essential chemicals used in the illegal manufacture of narcotics and psychotropic substances; offences relating to the proceeds of drug trafficking.

9. Obtaining property or pecuniary advantage by deception; theft; robbery; burglary (including breaking and entering); embezzlement; blackmail; extortion; unlawful handling or receiving of property; false accounting; any other offence in respect of property or fiscal matters involving fraud; any offence against the law relating to unlawful deprivation of property.

~~10. Offences against bankruptcy law or insolvency law. ~~

~~11. Offences against the law relating to companies including offences committed by officers, directors and promoters. ~~

~~12. Offences relating to securities and futures trading. ~~

13. Offences relating to counterfeiting; offences against the law relating to forgery or uttering what is forged.

~~14. Offences against the law relating to protection of intellectual property, copyrights, patents or trademarks. ~~

15. Offences against the law relating to bribery, corruption, secret commissions and breach of trust.

16. Perjury and subornation of perjury.

17. Offence relating to the perversion or obstruction of the course of justice.

18. Arson; criminal damage or mischief including mischief in relation to computer data.

19. Offences against the law relating to firearms.

20. Offences against the law relating to explosives.

~~21. Offences against the law relating to environmental pollution or protection of public health. ~~

22. Mutiny or any mutinous act committed on board a vessel at sea.

23. Piracy involving ships or aircraft.

24. Unlawful seizure or exercise of control of an aircraft or other means of transportation.

25. Genocide or direct and public incitement to commit genocide.

26. Facilitating or permitting the escape of a person from custody.

~~27. Offences against the law relating to the control of exportation or importation of goods of any type, or the international transfer of funds. ~~

28. Smuggling; offences against the law relating to import and export of prohibited items, including historical and archaeological items.

29. Immigration offences including fraudulent acquisition or use of a passport or visa.

30. Arranging or facilitating for financial gain, the illegal entry of persons into a jurisdiction.

31. Offences relating to gambling or lotteries.

32. Offences relating to the unlawful termination of pregnancy.

33. Stealing, abandoning, exposing or unlawfully detaining a child; any other offences involving the exploitation of children.

34. Offences against the law relating to prostitution and premises kept for the purposes of prostitution.

~~35. Offences involving the unlawful use of computers. ~~

~~36. Offences relating to fiscal matters, taxes or duties. ~~

37. Offences relating to unlawful escape from custody; mutiny in prison.

38. Bigamy.

39. Offences relating to women and girls.

~~40. Offences against the law relating to false or misleading trade descriptions. ~~

41. Offences relating to the possession or laundering of proceeds obtained from the commission of any offence described in this Schedule.

42. Impeding the arrest or prosecution of a person who has or is believed to have committed an offence described in this Schedule.

43. Offences for which persons may be surrendered under multi-lateral international conventions; offences created as a result of decisions of international organizations.

44. Conspiracy to commit fraud or to defraud.

45. Conspiracy to commit, or any type of association to commit, any offence described in this Schedule.

46. Aiding, abetting, counselling or procuring the commission of, inciting, being an accessory before or after the fact to, or attempting to commit an offence described in this Schedule

So I find it hard for "disturbing social order" to fit in any of those (the best attempt might be #17).

Suppose the CE will simply ram a case like this through, as per the SCMP infographic illustrate, it would then go to the HK courts and one could make their case there.

HK courts have remained unsullied for the most part, because existing interests relies on the Western style courts for their business dealings. From the other cases in the past where I have dug up rulings, I've not seen case where HK courts have behaved like Chinese courts. So even if one expects CE to side completely with China, it still needs to go through the HK judicial system.

Secondly, Hong Kong is an international commercial city...

Agreed. I can see #8, 9, 13, 28, 31, 41, 44 to potentially be abused. It would also require the offence to be sentenced for at least 7 year to trigger the case transfer.

They have noted that this was one of the concerns for opposition, even in the older doc that I linked (it was before they bump the minimum prison sentence from 3 to 7).

Thirdly, according to the existing provisions, whether it is a long-term agreement or a case transfer, it must be considered by the Legislative Council...

So the SCMP infographic had already stated that even if the CE approves, it goes into the HK courts. The courts can decide not to permit the extradition to proceed.

LegCo is a political body comprised from all walks of life; while some have a legal background, not all of them are. The Judiciary is better suited for these kinds of legal matters, and democratic governments elsewhere also have judges to keep them in check.

Fourthly, this amendment has caused a lot of social controversy and it is reasonable to give the public sufficient time to understand, discuss and reflect their opinions.

This is something that CE Lam really has to wear - I find it baffling to attempt to rush this. It's a touchy enough subject, and they're better off comparing and contrasting the amended model with other jurisdictions. Comparing to say the Canadian model, https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/cj-jp/emla-eej/extradition.htm..., for example, Canada has the department receiving the request, judge go through the request, then ministerial decision. In short, bureaucracy -> judiciary -> executive branch (of sorts).

edit: argh formatting.

What Chinese Citizens Have and Haven’t Learned About Hong Kong’s Protests

Related Stories