關於 appeal to authority ，我們在網路上蒐集到這些相關的討論、資訊與評價

APAKAH DARURAT

Oleh :
Prof Madya Dr Shamrahayu A.Aziz

Soalan 1

Apakah maksud darurat

Jawapan:

Darurat maksudnya suatu keadaan berkaitan keselamatan, ekonomi dan ketenteraman awam yang tidak dapat dikawal melalui sistem pentadbiran biasa. Pengisytiharan darurat adalah suatu pemasyhuran yang dibuat oleh Yang di-Pertuan Agong melalui suatu pewartaan bahawa keadaan tersebut telah wujud atau hampir berlaku.

Soalan 2

Apakah kesan pengisytiharan darurat

Jawapan:

Kesan umum pengisytiharan darurat ialah, Perlembagaan digantung dan pentadbiran negara adalah ditentukan oleh pihak eksekutif. Tentera juga boleh mengambil alih teraju dalam hal berkaitan keselamatan sekiranya keadaan memerlukan, lebih-lebih lagi apabila darurat diisytiharkan kerana berlakunya ancaman kepada keselamatan negara. Parlimen masih boleh bersidang sekiranya tidak dibubarkan.

Ketika proklamasi darurat berkuat kuasa, kuasa eksekutif Persekutuan adalah juga meliputi semua perkara dalam kuasa perundangan Negeri dan memberi arahan kepada kerajaan negeri atau mana-mana pegawai atau pihak berkuasa Negeri. (Perkara 150(4)).

Kesan lain, dari segi pentadbiran dan perundangan dibincangkan dalam jawapan kepada soalan seterusnya.

Soalan 3

Adakah pengisytiharan darurat dibenarkan oleh Perlembagaan

Jawapan:

Ya. Perlembagaan membenarkan pengisytiharan darurat melalui Perkara 150 Perlembagaan Persekutuan.

Perkara 150 adalah satu daripada tiga peruntukan yang berada di bawah Bahagian XI Perlembagaan Persekutuan, iaitu Bahagian berkaitan Kuasa Khas Menentang Perbuatan Subversif, Keganasan Terancang, Dan Perbuatan Dan Jenayah Yang Memudaratkan Orang Awam Dan Kuasa Darurat.

Bahagian XI ini membenarkan undang-undang bagi tujuan pencegahan dibuat, termasuklah tahanan pencegahan bagi tujuan menangani keadaan darurat.

Soalan 4

Apakah yang membolehkan Yang di-Pertuan Agong membuat pengisytiharan darurat

Jawapan:

Yang di-Pertuan Agong boleh mengisytiharkan darurat di bawah Per 150(1) Perlembagaan Persekutuan jika darurat besar kepada keselamatan atau kehidupan ekonomi atau ketenteraman awam dalam Persekutuan atau mana-mana bahagiannya (TELAH) wujud.

Di bawah Perkara 150(2), Yang di-Pertuan Agong juga boleh membuat proklamasi darurat sekiranya baginda berpuas hati ancaman darurat besar, atas sebab keselamatan negara, atau kehidupan ekonomi atau ketenteraman awam HAMPIR BENAR berlaku.

Tiga asas atau alasan boleh digunakan oleh Yang di-Pertuan Agong bagi membuat pengisytiharan darurat, iaitu, ancaman ke atas

i. Keselamatan negara; atau

ii. Kehidupan ekonomi; atau

iii. Ketenteraman awam

Soalan 5

Bilakah dan di manakah darurat boleh diisytiharkan

Jawapan:

Darurat boleh diisytiharkan oleh Yang di-Pertuan Agong pada bila-bila masa, sama semasa Parlimen masih ada, sedang bersidang atau pun tidak, atau juga semasa Parlimen bubar. Syarat yang diperlukan ialah, telah dibuktikan elemen yang dinyatakan, iaitu ancaman atau darurat atas keselamatan, kehidupan ekonomi atau ketenteraman awam telah atau hampir benar berlaku.

Darurat boleh diisytihar atas seluruh Persekutuan atau mana-mana bahagian dalam Persekutuan. Perkara 150(1) dan (2).

