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 275
POST REFORM VOTE：DAY 90 (16-09-2015)
POST REFORM VOTE：DAY 90 (16-09-2015)
Full coverage of the day’s events
Coconuts HKFrontline
Dept. of Justice to reapply for contempt proceedings against Occupy activists after paperwork blunder
The Department of Justice (DoJ) will make fresh applications for leave to commence contempt proceedings against 17 activists involved in last year’s pro-democracy Occupy protests. It comes after the DoJ failed to follow proper procedures.
The High Court ruled against the government on September 1 after the 17 were charged with criminal contempt of court for violating an injunction order related to the Occupy protest site in Mong Kok last November. The ruling came after prosecutors failed to hand in a relevant document to the court in time, violating court rules. The DoJ will not lodge an appeal against decision, as Tuesday was the deadline.
However, a spokesman for DoJ said on Tuesday that Secretary for Justice Rimsky Yuen Kwok-keung “took the view that the overall public interest… can be best served by making fresh applications instead of appealing against the decision.”
File Photo: Rimsky Yuen. Photo: Gov HK.
The spokesman said the Yuen’s role in criminal contempt proceedings is to highlight matters similar to an ‘amicus curiae’ —legal term for friend of the court— “in the interests of the administration of justice” so that the court “can decide whether or not to punish the persons involved for contempt.”
Jeffrey Chan, one of the 17 activists, told HKFP: “I welcome the DoJ’s decision not to appeal. I think the prior judgement was very clear and thorough that it leaves little room for success in appeal. I expected the DoJ to seek fresh new proceedings… and I expect the court to grant it,”
“Despite the lengthy process, I very much look forward to seeing the matter enter trial so I can prove the DoJ’s allegation to be frivolous and wrong and truly put the matter behind us.”
Public interest
While the DoJ decided to reapply for contempt proceedings against the activists, it has delayed several other cases concerning the public interest.
In August, Yuen said that the DoJ was still awaiting advice from a Queen’s Counsel on whether to prosecute seven police officers for the alleged attack of Civic Party member Ken Tsang Kin-chiu during the Occupy protests.
High Court in HK. Photo: Wikimedia Commons.
In June, Senior Counsel Keith Yeung Kar-hung said that there will be a decision on whether to prosecute former chief executive Donald Tsangfor corruption in three months, meaning by the end of this month.
Allegations that Tsang received benefits from various tycoons first surfaced in 2012, when it was reported that Tsang repeatedly appeared with top businessmen on luxury jets and yachts and that he rented a high-end apartment in Shenzhen.
Hong Kong’s former Director of Public Prosecutions Grenville Cross last week criticised the sluggish progress of Tsang’s investigation, suggesting that the length of the investigation—which has already gone on for three years and six months—could “make the Guinness World of Records.”
In March, Rimsky Yuen said at a Legislative Council meeting that it was not appropriate for him to comment on the case of Leung Chun-ying’s receiving HK$50 million in undeclared earnings from Australian corporation UGL.
Yuen said the Independent Commission Against Corruption was handling the case following complaints filed against the chief executive.
Not all Hong Kong judges understand Basic Law accurately, says top Beijing law scholar
Not all Hong Kong judges have an accurate and full understanding of the Basic Law, according to a top law scholar and member of Beijing’s Basic Law Committee.
Rao Geping made the statement in response to China Liaison Office director Zhang Xiaoming’s controversial comment 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.”
Zhang Xiaoming speaking during a China Liaison Office “tea gathering” in June 2015. Photo: China Liaison Office.
Rao told Hong Kong media in Beijing on Tuesday: “I think it is not accurate to describe Hong Kong’s political system as separation of powers.”
“Should it be normal for Hong Kong people to watch judges giving a verdict based on inaccurate understanding [of the Basic Law]?”
He said it was a friendly reminder to some judges and that he was not trying to weaken judicial independence in Hong Kong.
Previously, at the Ceremonial Opening of the Legal Year 2014, Chief Justice Geoffrey Ma Tao-li stated that the principle of the separation of powers was clearly set out in the Basic Law.
