My recent article😎😎😎
https://apps.orangenews.hk/app/common/details_html…
Opinion | Ulterior Motives behind Opposition Camp's refusal to recognize HKSAR political system
HK Current
2020.09.03 11:39
By Athena Kung
In fact, the political system adopted by the HKSAR is executive-led. Under this structure, the executive authorities, legislature and judiciary complement each other, with built-in checks and balances.
In the year of 1840, Hong Kong was occupied by Britain after the Opium War. In accordance with the Sino-British Joint Declaration signed on 19th of December, 1984, the Chinese and British Governments had a hand-over ceremony on 1st of July, 1997, which marked the resumption of sovereignty by China over Hong Kong. Meanwhile, the HKSAR of the PRC was formally established. The Hong Kong Basic Law, which was adopted in April 1990 at the Third Session of the Seventh National People's Congress, formally came into effect. The Basic Law clearly states and defines the specifications as to how the high degree of autonomy as well as the political, economic, cultural and educational systems of the HKSAR to be run.
To comply with the Basic Law, since 1st of July 1997, the Chinese government has been carrying out the basic policies of "One country, Two systems," "administration of Hong Kong by the Hong Kong people" and "a high degree of autonomy" in the HKSAR. Under "One country, Two systems", even though China is a unified country and the mainland practices the socialist system, Hong Kong's previous capitalist system before 1st of July 1997 and way of life has been remaining unchanged for 50 years. To properly implement "administration of Hong Kong by the Hong Kong people", the HKSAR has all along been administering by the Hong Kong people on their own, and the central authorities have never sent officials to the HKSAR to fill any local official posts. To fulfill "a high degree of autonomy", apart from foreign and national defense affairs which should be administered by the central authorities, the HKSAR has fully enjoyed the power to decide all other matters within its autonomous jurisdiction. The central authorities has never interfered in affairs within the scope of autonomy of the HKSAR. All along, the HKSAR government has been making the final decisions on all matters within its autonomous jurisdiction as prescribed in the Basic Law.
Under the political system of the HKSAR, its major organs of power include the Chief Executive, the Government, the Legislative Council and the Court of Final Appeal. The Executive Council assists the Chief Executive in policy-making and advises the Chief Executive on matters relating to the introduction of bills and subsidiary legislation. Being independent agencies, both the Commission Against Corruption and the Audit Commission are directly accountable to the Chief Executive. In accordance with the conditions procedures as prescribed by law, the Chief Executive shall have the power to dismiss the legislative organs whereas the legislative organs shall have the power to impeach the Chief Executive and the administrative organs shall be accountable to the legislative organs. The Chief Executive, administrative and legislative organs shall supervise and cooperate with each other, which is however not the separation of powers as described by the Opposite Camps from time to time.
The Chief Executive of the HKSAR is both the head of the HKSAR and the head of the HKSAR government. His or her dual status enables him or her to have extensive functions and powers. The Chief Executive shall be selected from among residents of the HKSAR by election or through consultations held locally, and be appointed by the Central Government. Thus, the Chief Executive who is appointed by the Chinese Government to manage the HKSAR plays a very superior role in the HKSAR political system.
In short, the Chief Executive is responsible for implementing the Basic Law, signing bills and budgets, promulgating laws, making decisions on government policies and issuing Executive Orders. Article 48 of the Basic Law empowers the Chief Executive a variety of powers and functions:
" Article 48
The Chief Executive of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region shall exercise the following powers and functions:
(1) To lead the government of the Region;
(2)To be responsible for the implementation of this Law and other laws which, in accordance with this Law, apply in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region;
(3)To sign bills passed by the Legislative Council and to promulgate laws;
To sign budgets passed by the Legislative Council and report the budgets and final accounts to the Central People's Government for the record;
(4)To decide on government policies and to issue executive orders;
(5)To nominate and to report to the Central People's Government for appointment the following principal officials: Secretaries and Deputy Secretaries of Departments, Directors of Bureaux, Commissioner Against Corruption, Director of Audit, Commissioner of Police, Director of Immigration and Commissioner of Customs and Excise; and to recommend to the Central People's Government the removal of the above-mentioned officials;
(6)To appoint or remove judges of the courts at all levels in accordance with legal procedures;
(7)To appoint or remove holders of public office in accordance with legal procedures;
(8)To implement the directives issued by the Central People's Government in respect of the relevant matters provided for in this Law;
(9)To conduct, on behalf of the Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, external affairs and other affairs as authorized by the Central Authorities;
(10) To approve the introduction of motions regarding revenues or expenditure to the Legislative Council;
(11)To decide, in the light of security and vital public interests, whether government officials or other personnel in charge of government affairs should testify or give evidence before the Legislative Council or its committees;
(12)To pardon persons convicted of criminal offences or commute their penalties; and
(13)To handle petitions and complaints.