Soalan 6

Adakah Yang di-Pertuan Agong membuat pengisytiharan darurat atas kuasanya sendiri atau atas nasihat Perdana Menteri

Jawapan:

Pegisytiharan darurat ialah kuasa prerogatif Yang di-Pertuan Agong. Kuasa prerogatif ringkasnya bermaksud kuasa yang dimiliki oleh institusi beraja dari awal bahkan jauh sebelum gubalan Perlembagaan Persekutuan bagi Tanah Melayu (Malaysia). Kuasa tersebut kekal dalam milik institusi beraja. Bagaiamana pun, persoalan timbul ialah, adakah kuasa prerogatif tersebut dilaksanakan secara budi bicara atau atas nasihat Perdana Menteri?

Perkara 150(1) menyatakan “Jika Yang di-Pertuan Agong berpuas hati bahawa suatu darurat besar sedang berlaku yang menyebabkan keselamatan, atau kehidupan ekonomi, atau ketenteraman awam di dalam Persekutuan atau mana-mana bahagiannya terancam, maka Yang di-Pertuan Agong boleh mengeluarkan suatu Proklamasi Darurat dengan membuat dalamnya suatu perisytiharan yang bermaksud sedemikian”.

Frasa “Jika Yang di-Pertuan Agong berpuas hati” atau dalam Bahasa Inggeris, “if the Yang di-Pertuan Agong is satisfied” menjadi persoalan, adakah puas hati Yang di-Pertuan Agong seorang diri (as sole judge) atau atas nasihat.

Beberapa keputusan kes telah membuat pernyataan tentang perkara ini.

Kes Stephen kalong Ningkan (No.2) (tahun 1968) menyatakan bahawa Yang di-Pertuan Agong boleh mengisytiharkan darurat sekiranya baginda berpuas hati. Barakbah Lord President, dalam keputusan majoriti menyatakan “….In my opinion the Yang di-Pertuan Agong is the sole judge…”

Walaubagaimana pun, keputusan kes Teh Cheng Poh oleh Privy Council pada tahun 1979 menyatakan tindakan Yang di-Pertuan Agong adalah atas nasihat Jemaah Menteri. Ini adalah kedudukan undang-undang yang disepakati. Lord Diplock menyatakan:

“Although this, like other powers under the Constitution, is conferred nominally upon the Yang di-Pertuan Agong by virtue of his office as the Supreme Head of the Federation and is expressed to exercisable if he is satisfied of a particular matter, his functions are those of a constitutional monarch and except on certain matters that do not concern the instant appeal, he does not exercise any of his functions under the Constitution on his own initiative but is required by Article 40(1) to act in accordance with the advice of the Cabinet. So when one finds in the Constitution itself or in a Federal law powers conferred upon the Yang di-Pertuan Agong that are expressed to be exercisable if he is of opinion or is satisfied that a particular state of affair exists or that particular action is necessary, the reference to his opinion or satisfaction is in reality a reference to the collective opinion or satisfaction of the members of the Cabinet, or the opinion or satisfaction of a particular Minister to whom the Cabinet have delegated their authority to give advice upon the matter in question”.

Justeru, menerusi keputusan kes Teh Cheng Poh ini, pengisytiharan darurat oleh Yang di-Pertuan Agong perlu dibuat atas nasihat Perdana Menteri, atau Jemaah Menteri, atau seorang Menteri yang diberikan kuasa oleh Jemaah Menteri.

Soalan 7

Adakah Keputusan Yang di-Pertuan Agong untuk mengisytihar darurat dan membuat Ordinan semasa darurat boleh dipersoalkan (justiciable)

Jawapan:

Keputusan kes Stephen kalong Ningkan (No.2) secara nyata Barakbah Lord President, dalam keputusan majoriti menyatakan “….In my opinion the Yang di-Pertuan Agong is the sole judge and once His Majesty is satisfied that a state of emergency exists, it is not for the court to inquire as to whether of not he should have been satisfied”. Maksudnya, menurut Ketua Hakim Barakbah, mahkamah tidak boleh mempersoalkan tindakan Yang di-Pertuan Agong.

