Questions and Answers

Foreword:
On September 28, 2014, I wrote "What Happened to Hong Kong: Seventeen Questions about Occupy Central" in tears to help readers in mainland China and Taiwan understand the Occupy Movement. Today, Hong Kongers are once again taking to the streets and being relentlessly repressed by the police. I'm here to hold back my tears again and try to clarify the whole story so that friends outside Hong Kong know the truth.

1. What happened to Hong Kong?

Tens of thousands of Hong Kong citizens occupied the main roads near the Hong Kong government headquarters and the Legislative Council building, demanding that the SAR government withdraw the amendments to the Fugitive Offenders Ordinance submitted to the Legislative Council, but the police used unreasonable force to drive them away.

2. What is the Fugitive Offenders Ordinance amendment? Why does this revision appear?

The Fugitive Offenders Ordinance Amendment refers to the Fugitive Offenders and Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Legislation (Amendment) Bill 2019. One of the consequences after the passage is that the SAR government can, at the request of the Chinese government, send people who the Chinese government regards as suspects to mainland China, which is the so-called "send to China".

The origin of the proposed revision was the murder of Pan Xiaoying in early 2018. Pan Xiaoying, a Hong Kong girl, traveled to Taiwan with her Hong Kong boyfriend Chen Tongjia, during which she was killed in a hotel, while Chen Tongjia returned to Hong Kong alone. Taiwan police wanted Chen Tongjia after investigation. However, there is no mutual legal assistance arrangement between Hong Kong and Taiwan. Although Hong Kong has sentenced Chen Tongjia for other related crimes, he cannot be extradited to Taiwan.

According to the current Fugitive Offenders Ordinance, the Hong Kong government can sign long-term handover arrangements with various parts of the world after obtaining the consent of the Legislative Council. Twenty countries have already signed agreements. Where there is no agreement, it can theoretically be handed over on a case-by-case basis with the consent of the Legislative Council. However, the current law states that "except for the government of the Central People's Government or any other part of the People's Republic of China", since the official position of the Hong Kong government is that Taiwan is part of China, extradition of suspects to Taiwan is not possible.

The current government has proposed a series of amendments, including the abolition of the "except China" clause to remove legal restrictions for negotiating handover with Taiwan.

3. Why do Hong Kong people object to this amendment?

Four reasons. First of all, after the repeal of the "Central People's Government or the government of any other part of the People's Republic of China" is abolished, suspects can be handed over not only to Taiwan, but also to mainland China, which will greatly undermine Hong Kong's unique status. After all, the judicial system in mainland China is not independent and is often influenced by politics and fails to be fair and impartial. For example, Zhao Lianhai, who spoke out for the families of the victims of the poisoned milk powder, was jailed for the crime of picking quarrels and provoking trouble. If the amendment to the Fugitive Offenders Ordinance is passed, it means that mainland China can borrow Hong Kong's judicial system to send Hong Kong people to mainland China for trial. Public opinion believes that this will make many people feel afraid, and Hong Kong people will no longer be able to enjoy the freedoms guaranteed by the Basic Law.

Second, Hong Kong is an international business city. Businessmen from all over the world use Hong Kong as their regional headquarters to facilitate business in mainland China. They chose to set up their regional headquarters in Hong Kong rather than directly in mainland China because of the guarantees brought by the independence of Hong Kong's judiciary. Without this layer of protection, they will face all kinds of legal troubles. For example, there are various unspoken rules in the officialdom and business circles in mainland China, and doing business in mainland China often touches some legal gray areas. If the amendments to the Fugitive Offenders Ordinance are passed, these businessmen will worry about whether they will be sent to mainland China for trial. Even businessmen who are prudent and never break the law are worried about being falsely accused under the regulations for offending some competitors in mainland China. In response, chambers of commerce in Hong Kong from many countries have issued statements against the revision, and some companies have cancelled over 10 billion in business investment due to concerns about the economic outlook. Public opinion is more worried that foreign capital will move regional headquarters to other places one after another, and foreign governments are more likely to withdraw special preferential policies for Hong Kong (relative to mainland China). These developments will severely hit Hong Kong's economy and affect people's livelihood.

