關於 attorney in-fact ，我們在網路上蒐集到這些相關的討論、資訊與評價

Breaking‼️

美東時間1月5日傍晚，川普以國家安全為由，用行政命令方式禁止阿里支付寶、微信支付、QQ錢包在內的8款中國應用程式（App)。

行政命令發佈後45天，禁止任何人與實體與這8款中國應用程式（App）進行交易。

按照日程，美國下任政府將在15天後，1月20日上任。

—

美國商務部長在同一時間發聲明表示，已指示商務部按行政命令執行禁令，「支持川普總統保護美國人民隱私與安全，免於受到中國共產黨的威脅。」

—

▫️8款App:

支付寶（Alipay）、掃描全能王(CamScanner)、QQ錢包（QQ Wallet）、茄子快傳（SHAREit）、騰訊QQ（Tencent QQ）、阿里巴巴旗下海外短視頻應用VMate、微信支付（WeChat Pay）和辦公型App WPS Office。

圖三：美國商務部聲明

圖四：美國國安顧問聲明
—

▫️白宮行政命令全文：

The White House
Office of the Press Secretary
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
January 5, 2021
EXECUTIVE ORDER



- - - - - - -



ADDRESSING THE THREAT POSED BY APPLICATIONS AND OTHER SOFTWARE DEVELOPED OR CONTROLLED BY CHINESE COMPANIES



By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) (IEEPA), the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.), and section 301 of title 3, United States Code,

I, DONALD J. TRUMP, President of the United States of America, find that additional steps must be taken to deal with the national emergency with respect to the information and communications technology and services supply chain declared in Executive Order 13873 of May 15, 2019 (Securing the Information and Communications Technology and Services Supply Chain). Specifically, the pace and pervasiveness of the spread in the United States of certain connected mobile and desktop applications and other software developed or controlled by persons in the People's Republic of China, to include Hong Kong and Macau (China), continue to threaten the national security, foreign policy, and economy of the United States. At this time, action must be taken to address the threat posed by these Chinese connected software applications.

By accessing personal electronic devices such as smartphones, tablets, and computers, Chinese connected software applications can access and capture vast swaths of information from users, including sensitive personally identifiable information and private information. This data collection threatens to provide the Government of the People's Republic of China (PRC) and the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) with access to Americans' personal and proprietary information -- which would permit China to track the locations of Federal employees and contractors, and build dossiers of personal information.

The continuing activity of the PRC and the CCP to steal or otherwise obtain United States persons' data makes clear that there is an intent to use bulk data collection to advance China's economic and national security agenda. For example, the 2014 cyber intrusions of the Office of Personnel Management of security clearance records of more than 21 million people were orchestrated by Chinese agents. In 2015, a Chinese hacking group breached the United States health insurance company Anthem, affecting more than 78 million Americans. And the Department of Justice indicted members of the Chinese military for the 2017 Equifax cyber intrusion that compromised the personal information of almost half of all Americans.

In light of these risks, many executive departments and agencies (agencies) have prohibited the use of Chinese connected software applications and other dangerous software on Federal Government computers and mobile phones. These prohibitions, however, are not enough given the nature of the threat from Chinese connected software applications. In fact, the Government of India has banned the use of more than 200 Chinese connected software applications throughout the country; in a statement, India's Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology asserted that the applications were "stealing and surreptitiously transmitting users' data in an unauthorized manner to servers which have locations outside India."

The United States has assessed that a number of Chinese connected software applications automatically capture vast swaths of information from millions of users in the United States, including sensitive personally identifiable information and private information, which would allow the PRC and CCP access to Americans' personal and proprietary information.

The United States must take aggressive action against those who develop or control Chinese connected software applications to protect our national security.