Pandangan majoriti ini disanggah oleh Ong Hock Thye, Hakim Mahkamah Persekutuan, dalam penghakiman sama. Hakim Ong Hock Thye menyatakan pandangan minoriti. Beliau menyatakan,

“His Majesty is not an autocratic ruler since Article 40(1) of the Federal Constitution provides that “in the exercise of his function under this Constitution or federal law the Yang di-Pertuan Agong shall act in accordance with the advice of the Cabinet…Article 150 specifically provide that the emergency must be one ‘whereby the security or economic life of the Federation or any part thereof is threatened.. If those words of limitation are not meaningless verbiage….Article 150 does not confer on the Cabinet an untrammeled discretion to cause an emergency to be declared at their mere whim and fancy”

Maksudnya, Yang di-Pertuan Agong bukan memerintah secara autokratik kerana baginda bertindak atas nasihat. Dalam pelaksanaan kuasa baginda, mahkamah boleh memeriksa keputusan yang dibuat oleh baginda dan juga Jemaah Menteri ketika membuat proklamasi darurat supaya ia terhad kepada keadaan yang disebut, iaitu keselamatan negara dan kehidupan ekonomi. Perkara 150 tidak memberikan kuasa budi bicara yang tidak teratur.

Keputusan Teh Cheng Poh, seperti yang dipetik di atas adalah juga menyatakan tindakan Yang di-Pertuan Agong di bawah Perkara 150 boleh disemak oleh mahkamah. Selepas keputusan kes Teh Cheng Poh seperti yang dipetik di atas, Perlembagaan Persekutuan telah dipinda dengan memasukkan peruntukan yang secara jelas TIDAK membenarkan mahkamah menyemak keputusan Yang di-Pertuan Agong, atau apa-apa tindakan yang dibuat oleh baginda berkenaan kuasa, fungsi dan peranan di bawah Perkara 150. Hal ini terdapat pada Perkara 150(8) yang menyatakan:

Walau apa pun apa-apa jua dalam Perlembagaan Persekutuan ini –

(a) hal puas hati Yang di-Pertuan Agong yang disebut Fasal (1) dan Fasal (2B) adalah muktamad dan konklusif dan tidaklah boleh dicabar atau dipersoalkan di dalam mana-mana mahkamah atas apa-apa alasan; dan

(b) tiada mahkamah boleh mempunyai bidang kuasa untuk melayan atau memutuskan apa-apa permohonan, soal atau prosiding, dalam apa-apa jua bentuk, atas apa-apa alasan, mengenai kesahan

(i) sesuatu Proklamasi di bawah Fasal (1) atau sesuatu perisytiharan yang dibuat dalam Proklamasi itu yang bermaksud seperti yang dinyatakan dalam Fasal (1):

(ii) kuat kuasa berterusan Proklamasi itu;

(iii) mana-mana ordinan yang dimasyhurkan di bawah Fasal (2B); atau

(iv) penerusan kuat kuasa mana-mana ordinan itu.

Walaupun begitu, Fasal 8 ini belum diuji di mahkamah.

Soalan 8

Apakah kuasa Yang di-Pertuan Agong berkaitan Pengisytiharan Darurat

Jawapan:

Kuasa Yang di-Pertuan Agong di bawah Perkara 150 mengenai pengisytiharan darurat termasuk kuasa untuk membuat proklamasi yang berlainan atas alasan berlainan atau keadaan berlainan.

Ini bermaksud Yang di-Pertuan Agong boleh membuat beberapa proklamasi darurat pada masa sama atau pada masa berlainan. Hal ini terdapat dalam Perkara 150(2A).

Soalan 9

Bilakah Yang di-Pertuan Agong boleh mengisytiharkan Darurat

Jawapan:

Yang di-Pertuan Agong boleh boleh mengisytiharkan dan menguatkuasakan darurat ketika Majlis Parlimen masih ada, sama ada semasa berlaku persidangan atau tidak, atau ketika Parlimen telah dibubarkan.

Soalan 10

Apakah peranan Yang di-Pertuan Agong semasa Darurat

Jawapan:

Sekiranya proklamasi dibuat semasa Majlis Parlimen tidak bersidang serentak, Yang di-Pertuan Agong boleh memasyhurkan undang-undang, yang dinamakan Ordinan, sekiranya baginda berpuas hati hal atau keadaan tertentu menyebabkan perlu bagi baginda mengambil tindakan serta merta. Ini disebut dalam Perkara 150(2B).

Maksud “Majlis Parlimen tidak bersidang serentak” boleh difahami dalam fasal (9) Perkara 150, yang memperuntukkan “Majlis-Majlis Parlimen hendaklah dikira sebagai bersidang HANYA jika ahli setiap Majlis itu masing-masingnya berhimpun bersama dan menjalankan urusan Majlis”.