Thirdly, according to the existing provisions, whether it is a long-term agreement or a case transfer, it must be reviewed by the Legislative Council. According to the proposed amendment, the Chief Executive will no longer need the consent of the Legislative Council to initiate the transfer of cases. In this regard, public opinion believes that the supervision of the Chief Executive has been greatly removed, and thus the protection of suspects has been greatly reduced. Since the Chief Executive of Hong Kong is not elected by one person, one vote by Hong Kong people, it will be difficult for the public to be held accountable if relevant powers are abused.

Fourth, this revision has caused a lot of social controversy, and the public should be given sufficient time to understand, discuss and express their opinions. However, this time the government has only set a 20-day public consultation. After the Bar Association, the Law Society, and even some religious and educational groups with relatively conservative stances protested, the government still insisted on proposing amendments and demanded that the Legislative Council be passed as soon as possible, triggering a strong backlash in public opinion.

4. Why is the government in such a hurry to pass amendments?

The official reason is that Chen Tongjia is expected to be released as soon as mid-October and may leave Hong Kong after that. As a result, officials claim to be in time to pass the revisions ahead of time. However, the Taiwan side has repeatedly stressed that it believes that the current revision proposal is unacceptable, and even if it is passed, it will not make a request for handover. The SAR government used the Chen Tongjia case as an excuse to promote the revision, and has been accused by many parties of using the dead and the tragedy to achieve its political goals.

5. Hong Kong cannot hand over suspects to mainland China, so wouldn’t Hong Kong become a criminal paradise?

It has been nearly 22 years since the establishment of the SAR. If the "criminals' paradise" is true, it does not seem to explain why the law and order in Hong Kong has not been seriously affected in the past 22 years. Even if the impact exists, it is obviously not an immediate danger, and legislation needs to be passed quickly without adequate social discussion.

6. But some Western democracies will also sign a handover agreement with the Chinese government?

Yes, but the situation in Hong Kong is different in three ways. First, when other countries sign handover agreements with the Chinese government, they generally stipulate that their nationals will not be handed over. However, under Hong Kong's regulations, both native-born Hong Kong residents and passengers who just transit at Hong Kong airport can all be detained and handed over. Second, democratic countries have election supervision, and if the government misuses the handover procedure, voters will punish it; the chief executive of Hong Kong is appointed by the central government, and even if the handover procedure is misused, it is difficult to be held accountable. Third, precisely because the chief executive of Hong Kong is appointed by the central government, the handover arrangements in Hong Kong cannot be compared with other places. Leaders of other countries can independently assess whether suspects should be handed over to mainland China. The chief executive of Hong Kong is accountable to the central government in accordance with the Basic Law and cannot make independent decisions. Under the framework of this system, all the administrative review under the responsibility of the Chief Executive is nothing but a myth.

7. Since you are catching a "fugitive", you shouldn't be worried if you don't do bad things?

It's actually a "suspect", not a "fugitive". Hong Kong implements the presumption of innocence. People who have not been convicted for a day are just "suspects", and it cannot be assumed that they are all bad people. To become a "suspect", you only need to think that you have done something bad. The problem is that the "bad thing" in the eyes of the Chinese government is very different from that of the people of Hong Kong. In Hong Kong, speaking up for the disadvantaged is seen as a good person and a good deed, but in mainland China, there are many cases of helping people but becoming defendants. Hong Kong people fear that the same problem will extend to Hong Kong after the amendment is passed.

8. Doesn't it mean that there is a limit to the surrender of certain crimes? Doesn't it mean that political prisoners cannot be handed over?

