Occupy Central
Occupy Central is a civil disobedience movement which began in Hong Kong on September 28, 2014. It calls on thousands of protesters to block roads and paralyse Hong Kong's financial district if the Beijing and Hong Kong governments do not agree to implement universal suffrage for the chief executive election in 2017 and the Legislative Council elections in 2020 according to "international standards." The movement was initiated by Benny Tai Yiu-ting (戴耀廷), an associate professor of law at the University of Hong Kong, in January 2013.
Umbrella Movement
The Umbrella Movement (Chinese: 雨傘運動; pinyin: yǔsǎn yùndòng) is a loose political movement that was created spontaneously during the Hong Kong protests of 2014. Its name derives from the recognition of the umbrella as a symbol of defiance and resistance against the Hong Kong government, and the united grass-roots objection to the decision of the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress (NPCSC) of 31 August.
The movement consists of individuals numbering in the tens of thousands who participated in the protests that began on 28 September 2014, although Scholarism, the Hong Kong Federation of Students, Occupy Central with Love and Peace, groups are principally driving the demands for the rescission of the NPCSC decision.
The movement consists of individuals numbering in the tens of thousands who participated in the protests that began on 28 September 2014, although Scholarism, the Hong Kong Federation of Students, Occupy Central with Love and Peace, groups are principally driving the demands for the rescission of the NPCSC decision.
Occupy Central site in an area surrounding the Legislative Council and Central Government Offices at Tamar were cleared 22-06-2015.
Hong Kong reform vote
The Hong Kong government’s political reform proposal for how the city elects its leader by universal suffrage for the first time in 2017 is based on a strict framework set by Beijing. The plan limits the number of candidates to two or three and requires them to win majority support from a 1,200 strong nominating committee. Arguing that this does not constitute genuine universal suffrage, pan-democratic lawmakers have vowed to reject the package, while pro-democracy groups have protested. The government’s resolution was to be put to a vote by the 70-member Legislative Council in June 2015, requiring a two-thirds majority to be passed.
POST OCCUPY CENTRAL - DAY 281
POST REFORM VOTE：DAY 96 (22-09-2015)
POST REFORM VOTE：DAY 96 (22-09-2015)
Full coverage of the day’s events
Coconuts HKFrontline
Our understanding of the rule of law defines us as Hong Kong people
Given the recent comments by Zhang Xiaoming, the head of the central government’s liaison office in Hong Kong, it might be a good time to consider the role an independent judiciary — and more generally an understanding of the rule of law — has on our sense of being Hong Kong people.
Let us first consider what was said earlier this month at an event to mark the 25th anniversary of the Basic Law.
Referring to the separation of powers between the executive and administrative branches of government and the judiciary, Zhang was reported as saying “Hong Kong is not a political system that exercises the separation of powers; not before the handover, not after the handover,” and that such a separation of powers could apply only to a sovereign state. He went on to say that the chief executive “possesses a special legal position that transcends the executive, the legislature and the judiciary.”
Photo: Wikicommons.
Chief Executive Leung Chun-ying, supported by the usual crowd of pro-government mouthpieces including Executive Councillor Regina Ip and Secretary for Justice Rimsky Yuen, were soon out defending a statement that seemed to everyone I know, regardless of political persuasion, a clear violation of what was guaranteed by the Basic Law.
Article 2 of the Basic Law states that the National Assembly cedes Hong Kong the authority to “exercise a high degree of autonomy and enjoy executive, legislative and independent judicial power, including that of final adjudication”; article 19 that Hong Kong “shall be vested with independent judicial power”; and article 85 that local courts “shall exercise judicial power independently, free from any interference”.
It is not simply a case of needing to understand the Basic Law “from each other’s perspective”, as Yuen put it, when one perspective is quite clearly not what was understood or agreed upon as written. It has been extremely disappointing to see how far some people are prepared to go to to avoid having to speak truth to power, including quoting Deng Xiaoping’s position at the start of the Sino-British negotiations that would result in the Joint Declaration, after which the Basic Law was drafted. A starting position should not be taken as representative of an end position.
File photo: HKFP.
The tragedy of these negotiations is that they are to my knowledge the only post-colonial agreement that did not involve the people whose lives would be directly affected by the change of sovereignty. Compounding this has been not only reluctance but outright refusal from Beijing to acknowledge and respect the wishes of Hong Kong people since the territory’s return to our motherland. Hong Kong people are being ordered to identify with a nation that neither respects nor represents them.
Photo: Pixabay.
Our home
Since 2007 I have spoken with close to 10,000 people about how they identify with Hong Kong as home. I have yet to meet anyone who in their identification with this city, and this is a personal identification, does not consider the rule of law as integral to their understanding of being a Hong Kong person. This is expressed in many ways.
Since 2007 I have spoken with close to 10,000 people about how they identify with Hong Kong as home. I have yet to meet anyone who in their identification with this city, and this is a personal identification, does not consider the rule of law as integral to their understanding of being a Hong Kong person. This is expressed in many ways.
When people speak of Hong Kong being a safe city, it is said from the position of confidence in the police and the legal process. The point is not that the exercise of authority has made Hong Kong safe, but that this authority is understood to be exercised fairly, and that this relationship with power has shaped a community that is, on the whole, law-abiding. People respect the law. They do not fear it.
