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

我在《橙新聞》最新的英文評論文章😎😎😎

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

Opinion | US Secretary of State is violating the Law of Safeguarding National Security in Hong Kong

HK Current

20th of October 2020

By Athena Kung

On 14th of October 2020 [US time], a report was released by the United States (hereinafter refer to as "the US") Secretary of State (hereinafter referred to as "the said Report") under the so-called "Hong Kong Autonomy Act". During recent months, the US Government has been increasingly blatant in its interference in Hong Kong's affairs. Its petty actions included passing successive laws, pronouncing an executive order and imposing 'sanctions' against HKSAR Government's officials under the pretext of so-called "human rights", "democracy" and "autonomy".

In short, the accusations against the HKSAR Government contained in the said Report are all groundless, unwarranted and irresponsible. All the comments in the said Report are really smearing and demonising The Law of the People's Republic of China on Safeguarding National Security in the HKSAR (hereinafter referred to as "National Security Law"). Being the highest organ of state power, the National People's Congress (hereinafter referred to as "the NPC") has lawfully authorized the Standing Committee of the NPC (hereinafter referred to as "the SCNPC") to formulate relevant laws on establishing the legal system and enforcement mechanisms for the HKSAR to safeguard the national security. Thus, the enactment of the National Security Law on 30th of June 2020 by the SCNPC is both lawful and constitutional.

Before the implementation of the National Security Law, due to the fear towards the violence exercised by the rioters who supported HK independence, majority of the HK citizens did not dare to voice out their opinions whenever their views was against that of the rioters. Only the riots were able to enjoy the freedom of speech during the whole period of Black Power Anti-government Movement. However, since the National Security Law has come into effect, stability can be restored in the HKSAR step by step, whereas once again, HK citizens are able to enjoy their basic rights and freedoms in accordance with the law as before. All along, the US Government has embellished the violence and illegal acts exercised by the rioters who are wrongfully beautified as democracy warrior. The ulterior motives behind was US Government's great desire to build up a pro-American Government in HK by promoting Colour Revolution here. With the success of promoting HK Independence, the US may make use of HK as a Bridgehead to attack PRC whose Great Rejuvenation might then be hindered.

Recently, US has also imposed certain "sanctions" on financial institutions and HKSAR Government officials, which is another concrete evidence proving the hegemony on the part of US. The US Government has been exerting pressure on financial institutions and HKSAR Government officials so as to threaten the officials not to pass any law or policies which the US Government dislike. By so doing, the US Secretary of State is clearly violating 2 areas of the National Security Law, including:
(1) Secession under Article 20(1), namely participating in separating the HKSAR from the PRC by with a view to committing secession or undermining national unification whether or not by force or threat of force ; and
(2) Subversion under Article 22(3), namely participating in seriously interfering in, disrupting, or undermining the performance of duties and functions in accordance with the law by the body of power of the HKSAR by force or threat of force or other unlawful means with a view to subverting the State.
Is the National Security Law applicable to the US Secretary of State? The answer is positive. Under Article 38, the National Security Law shall apply to offences under this Law committed against the HKSAR from outside the Region by a person who is not a permanent resident of the Region.

In addition, according to Article 55 of the National Security Law, it is appropriate for the national security case of the US Secretary of State to be taken up by the Office for Safeguarding National Security of the Central People's Government in the HKSAR (hereinafter referred to as "the Office"):
"Article 55
The Office for Safeguarding National Security of the Central People's Government in the HKSAR shall, upon approval by the Central People's Government of a request made by the Government of the HKSAR or by the Office itself, exercise jurisdiction over a case concerning offence endangering national security under this law, if:
(1) the case is complex due to the involvement of a foreign country or external elements, thus making it difficult for the Region to exercise jurisdiction over the case ;
(2) a serious situation occurs where the Government of the Region is unable to effectively enforce this law ; or
(3) a major and imminent threat to national security has occurred."

No doubt, with the involvement of the US Secretary of State who enjoys a high weight in the US Government in a national security case, the whole case would definitely become very complex as a result of existence of such an external element. After all, it would be extremely difficult for the HKSAR Government to exercise jurisdiction over the case, for instance, in the areas of collecting evidence and making necessary investigations. Under such circumstances, it is necessary for the Office to take up this case and exercise jurisdiction over it.

The author is Barrister-at-law.