Sekiranya Parlimen telah mula bersidang secara serentak, kuasa Yang di-Pertuan Agong terhenti dan kuasa perundangan dipulangkan kepada Parlimen. Sekiranya Parlimen telah kembali bersidang secara serentak, semua kuasa membuat undang-undang kembali kepada Parlimen walaupun keadaan darurat masih berlangsung.

Walaubagaimana pun, Parlimen boleh membuat Ordinan untuk memberikan kuasa kepada Yang di-Pertuan Agong untuk membuat undang-undang (keputusan Privy Council dalam kes Teh Cheng Poh).

Soalan 11

Adakah Parlimen boleh membuat undang-undang semasa darurat

Jawapan:

Semasa keadaan darurat ini Parlimen boleh membuat Ordinan jika didapati oleh Parlimen dikehendaki bagi tujuan darurat dan prosedur perundangan boleh diketepikan. Undang-undang ini adalah sah walaupun ia tidak selaras dengan Perlembagaan Persekutuan.

Dalam kes En Keok Cheng, Wylie C.J menyatakan, “The true effect of Article 150 is that, subject to certain exceptions set out therein, Parliament has, during an emergency, power to legislate on any subject and to any effect, even if inconsistencies with articles of the Constitution (including the provisions on fundamental liberties) are involved”.

Fasal (2C) Perkara 150 menyatakan “…Parlimen berkuasa membuat undang-undang, tanpa menghiraukan tatacara perundangan atau tatacara lain yang dikehendaki diikuti, atau perkadaran jumlah undi yang dikehendaki diperoleh dalam mana-mana satu Majlis Parlimen”. Lihat juga Perkara 150(5), yang mana Parlimen boleh membuat undang-undang tanpa persetujuan atau keizinan, atau tanpa perundingan bersama mana-mana pihak sebagaimana disyaratkan oleh undang-undang.

Parlimen tidak boleh membuat Ordinan darurat dalam beberapa perkara tertentu sahaja, iaitu Hukum Syarak (Undang-Undang Islam), adat Melayu atau undang-undang atau adat anak Negeri di Sabah dan Sarawak. Parlimen juga tidak boleh membuat Ordinan yang tidak selaras dengan peruntukan Perlembagaan dalam perkara berhubungan dengan agama, kewarganegaraan atau bahasa. (Lihat 150(6A)).

Proklamasi darurat dan Ordinan yang dibuat oleh Yang di-Pertuan Agong semasa darurat hendaklah dibentangkan di hadapan kedua-dua Majlis Parlimen apabila keduanya bersidang serentak.

Soalan 12

Apakah kesan Ordinan yang dimasyhurkan oleh Yang di-Pertuan Agong semasa Darurat

Jawapan:

Ordinan yang dimasyhurkan oleh Yang di-Pertuan Agong itu adalah berkuat kuasa dan berkesan seolah-olah ia adalah Akta Parlimen. Ia boleh berkesan sehingga dibatalkan. Setelah Parlimen bersidang, Ordinan yang dimasyhurkan oleh Yang di-Pertuan Agong hendaklah dibentangkan di hadapan kedua-dua Majlis Parlimen. Ordinan tersebut boleh diteruskan sekiranya diluluskan dan hendaklah dihentikan sekiranya tidak diluluskan oleh Parlimen.

Sekiranya Ordinan tersebut tidak diluluskan oleh Parlimen, ia tidak memberi kesan ke atas apa jua yang berlaku sebelum itu menurut kuat kuasa Proklamasi darurat atau Ordinan.

Bahkan, ketidaklulusan oleh Parlimen juga tidak menjejaskan kuasa Yang di-Pertuan Agong untuk membuat proklamasi darurat yang lain atau Ordinan yang lain bagi tujuan darurat lain tersebut. (Yang di-Pertuan Agong boleh membuat beberapa proklamasi pada masa sama atau pada masa berbeza, atas sebab yang sama atau atas sebab yang berbeza).