File Photo: Rao Geping. Photo: Apple Daily.
‘Indeed transcendent’
Meanwhile, Chief Executive Leung Chun-ying said his position “is indeed transcendent”, ahead of a visit to Jakarta on Wednesday, a day after defending Zhang in public.
Meanwhile, Chief Executive Leung Chun-ying said his position “is indeed transcendent”, ahead of a visit to Jakarta on Wednesday, a day after defending Zhang in public.
“In the political system of Hong Kong, the Central Government would only appoint the CE and the principal officials nominated by the CE,” Leung said. “Therefore, the status of Chief Executive is indeed transcendent.”
The Basic Law also stated that the CE would not only be the chief of government but also of the Special Administrative Region, he added. “All of Hong Kong’s powers and its high degree of autonomy come from the Central Government and through the Chief Executive it appoints.”
Leung said that this logic has been very clear since the Basic Law was drafted some 20 years ago.
Rao Geping (inset) says the executive, legislative and judicial branches of the Hong Kong government "must work together".Photo: HKEJ
This is the real reason Leung’s ‘superior’ status is scary
Expect the controversy over separation of powers to tangle up cross-border politics like no other.
The simple reason is what’s at issue.
It’s not whether Hong Kong has such a political structure but whether its judiciary is about to lose its independence.
When Zhang Xiaoming (張曉明) raised the issue at an official reception on Saturday, he left his audience and the rest of us to ponder exactly what he meant.
Which is why there has been a flurry of interpretations from Chief Executive Leung Chung-ying to Secretary for Justice Rimsky Yuen and Basic Law Committee member Rao Geping (饒戈平).
Zhang had an opportunity to elaborate on Monday when he was asked by reporters but didn’t take it.
What we understand from his controversial comments is what little insight there has been from the media.
But there’s enough of it to keep us up at night.
The gist of Zhang’s comments is that the Beijing-appointed Hong Kong leader has a constitutional status that transcends all three branches of government — executive, legislative and judicial.
In addition, he said separation of powers in Hong Kong is merely a reference, not a real political structure, because Hong Kong is not a sovereign state.
Zhang used the words “superior” and “special power” to describe the status of the chief executive but neither had the same numbing blow as the suggestion that he has “overriding” authority over the judiciary.
Leung tried to manage the confused aftermath by citing the Basic Law, saying it does not give Hong Kong real separation of powers as this legal principle exists in sovereign states.
And Yuen played down the controversy by echoing Leung, adding Zhang’s comments had been taken out of proportion.
That did not stop the Hong Kong Bar Association from seeking a clarification from Zhang, which had not come at this writing.
Now we’re hearing a more worrying version from Rao, a law professor in Beijing University.
He took the official line that Hong Kong does not have true separation of powers but added the three branches of government “must work together”.
Heaven forbid that’s the real message Zhang was trying to send.
The first thing that strikes us about it is the implication that the judiciary exists for the government, not to serve the ends of justice.
Hong Kong built its success on effective governance but mostly on an independent judiciary.
While the political landscape has changed beyond recognition from constant architecting by Beijing, the judiciary has remained a bastion of Hong Kong’s vaunted rule of law.
The notion that it’s being co-opted for political purposes is plainly terrifying.
But it’s increasingly clear that’s what Beijing prefers after a series of political setbacks in Hong Kong from the shelving of a national security law and national education to the crushing defeat of its election reform proposal.
Also, the central authorities are unhappy about the outcome of certain cases involving pro-democracy protesters.
The theory is that the government expects better treatment from justices who are appointed by the chief executive in the first place.
Perhaps the best argument on the subject came before the latest flap even emerged.
Last year, former chief justice Andrew Li wrote that rule of law with an independent judiciary is “universally recognised as a cornerstone of our society under ‘one country, two systems’.”
And by the same token, judicial independence is “integral to the rule of law”, he said.
沒有留言:
張貼留言