The views don't necessarily reflect those of Orange News.

責編：CK Li
編輯：Jchow

My recent article😎😎😎

https://m.orangenews.hk/details?recommendId=138868

Opinion｜The Police is duty-bound to enforce the law resolutely

HK Current

2020.10.06 11:05

By Athena Kung

According to the statement made by the US Department of State on 3rd of October 2020 (local time), the arrests made by the Hong Kong Police on 1st of October 2020 were criticized by the Department as malicious ones. It has been alleged by the US Department of State that the Hong Kong Police merely enforces the law for the aim of achieving political goals, which amounts to serious violation of Hong Kong's rule of law and thus strongly attack individual's human rights as well as Hong Kong people's freedom of expression, procession and assembly. The Central Government was commented by the US Department of State as being given up the undertaking of "One country, Two systems" completely. Obviously, such allegations against both the Central Government and HKSAR made by US Government were very serious. To examine whether such comments were fair ones, we have to carefully consider if the allegations really have any valid legal basis or foundation.

According to both the Hong Kong Bill of Rights Ordinance, Cap. 383, Laws of Hong Kong (hereinafter referred to as "the BORO“) and and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (hereinafter referred to as the "ICCPR "), the freedoms of expression, procession and assembly were not absolute, and might be subject to restrictions as prescribed by law. Article 16 and 17 of the BORO relates to the freedom of opinion and expression and right of peaceful assembly which can be enjoyed by Hong Kong people:
"Article 16
Freedom of opinion and expression
(1) Everyone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference.
(2) Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice.
(3) The exercise of the rights provided for in paragraph (2) of this article carries with it special duties and responsibilities. It may therefore be subject to certain restrictions, but these shall only be such as are provided by law and are necessary—
(a) for respect of the rights or reputations of others; or
(b) for the protection of national security or of public order (ordre public), or of public health or morals.
[cf. ICCPR Art. 19]

Article 17
Right of peaceful assembly
The right of peaceful assembly shall be recognized. No restrictions may be placed on the exercise of this right other than those imposed in conformity with the law and which are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security or public safety, public order (ordre public), the protection of public health or morals or the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.
[cf. ICCPR Art. 21]"

Thus, freedom of expression, procession and assembly in Hong Kong are not absolute. On the other hand, such rights are subject to restrictions as prescribed by law in the interests of public order, public safety and the interests of others, and so on.

Besides, Section 10(a) to (e) of the Police Force Ordinance, Cap 232, Laws of Hong Kong has clearly stated inter alia that:
"10. The duties of the police force shall be to take lawful measures for—
(a) preserving the public peace;
(b) preventing and detecting crimes and offences;
(c) preventing injury to life and property;
(d) apprehending all persons whom it is lawful to apprehend and for whose apprehension sufficient grounds exists;
(e) regulating processions and assemblies in public places or places of public resort;
…………"

What has really occurred in Hong Kong in various districts on 1st of October 2020?
(1) At around 1400 hours, a group of people gathered and yelled along Great George Street in Causeway Bay, which might have constituted offences related to unauthorised assemblies under the Public Order Ordinance, Cap 245, Laws of Hong Kong and offences related to prohibited group gatherings under the Prevention and Control of Disease (Prohibition on Group Gathering) Regulation, Cap 599G, Laws of Hong Kong. Even though the Police had given multiple warnings at the scene and raised the blue flag requesting participants to leave the scene, at around 1500 hours, a large group of protesters still remained at the same place. Some of them even commenced to chant the slogan “Liberate Hong Kong, Revolution of Our Times” over and over again. Thus, they were suspected of inciting or abetting others to commit acts of secession, which might constitute relevant offences under the HKSAR National Security Law. Afterwards, some protesters even spilled onto the road and breached public peace.

(2) At around 1500 hours, 2 men in the vicinity of Tin Ma Court in Wong Tai Sin hurled some petrol bombs and large objects at Lung Cheung Road. Having attended the scene, the police noticed that traces of the road being charred, as well as fences and traffic cones left on it. After investigation, the Police found that even though a large amount of vehicles were travelling along the road at the time of the incident, fortunately, no vehicle was hit by the petrol bombs and objects successfully. In any event, the rioters’ such heinous acts had severely endangered road users and breached public peace.