Indeed, the judicial independence plays a vital role to ensure that the acts and policies of the executive and the legislature fully comply with the Basic Law whereas all fundamental rights and freedoms to be enjoyed by all Hong Kong citizens in accordance with the law can be completely safeguarded. However, from the point of view of separation of powers, the relationship between the executive, legislature and judiciary in the HKSAR should be one of mutual-supervision, checks and balances. It is purely a kind of division of work.
The Opposition Camps has been keeping on refusing to recognize the executive leadership role played by the Chief Executive in accordance with the Basic Law. On the other hand, they intentionally and wrongly deny the executive-led political system adopted in the HKSAR so as to weaken the powers, functions and authorities of the Chief Executive. At the same time, they have been trying their best to expand the powers of the Legislative Council. Clearly, the Opposition Camp aims at making a change in the political system of the HKSAR, namely from executive-led to legislative-led in the hope of controlling the whole HKSAR Government once they can obtain more than 35 seats in the Legislative Council Election. Such step is a common strategy adopted in “Colour Revolutions” instigated by the U.S. Government. In reality, the Opposition Camp has been keeping on spreading rumors to provoke the public's hatred towards the Chief Executive so as to crack down the prestige of the executive-led system in the HKSAR and achieve its ultimate goal of Hong Kong Independence.
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
u.s. judiciary 在 李怡 Facebook 的精選貼文
What’s free is the most expensive | Lee Yee
Last week, Carrie Lam announced that the Central government will support Hong Kong’s fight against the epidemic in several large initiatives, including universal screening, earmarking AsiaWorld Expo as a holding treatment facility, and the construction of the makeshift hospitals, all cost to be borne by the Central government.
Such “good deeds”, shouldn’t society respond with great enthusiasm? But according to Carrie Lam, there are voices in society trying to divide the public and the government, “Every time (the government) does something, it will be discredited by some people with conspiracy theories,” and asked the media to “join (the government) in the call on citizens to participate in testing.”
Distorting facts is what discrediting means, but some facts cannot be denied, for example:
● Nationally-approved testing personnel have been exempted by the government from the requirement to register for medical laboratory work in Hong Kong. China’s BGI (formerly Beijing Genomics Institute) will process the samples from the citywide screening. Its chemists are not registered in Hong Kong.
● BGI is a listed company in Shenzhen responsible for collecting and analyzing the “national gene bank”.
● In July 2020, two companies under BGI Group were included in the sanctions list by the U.S. Department of Commerce for “suspicion of forced collection of DNA of Uyghurs and other Muslim minorities for research in order to suppress Uyghurs.”
● On Aug. 14, a multinational biotechnology company filed a lawsuit with the High Court against BGI, accusing it of infringing upon a gene sequencing kit patent. GBI’s trustworthiness is in line with the level of many other Chinese companies.
● Some medical professionals believe that under the current condition of border and market non-closure, doing universal screening alone is not helpful. The public’s acceptance of testing increases the risks.
Faced with these facts, it’s evident to the public how many will be tested voluntarily. Moreover, the effectiveness of screening has been questioned by regions who’ve successfully stopped the spread of the virus, including Taiwan.
Because of China’s support, Hong Kong is not paying. As such, Carrie Lam and her cabinet have relentlessly professed their gratitude towards the Central government.
Japanese writer Isaka Kotaro said, “Nothing is more expensive than free.” A few years ago, Chinese entrepreneur Jack Ma also repeated the same thing, “free is the most expensive.” Why the most expensive? Because the price you pay is time, privacy, health, freedom, these seemingly intangible things, our most precious wealth. From the collected samples, a chemist can obtain one’s DNA, some very sensitive and personal privacy information.
We would rather pay for what we need, rather than the free things given. If the three anti-epidemic initiatives were paid for by the government, it will be necessary to get LegCo to approve the funds. In the process, at least the government and BGI or other institutions must go through negotiations that must be disclosed, rather than operating within a black box. If the three initiatives were to invite bids from Western countries, there will not be viral conspiracy theories or “smearing” remarks on social media.
The Carrie Lam regime has been accusing the United States and other Western countries of adopting “double standards” for Hong Kong in recent years. For example, the US police force also used violence against the protesters, many countries have national security laws, and other countries have postponed elections, etc., why only criticize and sanction Hong Kong?
Regarding the behaviors of people, society, and countries, we should adopt the same standards for judging and commenting, but the premise is that the other party is a person, society, and country with certain standards. We respect people from anywhere, but that does not equate respecting people who have no standards in words or deeds, and do not respect themselves. Many countries have national security laws, but behind which most countries have legislative procedures that are fully authorized by public opinion, and are restricted by the judiciary and independent media and public opinions. How is a national security law with absolute powers without checks and balance comparable to those in these other countries? Many countries allow a certain degree of police violence on protesters, but there are other mechanisms to restrict them, such that improper police violence will be followed by legal consequences.