Soalan 13

Bolehkah Yang di-Pertuan Agong membuat Ordinan Perbekalan (Bajet)

Jawapan:

Melihat kepada kuasa yang ada pada Yang di-Pertuan Agong, yang mana baginda boleh, sekiranya perlu dan baginda berpuas hati, memasyhurkan apa-apa ordinan semasa dua Majlis (Dewan) Parlimen tiada atau tidak bersidang serentak, maka sekiranya baginda berpuas hati dan perlu bagi memasyhurkan apa-apa perbelanjaan negara, baginda boleh berbuat demikian.

Namun setiap Ordinan yang dibuat oleh Yang di-Pertuan Agong hendaklah dibentangkan kepada kedua Majlis Parlimen setelah keduanya bersidang serentak. Ordinan tersebut boleh dirungkaikan oleh resolusi yang dibuat oleh Parlimen. (Lihat Perkara 150(2) dan (3))

Soalan 14

Bilakah Darurat akan berakhir dan siapa yang mengumumkan darurat telah berakhir

Jawapan:

Perkara 150 tidak menyebut secara nyata tentang isu pengungkaian (annulling) proklamasi darurat – bila dan siapa.

Perkara 150(3) menyebut secara tidak langsung, “Proklamasi Darurat dan apa-apa ordinan yang dimasyhurkan di bawah Fasal (2B) … hendaklah terhenti berkuat kuasa jika ketetapan diluluskan oleh kedua-dua Majlis yang mengungkaikan Proklamasi…” Frasa yang bergaris ini menunjukkan pengungkaian (annulment) suatu proklamasi dan undang-undang darurat yang dibuat oleh Yang di-Pertuan Agong itu boleh dibuat melalui resolusi yang diluluskan oleh kedua-dua Majlis Parlimen.

Kes The Cheng Poh menyatakan,

The power to revoke, however, like the power to issue a proclamation of emergency, vests in the Yang di-Pertuan Agong, and the Constitution does not require it to be exercised by any formal instrument. In their Lordships' view, a proclamation of a new emergency declared to be threatening the security of the Federation as a whole must by necessary implication be intended to operate as a revocation of a previous Proclamation, if one is still in force.

Soalan 15

Apakah akan berlaku kepada Ordinan yang dibuat semasa darurat apabila darurat berakhir

Jawapan:

Ordinan yang dibuat bagi tujuan darurat hendaklah terhenti berkuatkuasa setelah tamat tempoh enam bulan dikira dari tarikh Proklamasi Darurat terhenti berkuat kuasa. Maksudnya Ordinan tersebut boleh berkuat kuasa lagi sehingga habis tempoh enam bulan dari tarikh darurat berakhir. (Lihat Perkara 150(7)).

-- BERNAMA

Prof Madya Dr Shamrahayu A.Aziz merupakan Penyandang Kursi Institusi Raja-Raja Melayu Universiti Teknologi MARA (UiTM)

My recent article😎😎😎

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

Opinion | LegCo Member Ted Hui Chi-fung may be liable for malicious prosecution

HK Current

2020.08.24 16:41

By Athena Kung

In June 2020, Magistrate Lam Tsz Kan sitting in Eastern Court allowed LegCo Member Ted Hui Chi-fung (hereinafter referred to as "Hui") to press ahead with 2 firearm-related counts, including "discharging ammunition with reckless disregard for other's safety" and "dealing with arms in a way likely to injure or endanger other's safety". Maximum sentence for both of the above firearm-related offences is 7 years imprisonment. In addition, another count of shooting with intent which is an offence punishable by life imprisonment was added to the case.

Hui's such legal action was initiated by private prosecution, which was against the police officer who opened fire during a riot in Sai Wan Ho on 11th of November 2019. At common law, like prosecuting authorities, all citizens have the same right to institute proceedings. As time goes by, subject to certain restrictions, private prosecution continues to enjoy a respectable position in modern schemes of criminal justice. In any event, the right of private prosecution is not absolute. A private prosecutor has 2 hurdles to surmount. Firstly, he must persuade a magistrate to issue a summons. Thereafter, so long as he wishes to retain control of the case, he may have to persuade the Department of Justice not to take it over.

When deciding whether to issue a summons, the magistrate who has a discretion should consider at least the following factors:
(1) whether the allegation is of the offence known to law, and if so, whether the essential ingredients of the offence are prima facie present;
(2) that the time limits have been complied with;
(3) that the court has jurisdiction;
(4) whether the informant has the necessary authority to prosecute;
(5) whether the allegation is vexatious.