Accordingly, I hereby order:

Section 1. (a) The following actions shall be prohibited beginning 45 days after the date of this order, to the extent permitted under applicable law: any transaction by any person, or with respect to any property, subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, with persons that develop or control the following Chinese connected software applications, or with their subsidiaries, as those transactions and persons are identified by the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) under subsection (e) of this section: Alipay, CamScanner, QQ Wallet, SHAREit, Tencent QQ, VMate, WeChat Pay, and WPS Office.

(b) The Secretary is directed to continue to evaluate Chinese connected software applications that may pose an unacceptable risk to the national security, foreign policy, or economy of the United States, and to take appropriate action in accordance with Executive Order 13873.

(c) Not later than 45 days after the date of this order, the Secretary, in consultation with the Attorney General and the Director of National Intelligence, shall provide a report to the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs with recommendations to prevent the sale or transfer of United States user data to, or access of such data by, foreign adversaries, including through the establishment of regulations and policies to identify, control, and license the export of such data.

(d) The prohibitions in subsection (a) of this section apply except to the extent provided by statutes, or in regulations, orders, directives, or licenses that may be issued pursuant to this order, and notwithstanding any contract entered into or any license or permit granted before the date of this order.

(e) Not earlier than 45 days after the date of this order, the Secretary shall identify the transactions and persons that develop or control the Chinese connected software applications subject to subsection (a) of this section.

Sec. 2. (a) Any transaction by a United States person or within the United States that evades or avoids, has the purpose of evading or avoiding, causes a violation of, or attempts to violate the prohibition set forth in this order is prohibited.

(b) Any conspiracy formed to violate any of the prohibitions set forth in this order is prohibited.

Sec. 3. For the purposes of this order:

(a) the term "connected software application" means software, a software program, or group of software programs, designed to be used by an end user on an end-point computing device and designed to collect, process, or transmit data via the Internet as an integral part of its functionality.

(b) the term "entity" means a government or instrumentality of such government, partnership, association, trust, joint venture, corporation, group, subgroup, or other organization, including an international organization;

(c) the term "person" means an individual or entity;

(d) the term "personally identifiable information" (PII) is information that, when used alone or with other relevant data, can identify an individual. PII may contain direct identifiers (e.g., passport information) that can identify a person uniquely, or quasi-identifiers (e.g., race) that can be combined with other quasi-identifiers (e.g., date of birth) to successfully recognize an individual.

(e) the term "United States person" means any United States citizen, permanent resident alien, entity organized under the laws of the United States or any jurisdiction within the United States (including foreign branches), or any person in the United States.

Sec. 4. (a) The Secretary, in consultation with the Secretary of the Treasury and the Attorney General, is hereby authorized to take such actions, including adopting rules and regulations, and to employ all powers granted to me by IEEPA, as may be necessary to implement this order. All agencies shall take all appropriate measures within their authority to implement this order.

(b) The heads of agencies shall provide, in their discretion and to the extent permitted by law, such resources, information, and assistance to the Department of Commerce as required to implement this order, including the assignment of staff to the Department of Commerce to perform the duties described in this order.

Sec. 5. Severability. If any provision of this order, or the application of any provision to any person or circumstance, is held to be invalid, the remainder of this order and the application of its other provisions to any other persons or circumstances shall not be affected thereby.

Sec. 6. General Provisions. (a) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:

(i) the authority granted by law to an executive department, agency, or the head thereof; or

(ii) the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.

(b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.

(c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.



DONALD J. TRUMP



THE WHITE HOUSE,

January 5, 2021.

立法提升博物馆的公共服务职能

Cadangan Dibuat Oleh YB Yeoh Untuk Penggubalan Rang Undang-Undang Enakmen Lembaga Muzium Negeri Pulau Pinang

George Town- YB Yeoh Soon Hin, EXCO Pelancongan dan Ekonomi Kreatif telah bercadang menggubalkan Rang Undang-Undang (RUU) bagi Enakamen Lembaga Muzium Negeri Pulau Pinang bagi memperuntukkan kuasa-kuasa baru kepada Lembaga Muzium Negeri Pulau Pinang untuk menyelia dan memantau operasi muzium-muzium swasta dan persendirian di Pulau Pinang.