(3) The Police intercepted a man at Stewart Road in Wanchai at about 1600 hours and found him in possession of a foldable sharp knife which was at the same size of a business card. The 23-year-old man was subsequently arrested on suspicion of possession of an offensive weapon, as there stood a strong likelihood that he might intend to use the said item to injure members of the public or police officers.

(4) At around 1500 hours, the Police set up a roadblock along a section of the Tuen Mun Road near Summit Terrace in Tsuen Wan to intercept suspicious vehicles, and found extendable sticks, a helmet, face masks and a large amount of promotional leaflets inside a private car with an expired vehicle licence. Some of the leaflets contained slogans suspected of calling for “Hong Kong independence” written on them. The 35-year-old male driver of the car was arrested on suspicion of various offences including “Possession of Instrument Fit for Unlawful Purpose”, “Driving an Unlicenced Vehicle” and “Driving Without Third Party Insurance”.
(5) At around 1630 hours, the Police stopped and searched a man in the vicinity of Tonnochy Road and Lockhart Road in Causeway Bay, and found items including a cutter, a spanner, plastic straps and a pair of gloves in his backpack. The 20-year-old man was subsequently arrested on suspicion of possession of offensive weapons.
(6) After nightfall, protesters continued to gather in different districts. To ensure public safety, the Police have enforced the law resolutely according to the situations arising in different districts. At 2200 hours, not less than 86 persons have been arrested in multiple districts. Among them, 74 persons including four District Councillors were arrested on suspicion of taking part in unauthorised assemblies in Causeway Bay, while the rest were arrested on suspicion of committing offences including possession of offensive weapon, failing to produce proof of identity, possession of forged identity card, disorderly conduct in a public place and driving an unlicenced vehicle. Besides, 20 persons were given fixed penalty notices for suspectedly breaching the Prevention and Control of Disease (Prohibition on Group Gathering) Regulation.

Actually, the Police is duty-bound to enforce the law resolutely. On the facts, all arrests taken place on 1st of October 2020 were absolutely lawful and necessary to maintain law and order in the society and protect the life and property of all Hong Kong residents. Undoubtedly, the US officials have all along been adopting "double standards" in expressing utterly irresponsible remarks on law enforcement actions in the HKSAR. Everyone is equal before the law. So long as there is evidence supporting that someone has violated the law, no matter what his or her status or background is, he or she must face the legal consequence. Being a law enforcement agency, the Police must take action whenever they come across any unlawful acts in strict accordance with the laws in force. All cases must be handled in a fair, just and impartial manner by the Police in accordance with the law, which is the only and real reason as to why the Police arrested the 86 odd people on 1st of October 2020. To conclude, all criticizms made by the US towards the Hong Kong Police, HKSAR Government and Central Government were all unfair without any legal or concrete support at all.

It appears that the US government has always been refusing to accept the truth that the HKSAR is an inalienable part of the People's Republic of China (hereinafter referred to as "the PRC") and a local administrative region which enjoys a high degree of autonomy, as contrary to absolute autonomy, and comes directly under the Central People's Government. Hong Kong affairs are internal matters of the PRC. The system in Hong Kong is not "Two countries, Two systems". Hong Kong will never be an independent country with a pro-American government formed by the Opposition Camp in Hong Kong. Any foreign governments like the US must at once stop scaremongering and interfering in any form in Hong Kong's affairs. The "Colour Revolution" promoted by the US in Hong Kong should be terminated in no time.

The author is Barrister-at-law.

The views don't necessarily reflect those of Orange News.

責編： CK Li

My recent article😎😎😎
我最新的評論文章💪💪💪

Opinion | A misleading slogan by the opposition camp: political prosecution HK

Current2小時前

By Athena Kung

LegCo members Lam Cheuk-ting (hereinafter referred to as "Lam") and Ted Hui Chi-fung (hereinafter referred to as "Hui") were arrested at their residence respectively in the morning on 26th of August 2020. In the afternoon on 27th of August 2020, they were brought before Magistrate Peter Law Esq. sitting in West Kowloon Magistrates' Courts. Both of them faced a count of attempting to perverting the course of justice. Lam was also charged of 1 count of riot. Hui further faced 2 more charges, including criminal damage and access to computer with criminal or dishonest intent. Their bail application was objected by prosecution. After all, the court granted bail to both Lam and Hui. Their cases were adjourned for mention.