Once the summons has been issued, like the case initiated by Hui, it is open to the Secretary of Justice to intervene, which may be with a view to continuing or terminating such private prosecution. To prevent the abuse of private prosecution, it is thus necessary to seek to achieve a balance between the citizen's right to prosecute and the responsibility of the Secretary for Justice so as to ensure that unworthy prosecutions do not proceed. Under section 14 of the Magistrates Ordinance, Cap 227, Laws of Hong Kong, the Secretary of Justice enjoys wide power of intervention and "may at any stage of the proceedings before the magistrate intervene and assume the conduct of the proceedings."

What has really happened on the day of incident on 11th of November 2019? According to "The footage of the shooting" which was a broadcast live in the Facebook by a bystander, an officer drew his sidearm in the district of Sai Wan Ho while trying to detain a masked man at a blockaded junction. Then, another masked man attempted to liberate the other, appearing to take a swipe at the officer's pistol before being shot in the midriff. After all, police could successfully detain both men onto the ground. The first man had a pool of blood next to him. His body limped as police officers moved him around. Apparently, the officers tried to tie his hands. The second man appeared to be conscious.

No doubt, according to the above footage, Hui's private prosecution is misconceived. Hui has completely turned a blind eye to the imminent danger confronted by the officer at the particular moment. With ulterior motives, Hui intentionally and wrongfully misled both the court and public by alleging that the police officer's such dedication and discharging his duty to maintain law and order during the riots amounted to abusing of police power and police brutality.

Obviously, Hui's private prosecution should have no prospect whatsoever of success. On the contrary, Hui's such an action even constituted an abuse of prosecution process. Justice can only be achieved by the Secretary of Justice's termination of Hui's private prosecution. It explains why the Department of Justice has applied to the court to intervene the case. A hearing date between 24th to 28th of August 2020 has been applied for the Department's making formal application to terminate the case in open court. Indeed, according to Article 63 of the Basic Law, the Department of Justice shall control criminal prosecutions, free from any interference.

May the police officer wrongfully prosecuted by Hui seek any legal remedy? Historically, the tort of "malicious prosecution" in English law refers to an unreasonable criminal prosecution. All along, malicious prosecution has been generally brought as an aftermath of unsuccessful criminal proceedings.

In Hong Kong, in the decisive authority of Pathak Ravi Dutt v Sanjeev Maheshwari [2015] HKCA 595, the Court of Appeal had summarized that in an action for malicious prosecution, the plaintiff must prove 4 essential elements:
(1) The Plaintiff was prosecuted by the Defendant, that is to say, the law was set in motion against the Plaintiff by the Defendant on a criminal charge ;
(2) The prosecution was determined in the Plaintiff's favour ;
(3) The prosecution was without reasonable and probable cause ; and
(4) The prosecution was malicious.

On the facts of the Hui's private prosecution case, following the intervention of the Department of Justice at the end of August 2020, it will be a case terminated by the Secretary for Justice instead of being ruled by the court with a verdict in favour of the police officer. Thus, it is advisable for the police officer to commence a tort of malicious prosecution action against Hui once the male shot by the police officer has been found guilty by the court. Then, the police officer may rely upon the male's conviction to support the assertion that his shooting under the particular circumstances was necessary and secure his civil claim against Hui.

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

Don’t get overawed (Lee Yee)

On the day that the National Security Law was passed by the National People’s Congress, I got a message of a friend from afar: “Are you secure?” I answered without even giving it a thought: ”No one is secure in a secure country.”

When maximal authority of a country is realized, individual rights are so minimal that no one is secure. Even in China where the plebs would answer with a big NO, are people in power secure? Was Liu Shaoqi, the late Chairman of the People’s Republic of China persecuted to death during the Cultural Revolution, secure? In the past 70 years, have most of the people in power of different levels been secure in view of the miseries they have encountered? Was and is Jiang Zemin, the former General Secretary of the Chinese Communist Party(CCP), secure? Is Xi Jinping secure?

The befalling of the National Security Law is likened to “the second handover of Hong Kong”. An online article points out “the difference between the first and second handover” is that “the people who resent the CCP in 2020 is countless times more than those in 1997, and in terms of reputation, conduct and calibre, the people who espouse the second handover in 2020 are not even comparable to those who espouse the first handover in 1997”. Another says that “Hong Kongers belonging to no country before handover used to live in peace and work with contentment”, and asks “where their homes are when they belong to a nation”? In China, even the movers and shakers evacuate their relatives by fair means or foul from their country to a strange place they call home in the West.