Beliau berkata permohonan pandangan cadangan tersebut telah dibuat pada tahun lepas kepada Jabatan Peguam Negara Malaysia tentang pengubalan suatu RUU yang baharu bagi menggantikan Enakmen Lembaga Muzium Negeri Pulau Pinang 1972 yang sedia ada.

Beliau turut menambah sekiranya RUU tersebut diluluskan, RUU ini tidak akan terkesan kepada muzium-muzium persendirian yang sedia ada di Pulau Pinang.

“Dalam Persidangan Mesyuarat Pertama Penggal Keempat Dewan Undangan Negeri Pulau Pinang yang Ketiga Belas pada tahun 2016, semasa saya selaku ADUN telah membangkitkan isu kebanyakan muzium swasta tidak mencapai tahap bedasarkan kepada definasi yang diberikan oleh pihak ICOM atau Jabatan Muzium Negara.”

“Pada masa itu, saya juga bercadang pihak Kerajaan Negeri Pulau Pinang:

(i) harus memastikan kualiti muzium dan menetapkan garis panduan dan etika penubuhan muzium bagi memastikan muzium sebagai sebuah institusi pendidikan umum tidak formal, menyebarkan maklumat mengenai sejarah, kebudayaan dan alam semula jadi;

(ii) aktiviti yang dikendalikan oleh muzium-muzium mesti merupakan salah satu usaha yang diharapkan dapat membantu negara membina dan memperkukuhkan jati diri masyarakat di samping menjadi daya tarikan pelancong.”

Beliau berkata selaku EXCO Pelancongan, Seni, Budaya dan Warisan dan beliau juga merupakan Pengerusi Lembaga Muzium Negeri Pulau Pinang sejak 2018 (di mana sekarang dengan nama baharu kepada Pelancogan dan Ekonomi Kreatif) telah bermulakan kerja untuk menggubalkan Pembaharuan Rang Undang- Undang Enakamen Lembaga Muzium Negeri Pulau Pinang ini.

Yeoh berkata bahawa Rang Undang- Undang Enakamen Lembaga Muzium Negeri Pulau Pinang yang baru akan dibentangkan dalam Persidangan Mesyuarat Dewan Undangan Negeri Pulau Pinang yang akan datang ini nanti.

===============================

杨顺兴建议修改槟博物馆法案

（槟城讯）槟州旅游与创意经济委员会主席杨顺兴行政议员建议修改槟州博物馆机构法案，以赋予槟州博物馆机构权限，对私人或独立博物馆进行监督与监控工作。

他说，有关当局去年已致函总检察署，询问以新法案取代现有的1972年槟州博物馆机构法案。

他补充，新法案通过后，不会对当下已存在的私人或独立博物馆造成任何影响。

“实际上早在2016年槟州议会上，我以州议员身份在议会辩论时，已提及槟州大部分私人博物馆，没达到国际博物馆协会（ICOM）及国家博物馆的定义与标准。”

“当时我也建议槟州政府：
（一）必须设定条规及成立条件，以确保州内博物馆的素质。槟州政府必须确保所有博物馆，扮演非正式教育单位的角色、传达历史、自然、文化相关的资讯；

（二）所有博物馆所举办的活动，能够帮助国家建设及巩固社会身份认同，同时成为吸引游客的旅游景点。”

杨顺兴指出，自2018年始担任槟州旅游、艺术、文化与遗产委员会（现称槟州旅游与创意经济）行政议员，兼槟州博物馆委员会主席后，他便展开行动，修改槟州博物馆机构法案。

他说，新的槟州博物馆机构法案将在来临的槟州立法议会上提呈。
Proposal Made By YB Yeoh For Pengubalan Law Bill Enactment of Penang State Museum Board

George Town-YB Yeoh Soon Hin, Tourism EXCO and Creative Economy has planned to undermine Bill (Bill) for the Encounter of the Penang State Museum Board to allocate new powers to the Penang State Museum Board to overlook and monitor the operations of museumsiums private and private in Penang.