Shortly after being released by the court, Lam and Hui strongly criticized the arrest and prosecution and described it as a "public prosecution". All along, whenever any members of the opposition camp have been arrested and prosecuted, then their whole group with the local and foreign media supporting them would together accuse the HKSAR Government of making a political prosecution with an aim to suppress the dissidents. They would also try their best to condemn the HKSAR Government's such act as being a violation of the Sino-British Joint Statement and Hong Kong Basic Law. From time to time, they further attack the Government's such acts as suppressing their freedom of speech.

It appears that whenever the opposition camp alleges the Government conducts a political prosecution, all they mean is that the Government is making use of the political reasons to arrest or prosecute them. Recently, the term "political prosecution" has been the slogan made use of by the opposition camp frequently for the purpose of smearing the Hong Kong Police, Department of Justice, the Judiciary as well as the whole HKSAR Government. The motive behind is to provoke the public's hatred towards the HKSAR Government and even the Central Government, which has been a very important step in the Colour Revolutions instigated by the US Government all over the world.

Everyone is equal before the law. Even the LegCo Members must comply with all the laws in Hong Kong. No doubt, according to the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance, Cap 382, Laws of Hong Kong (hereinafter referred to as "the Ordinance"), the privileges and immunities to be enjoyed by the LegCo Members include:

(1) Freedom of speech and debate "in the Council or proceedings before a committee" under Section 3 of the Ordinance.

(2) Immunity from legal proceedings, namely no civil or criminal proceedings shall be instituted against any member for "words spoken before, or written in a report to, the Council or a Committee, or by reason of any matter brought by him therein by petition, Bill, resolution, motion or otherwise" under Section 4 of the Ordinance.

(3) Freedom to arrest under Section 5 of the Ordinance, including:

(a) No member shall be liable to arrest for any civil debt whilst going to, attending at or returning from a sitting of the Council or a committee;

(b) No member shall be liable to arrest for any criminal offence whilst attending at a sitting of the Council or a Committee.

In short, the privilege, immunity and freedom of speech and debate can only been exercised by the LegCo Members when they are performing their duties in making speech and debate in the Council or during the committee proceedings. The charges faced by Lam and Hui occurred in Yuen Long MTR Station on 21st of July 2019 or outside Tuen Mun Police Station on 6th of July 2019 respectively. Clearly, on both days, Lam and Hui were not performing their duties in the Council or before any Committee. On 26th of August, they were arrested at their home, but not during their attending at or returning from the Council or any Committee. Obviously, the LegCo Members from the Opposition Camp often exaggerate their privilege, immunity and freedom of speech to mislead the public.

Outside the Council and Committees, all LegCo Members must obey to all the laws in Hong Kong. Being the lawmakers who play a significant role in discussing and passing the Bills in the Legislative Council, as expected by the society, they have to behave themselves properly and setting up as good models for the public to follow and imitate, particularly for those youngsters who are immature. Their keeping on showing no respect at all towards the law and order is step by step ruining Hong Kong's rule of law, which has been the cornerstone of the success gained by the Pearl of the Oriental.

The Opposition Camp often alleges that the HKSAR Government has violated the Sino-British Joint Statement and the Hong Kong Basic Law. However, never have they pointed out which part of the 2 documents have been breached by the HKSAR Government. Obviously, such condemn is slogan as well without any concrete support at all, aiming at spreading the hatred towards the Government in the society.

So long as the Opposition Camp is of the view that any prosecution has insufficient basis to support the charge, all they should do is to face the trial bravely instead of keeping on criticizing the Government wrongfully from time to time. In court, they may have the right to deny the charges against them. The burden of proof lies on the prosecution whereas the standard of proof is beyond reasonable doubt. Defence discharges of no burden of proof at all. All defendants in criminal cases are presumed to be innocent. Prosecution had the duty to produce evidence to prove all elements of the charges they are facing. They also have the right to have their legal representation, call their own witnesses and decide whether to give evidence during the court process. Even if they are convicted after trial, they still have the right to appeal against the conviction and/or the sentence.

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

Introduction of Taiwan International Science Fair

In order to establish the roots of science education in Taiwan and expand the international vision of our secondary school students, the National Taiwan Science Education Center (hereinafter referred to as "NTSEC") has been organizing the "Taiwan International Science Fair" since 1991.

We thank you all for your participation this year, see you in TISF 2022!