Under autocracy, power is the single most almighty thing, accompanied by no “standards” whatsoever, whether professionally, or behaviorally of those in power and their people. Autocracy does not comply with universal standards. The standards used on those people and regimes with standards cannot be adopted on those people and regimes that do not. Facing those without standards, the natural human instinct is distrust.
u.s. judiciary 在 Sam Tsang 曾思瀚 Facebook 的最佳解答
Barak Obama's statement on killing of George Floyd.
As millions of people across the country take to the streets and raise their voices in response to the killing of George Floyd and the ongoing problem of unequal justice, many people have reached out asking how we can sustain momentum to bring about real change.
Ultimately, it’s going to be up to a new generation of activists to shape strategies that best fit the times. But I believe there are some basic lessons to draw from past efforts that are worth remembering.
First, the waves of protests across the country represent a genuine and legitimate frustration over a decades-long failure to reform police practices and the broader criminal justice system in the United States. The overwhelming majority of participants have been peaceful, courageous, responsible, and inspiring. They deserve our respect and support, not condemnation — something that police in cities like Camden and Flint have commendably understood.
On the other hand, the small minority of folks who’ve resorted to violence in various forms, whether out of genuine anger or mere opportunism, are putting innocent people at risk, compounding the destruction of neighborhoods that are often already short on services and investment and detracting from the larger cause. I saw an elderly black woman being interviewed today in tears because the only grocery store in her neighborhood had been trashed. If history is any guide, that store may take years to come back. So let’s not excuse violence, or rationalize it, or participate in it. If we want our criminal justice system, and American society at large, to operate on a higher ethical code, then we have to model that code ourselves.
Second, I’ve heard some suggest that the recurrent problem of racial bias in our criminal justice system proves that only protests and direct action can bring about change, and that voting and participation in electoral politics is a waste of time. I couldn’t disagree more. The point of protest is to raise public awareness, to put a spotlight on injustice, and to make the powers that be uncomfortable; in fact, throughout American history, it’s often only been in response to protests and civil disobedience that the political system has even paid attention to marginalized communities. But eventually, aspirations have to be translated into specific laws and institutional practices — and in a democracy, that only happens when we elect government officials who are responsive to our demands.
Moreover, it’s important for us to understand which levels of government have the biggest impact on our criminal justice system and police practices. When we think about politics, a lot of us focus only on the presidency and the federal government. And yes, we should be fighting to make sure that we have a president, a Congress, a U.S. Justice Department, and a federal judiciary that actually recognize the ongoing, corrosive role that racism plays in our society and want to do something about it. But the elected officials who matter most in reforming police departments and the criminal justice system work at the state and local levels.
It’s mayors and county executives that appoint most police chiefs and negotiate collective bargaining agreements with police unions. It’s district attorneys and state’s attorneys that decide whether or not to investigate and ultimately charge those involved in police misconduct. Those are all elected positions. In some places, police review boards with the power to monitor police conduct are elected as well. Unfortunately, voter turnout in these local races is usually pitifully low, especially among young people — which makes no sense given the direct impact these offices have on social justice issues, not to mention the fact that who wins and who loses those seats is often determined by just a few thousand, or even a few hundred, votes.
So the bottom line is this: if we want to bring about real change, then the choice isn’t between protest and politics. We have to do both. We have to mobilize to raise awareness, and we have to organize and cast our ballots to make sure that we elect candidates who will act on reform.
Finally, the more specific we can make demands for criminal justice and police reform, the harder it will be for elected officials to just offer lip service to the cause and then fall back into business as usual once protests have gone away. The content of that reform agenda will be different for various communities. A big city may need one set of reforms; a rural community may need another. Some agencies will require wholesale rehabilitation; others should make minor improvements. Every law enforcement agency should have clear policies, including an independent body that conducts investigations of alleged misconduct. Tailoring reforms for each community will require local activists and organizations to do their research and educate fellow citizens in their community on what strategies work best.
But as a starting point, here’s a report and toolkit developed by the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights and based on the work of the Task Force on 21st Century Policing that I formed when I was in the White House. And if you’re interested in taking concrete action, we’ve also created a dedicated site at the Obama Foundation to aggregate and direct you to useful resources and organizations who’ve been fighting the good fight at the local and national levels for years.
I recognize that these past few months have been hard and dispiriting — that the fear, sorrow, uncertainty, and hardship of a pandemic have been compounded by tragic reminders that prejudice and inequality still shape so much of American life. But watching the heightened activism of young people in recent weeks, of every race and every station, makes me hopeful. If, going forward, we can channel our justifiable anger into peaceful, sustained, and effective action, then this moment can be a real turning point in our nation’s long journey to live up to our highest ideals.
Let’s get to work.
https://medium.com/@BarackObama/how-to-make-this-moment-the-turning-point-for-real-change-9fa209806067