He said that the suggestion application was made last year to the Lawyer Negara Malaysia's Department on the remedy of a new Bill to replace the Enactment of the existing Penang 1972 State Museum Board.

He also added if the bill was approved, the bill would not be impressed with the existing private museums in Penang.

′′ In the First Meeting Conference of the 2016th of Penang State Legislative Hall in 2016, while I as ADUN has raised the issue of most private museums not reaching the definition of the definition given by the ICOM or the National Museum."

′′ At that time, I also planned the Penang State Government:

(i) must ensure the quality of the museum and set guidelines and ethics of the museum to ensure the museum as a formal public education institution, spreading information about history, culture and nature;

(ii) Activities controlled by museums must be one of the efforts that are expected to help the country build and strengthen the community's identity in addition to tourist attractions."

He said as Tourism EXCO, Arts, Culture and Heritage and he was also the Chairman of the Penang State Museum board since 2018 (where now with a new name to Tourism and Creative Economy) has started working to complete the Reform of the Encounter of the Board of the Encounter This Penang State Museum.

Yeoh said that the new Penang State Museum Board Enactment Bill will be presented at the upcoming Penang State Invitation Hall Meeting.

===============================

Yang Shun-hing proposes amendments to the Yang Museum Act

(Hangzhou Tourism and Creative Economic Commission, Mr YEUNG Shun-hing, Chairman of the Hangzhou Tourism and Creative Economics Commission, proposed to amend the Hangzhou Museum Institution Act to give Hangzhou Museum institutions the authority to superv

He said that the authorities had written to the Attorney General's Office last year asking about the replacement of the existing Hangzhou Museum Institution Act 1972 with a new bill.

He added that after the passage of the new bill, there would be no effect on the private or independent museums that exist at the moment.

′′ In fact, as early as 2016 in the Hangzhou Assembly, when I debated in the Parliament as a state member, I mentioned most of the private museums in Hangzhou, which did not meet the definition and standards of the International Association of Museums (ICOM)

′′ At that time, I also suggested the Hangzhou government:
(a) Regulations and conditions must be established to ensure the quality of museums in the state. The Hangzhou government must ensure that all museums play the role of informal education units and convey information related to history, nature and culture;

() The activities organized by all museums can help build and strengthen social identity and become tourist attractions for tourists."

Mr Yeung pointed out that since 2018, he was an executive member of the Hangzhou Tourism, Arts, Culture and Heritage Committee (now known as Hangzhou Tourism and Creative Economy) and chairman of the Hangzhou Museum Committee, he had State Museum Institution Act.

He said the new Hangzhou Museum Institution Act will be presented in the coming Hangzhou Legislative Assembly.Translated

蕭叔叔短評被譽為「人生有呢種朋友不枉此生」的黃仁龍那十頁紙求情信

全文：

http://m.mingpao.com/ins/instantnews/web_tc/article/20170220/s00001/1487583133001

（報章轉載錯漏不少，敬請留意）

I have known Mr Donald Tsang since 2005. As Secretary for Justice (SJ), I worked closely with Donald as Chief Executive (CE) between October 2005 and June 2012. In addition to official dealings, I consider Donald to be a good friend and someone I admire for his dedication to public service.

Donald's over 40 years of service and contribution to Hong Kong is a matter of public record. Others will speak to his key role in helping Hong Kong weather through stormy financial crises. Here I would refer to his significant contributions to the public based on my own personal experience particularly in the area of the rule of law in Hong Kong.

During my 7-year tenure as SJ, I had on numerous occasions tendered legal advice to Donald as CE. He would sometimes debate with me and test the basis of the advice; but he has never acted against such legal advice. This in itself is a remarkable attribute as the head of the HKSAR.