The Articles of the Hong Kong version of National Security Law was not announced until it took effect, so that Carrie Lam was unable to utter a word about the details of it on the day of implementation of the Law. Legislation as such is preposterous. The full text of it is awash with equivocal meanings of unfinished wordings, which is so jaw-dropping that even a layman would ask: What kind of legal document is that? Zhao Sile, a journalist from China, said online: “The Law is typically from China because the laws of China have always been ambiguous and ill-defined”. She continued, “How are they enforced? Arbitrary and flexible provisions are made by different administrative departments which then inflate in power unceasingly.”

Regarding the abovementioned, it is almost pointless to delve into every Article of it for clarifying under what circumstances does one offend and not offend the Law, and where the grey areas are. Take those dubbed the “four ringleaders of Hong Kong independence” and “gang of four that jeopardizes Hong Kong” by Chinese media as an example. While they are known to be opposed to Hong Kong independence and even anti-localist, and did not advocate the protest last year, China deems them to be guilty of all of the above by dismissing the actuality. Subsequently, some budding political groups disbanded in no time. However, if the CCP decides to recriminate, on no account can they escape. That being said, it is possible that China will sit on the issue of Hong Kong independence provisionally in an attempt to dilute the sanctions against it from overseas. With the arbitrariness and flexibility of laws of China and its enforcement, no one is secure, nor one is doomed to committing a crime. Falling into a trap is simply akin to running into a car accident.

Looking at the National Security Law, Hong Kongers, who are accustomed to living under the rule of law, will naturally get frightened and anxiety-ridden, and try to wash their hands of sensitive issues. They think they will stay secure by stopping short of slogans with content of “secession of state” or disbanding a political group. In reality, if the CCP wants to get you in trouble, it does not have to leverage the National Security Law. Manipulated by the CCP, the SAR government can do and will do whatever stipulated by the National Security Law. Is the Law retroactive? Wasn’t the disqualification sentence for Leung Chunghang and Yau Waiching, former Legislative Council members, retroactive? And the judge that brought in the verdict based on retroactivity was Andrew Cheung Kuinung, the next Chief Justice of the Court of Final Appeal to-be. Does it make sense to contemplate upon the situation differently before and after the enactment of the National Security Law?

Now that the CCP can do whatever it wants. Is the enactment of the National Security Law an unnecessary move? As Chinese officials said, the Law, like a sword dangling above Hong Kongers, is to get them overawed and frightened.

Scared? Surely. Yet, one should have been scared much earlier on. If one had been scared, one would have arranged for fleeing from Hong Kong. Those who choose to stay should not let fear take control of them.

I have always remembered what British writer Salman Rushdie wrote after September 11 attacks in 2001: “Amid the conflict between liberty and security, we should always opt to stand with liberty without remorse even though we make a wrong choice. How do we beat terrorism? Don’t get overawed and don’t let fear take control of you even though you are scared.”

The late U.S. President Franklin Roosevelt said, “The only thing we have to fear is fear itself.” If we let fear take control of us, we give up liberty.

#拯救澳洲無尾熊 #澳洲野火
2020忍者無尾熊貼紙

蝦皮賣場連結:


https://shopee.tw/product/19479505/3815479610/?fbclid=IwAR3BpRVRmGuU9T7YVOAM3ryCb_bFgdv0yVZeJrJDKFA3GnXzXa0Hg9ot7HA


其他捐款連結:

You can show your support by donating to the NSW Rural Fire Service
https://pse.is/P3732



Victoria CFA (Country Fire Authority) https://pse.is/PDLQL



South Australia Country Fire Service www.cfsfoundation.org.au

Salvation Army Bushfire Disaster Appeal https://pse.is/J3TNT

Australian Red Cross https://www.redcross.org.au/.

To help wildlife victims, you can donate to the NSW Wildlife Information and Rescue Service https://pse.is/P8FZZ or Koala Hospital Port Macquarie https://pse.is/N7ABW



如果你喜歡我的影片,賞我一杯咖啡: https://www.paypal.me/ninjakoala