Consider now the position on the Mainland. Can it be said that the law is respected in the same way as to be considered a core institution representative of China and the Chinese people? The mainland’s system and understanding of the law would represent a serious regression for Hong Kong should they be adopted. It would not only set this city back and represent a loss of our “competitive edge” as a place to live and do business. It would, more importantly, would undermine the foundations on which we understand the nature and dynamics of authority and power, and of our personal position and relations with officialdom.
The significance of this understanding is reflected in how surprisingly many people in Hong Kong will point specifically to the rule of law as being important to them. This understanding is not for a legal or political abstraction, but is instead personal. It is an understanding that is fundamental to how we construct our sense of self and how we engage with and connect with the world around us. It defines in us a sense of security and of individual rights grounded on an understanding of equality before the law. The way we relate to authority, and how we define ourselves and relate to each other, owe much to our presumption that ours is a society governed by the principle of equality before the law guaranteed by an independent judiciary.
Core values
What Zhang Xiaoming challenges in his statement is both the nature and the framework of the “core institutions” around which Hong Kong people understand themselves and their home. It is irrelevant whether these represent a “western” framework or understanding. What matters is what Hong Kong people understand. We have for at least a generation lived in and been shaped by a world that can no longer sustain such marked divisions as to label a practical understanding of the law as “Chinese” or “Western”. There are no isolated histories to justify such distinct perspectives. Power and legitimacy come not from history but from the people from whom they are derived.
What Zhang Xiaoming challenges in his statement is both the nature and the framework of the “core institutions” around which Hong Kong people understand themselves and their home. It is irrelevant whether these represent a “western” framework or understanding. What matters is what Hong Kong people understand. We have for at least a generation lived in and been shaped by a world that can no longer sustain such marked divisions as to label a practical understanding of the law as “Chinese” or “Western”. There are no isolated histories to justify such distinct perspectives. Power and legitimacy come not from history but from the people from whom they are derived.
Director of the Central Government’s Liaison Office, Zhang Xiaoming. Photo: NowTV screengrab.
Even if we were to believe Beijing, and accept that the Basic Law should be read in a particular way, does this make it right for those whose lives and very sense of self will be changed? If Hong Kong people have so fundamentally misunderstood, and have so misread what has been put to writing, the Basic Law has little value other than to those who know Beijing’s mind.
In adopting Zhang’s perspective of Hong Kong we must fundamentally alter not only what Hong Kong is but what it means to us, and how we understand ourselves. How would growing up in a city where the law derives its authority from and is subservient to the closed politics of a city two thousand kilometres away affect who we are? Would we relate to Hong Kong in the same way, and who would we be?
Failure to de-colonise ‘caused many problems’ for Hong Kong, says former Beijing official
The failure of Hong Kong’s “de-colonisation” is the cause of the city’s social and economic problems, a former Beijing official says.
Speaking at a forum in Hong Kong, Chen Zuo’er also criticised the “revival of de-sinofication” in Hong Kong. He said the belief was planted by British colonialists in the early 1980s. The term commonly referred to the rejection of China’s influence in Hong Kong, and was used by localist activists in the recent years.
“There is no de-colonisation but just de-sinofication,”. He added that it harmed the ‘One Country, Two Systems’ principle, that “this kind of strange phenomenon which is against the nature of history created serious internal conflicts, wasted people’s time and caused many problems.”
When asked by reporters what laws should Hong Kong refer to for the process of de-colonisation, he said: “You can look for them in the Basic Law…from the general principles and all the articles that follow.”
Chen Zuo’er. Photo: Apple Daily.
However, Financial Secretary John Tsang said that ‘One Country, Two Systems’ was a success.
“Since the handover, most Hongkongers think that ‘One Country, Two Systems’ is our absolute advantage; we will use it in different aspects to push for the development of Hong Kong,”
“I think Hongkongers are very practical and we have confidence in ‘One Country, Two Systems’. We have seen its success and development in the past 18 years, I believe it will continue.”
File Photo: John Tsang. Photo: Gov HK
LegCo president Jasper Tsang also disputed Chen’s remarks. “Even if there are some Hongkongers or young people who have the mentality of the colony, those are only very small numbers, I don’t think it will affect the implementation of ‘One Country, Two Systems’.”
“I think we need to ask Mr Chen which law [in the Basic Law] he was referring to, I did not understand his speech so well,” he added.
Political analyst Ivan Choy Chi-keung of Chinese University said that Chen’s controversial comments, which came after a meeting between key members of the Democratic Party and a top Beijing official, made it “difficult for Hong Kong people to understand what is the real political line in Beijing at this moment.”
File Photo: Director of the Central Government’s Liaison Office, Zhang Xiaoming. Photo: NowTV screengrab.
Chen Zuo’er was the deputy director of the Hong Kong and Macau Affairs Office from 2003 to 2008. He is now the chair of the semi-official Chinese Association of Hong Kong and Macau Studies think tank, which organised the forum on Sunday.
His comments came after China Liaison Office director Zhang Xiaoming courted controversy on September 15 by saying that the Chief Executive has a “special legal position which overrides administrative, legislative and judicial organs,” and that separation of powers “is not suitable for Hong Kong.”
Chief Executive Leung Chun-ying confirmed to reporters last week that his position “is indeed transcendent.”
沒有留言:
張貼留言