Donald always said to me the Governors he previously worked with, however headstrong, would always abide by the legal advice of the Attorney General, and it is important that the CE of the HKSAR should stay that way.

Congo Case

One of the most important tasks, if not the most important task, of the CE of HKSAR is to faithfully and effectively implement the principle of “one country, two systems.” The power of the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress (NPCSC) to interpret the Basic Law and its exercise have always been considered a major challenge to the post-1997 constitutional order.

During my tenure as SJ, the NPCSC interpreted the Basic Law once in 2011. That was upon the reference by the Court of Final Appeal (CFA) on the question of state immunity. The issue in the case is whether the People’s Republic of China’s doctrine of absolute immunity (under which no foreign state can be sued in the court at all) should be followed in Hong Kong. Prior to 1997, Hong Kong’s common law provided for restrictive immunity, where foreign states could be sued if the dispute arouse out of commercial transactions.

The HKSAR Government lost in the Court of First Instance and in the Court of Appeal. If the Government were to lose again in the CFA, it could stir up serious political and economic repercussions for China particularly vis-à-vis her African friends. National interest of China was at stake. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs was understandably very concerned.

Immense political pressure mounted. There were suggestions that Beijing should not take any risk but should consider taking more definitive measures such as an interpretation of the Basic Law before the appeal was heard. If that were to happen, on the eve of the appeal hearing, the damage to judicial independence would not be less than an overriding post-judgment interpretation.

I cannot go into further details for confidentiality reasons. However, I can testify that Donald has been solid and staunch in endorsing my stance against any extra-judicial measure in view of its adverse impact on the rule of law.

Owing in no small part to Donald’s endorsement and resolve, the Central People’s Government (CPG) was content to trust the HKSAR Government and the CFA, and to leave the appeal to be heard by the highest court, despite grave risk and many conflicting views given by others. At the end, the Government won in the CFA by a majority of 3 to 2. The Court further referred the relevant Basic Law provisions to Beijing for interpretation, as required under Article 158 of the Basic Law, before pronouncing the final judgment. A huge constitutional crisis was warded off. The rule of law had prevailed.

Over this difficult episode, I know Donald had been under tremendous pressure. I remember often times he suffered from acute acid reflux before and after major discussions. Yet he stood firm throughout.

As CE, Donald had faithfully discharged the indispensable trust reposed by both the CPG and by Hong Kong. He had the courage to stand by what he believes to be right and the ability to address mutual concerns and to strengthen mutual understanding. He had performed well the crucial bridging role in the two-way process under “one country, two systems” at critical times.

Constitutional Reform

There was another important event in which Donald’s principled stance had been vital in achieving a favourable result for Hong Kong: constitutional reform.

Although no change could be made of the imminent 2017 CE election method due to the set-backs in 2016, during Donald’s tenure as CE, he has been made significant contributions toward moving Hong Kong closer to universal suffrage.

The first landmark was achieved, with tremendous efforts by the core team under Donald’s lead, when the NPCSC delivered its decision in December 2007 setting out “the timetable” and “road map” for universal suffrage in terms of the elections of CE and Legco.

Second, in 2010, the Government managed to secure Legco’s support to pass the 2012 constitutional reform package. Here, Donald had played a pivotal role, one perhaps not many are aware of.

Whether the 2012 reform package could be passed in 2010 was crucial to ensure “gradual and orderly progress” and that the next round (i.e. the intended goals of universal suffrage in electing CE in 2017) could be achieved.

In June 2010, the original government proposal was losing support and hope was vanishing for it to be passed at Legco. Time was running out. Whether to modify the package by incorporating a proposal of the Democratic Party (i.e. the additional 5 District Council Functional Constituency seats to be elected by over 3 million electorate, “the new DCFC election method”) appeared to be the lynchpin.

Without going into details again for confidentiality reasons, I can again testify that the make-or-break moment was when Donald made the timely and difficult decision to revise the package by incorporating the new DCFC election method. It was an agonizing decision for him as he had to override certain internal opposition and to risk personal credibility and trust before the CPG. As an insider, I know that decision was not a political manoeuvre but a selfless act for the sake of the long-term wellbeing of Hong Kong and the smooth transition toward universal suffrage.

Son of Hong Kong

Donald is truly a “son of Hong Kong” (香港仔). His genuine concern for the public good is most vividly demonstrated when Hong Kong was caught in crises of one kind of another.

Hong Kong went through attacks of avian flu and swine flu. Donald tirelessly headed the cross-bureau task forces and chaired long and intensive meetings. I remember more than once Donald being caught in very heated debates with colleagues, pushing them to the limit to mobilize maximum resources and manpower, in order to give the public maximum protection against these outbreaks. He would grill colleagues over thorny issues such as requisitioning hotels as places of quarantine, not satisfied with the usual civil service response of reluctance, as lives of many were at stake.

Over the Manila hostage incident in August 2010, Donald vigorously pressed the President of the Philippines for full investigation, joining the victims’ families and the rest of Hong Kong to cry for justice, although his action raised eyebrows as foreign affairs strictly is a matter of the CPG under Article 13 of the Basic Law.

Donald had a strong concern for young people. During my tenure, exceptionally I was commissioned to chair a Steering Committee to combat drug abuse by youth. The public might not realize this initiative in fact came from Donald. He was deeply concerned and alarmed by the reports reflecting the seriousness of the problem. He was determined to tackle the problem pro-actively. The Steering Committee was unprecedented, involving concerted and strategic efforts of different departments and bureaus. More importantly, Donald was instrumental in putting in substantial and sustainable resources to strengthen the efforts. The figures of reported drug abusers, particularly among young abusers, have seen significant decline in the past few years.

Other contributions on the rule of law

There was no shortage of controversial cases involving judicial reviews and fundamental human rights. Amidst other voices and political pressure, Donald had fully taken on board the legal position that the Government has a positive duty to protect such rights, including taking reasonable and appropriate measures to enable lawful demonstrations to take place peacefully.

Further, Donald also readily took on my advice regarding procedural fairness in handling Government businesses with quasi-judicial element such as administrative appeals.

Donald truly believes in judicial independence. He assured me repeatedly the independent and internationally renowned Judiciary in the HKSAR is our pride and the cornerstone of our success. His personal commitment to this cause is manifested in his positive response in acceding to many recommendations of the Mason Report endorsed by the Standing Committee on Judicial Salaries and Conditions of Service.

Furthermore, his conviction on the importance of the law as Hong Kong’s assets was amply manifested in his exceptional support in the development of Hong Kong’s capacity as an international arbitration centre. Donald was very understanding on the need of expansion on this front and had put in personal efforts to make it happen. He was instrumental in enabling resources are in place to secure additional space for the Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre, and to procure the arbitration arm of the International Chamber of Commerce and the China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission to set up regional offices in Hong Kong.

A fair man who has given much to the public

Before joining the Government, I was an Election Committee member of the Legal Subsector elected on the same ticket as Ms Audrey Eu, Mr Alan Leong and other vocal barristers. In that capacity, in 2005, I first met Donald in an election forum where I questioned him harshly and criticised the Government’s earlier attitude over certain rule of law issues. Instead of bearing any grudge, in the late summer of 2005, Donald invited me to take up the post as SJ, assuring me that he would give me full support in upholding the rule of law in Hong Kong. That quality of fairness in Donald and that personal assurance to me have never slackened in the following 7 years in which I served in his cabinet.

As CE of the HKSAR, Donald had truly poured himself out. I strongly believe his significant contributions to Hong Kong in the past over 4 decades should be properly recognized.

Dated the 20th day of Februray 2017.

Wong Yan Lung SC

- See more at: http://m.mingpao.com/ins/instantnews/web_tc/article/20170220/s00001/1487583133001#sthash.0nwGN3QA.dpuf