The ordinance says so, but there is a thing in this world called false accusation. In order for the case to stand, the prosecution can falsely accuse murder or rape. After the handover, before the official trial, events such as "peek-a-boo death" and "wash face to death" can occur. People in mainland China may be more aware of these possibilities than people in Hong Kong.

9. Doesn't the regulation say the court will take care of it?

The court can only look at prima facie evidence provided by the local prosecution and will not consider whether the case is completely beyond reasonable doubt.

10. If the law is not amended, is there any other way to handle the "Chen Tongjia case"?

The Legislative Council can make special legislation to deal only with the "Chan Tongjia case", and the democrats have shown that they accept this approach. In the long run, the jurisdiction of the Hong Kong courts can be expanded, and even if Hong Kong people commit crimes in other places, they can be tried by the Hong Kong courts. The laws of the Macao SAR are written in this way.

11. Why is this conflict breaking out today?

On Sunday, more than one million citizens took to the streets to protest against the revision, making it the largest demonstration since the establishment of the SAR. It is a pity that the government said immediately after the parade that it would not withdraw the amendment, which aroused public outrage. The Legislative Council was originally scheduled to review the amendments to the ordinance at today's meeting, and protesters hoped to facilitate the withdrawal before the scrutiny.

12. Since the Legislative Council will consider it, why not have a good discussion in the Legislative Council?

Because the Legislative Council has become a rubber stamp. Due to the deformed electoral system in Hong Kong, although the pro-democracy party won the support of more voters, it could not get the corresponding parliamentary seats. In this case, although opinion polls show that the public opposed the amendments far outnumbered their supporters, it is expected that the amendments will be passed with sufficient votes in the legislation. In addition, the President of the Legislative Council has drawn a further demarcation line. Regardless of whether the questions or amendments raised by Members can be fully resolved, they will be voted on on June 20. When Parliament became a hand-raising machine, the people had to take to the streets to express their dissatisfaction with direct action.

13. Foreign chambers of commerce oppose the amendment? Was this movement directed by foreign powers?

Absolutely not. There are tens of thousands of demonstrators at the scene, and it is impossible for them to be bribed to make trouble. All the on-site support materials were brought by enthusiastic citizens, and volunteers from all districts in Hong Kong collected materials and sent them to the site. Compared with the Occupy Movement in 2014, the protesters this time have no core organization, and they all participated spontaneously. If they were incited by others, the biggest instigator would probably be Chief Executive Carrie Lam Cheng Yuet-ngor.

14. Was this campaign deliberately arranged by the opposition to smear the government?

Even key officials who have served the SAR government have jointly requested the government to withdraw the amendment. Seven former deputy directors and former political assistants who used to serve in the SAR government declared that they were born and raised in Hong Kong who love Hong Kong and the country. They believe that the amendment bill is extremely controversial, and many rational and pragmatic suggestions have not been fully discussed and responded to. , and rarely caused a large number of ordinary citizens to express their deep concern through demonstrations, so they jointly signed to request the withdrawal of the amendment.

15. Objection does not need to block the main road and affect the daily life of other people, right?

Any protest action is essentially to break the rhythm of normal life and trigger public attention. The key here is whether the practices and events themselves are in proportion. The depth of controversy caused by this revision is unprecedented since the establishment of the SAR; and the attacks by the activists so far have been limited to those in power, and have not attacked any target of the common people. As for blocking arterial roads, the actors targeted the government headquarters. Since the Central Ring Road was opened to traffic earlier this year, blocking the passage near the Government Headquarters will not disrupt east-west traffic on Hong Kong Island.

16. If someone breaks the law, shouldn’t the police also enforce the law?

Enforcement must be proportionate. The government serves the people, and the police force is given by the people. Any means of force should be a last resort. News clips saw someone shot in the face by a police officer at a position far away from the police line without any assault. In addition, even some peacefully assembled citizens were repelled by tear gas. For the citizens of these peaceful assemblies, as far as they "break the law", I am afraid they have to "cross the street". The police force was clearly disproportionate, even humanitarian.

17. But the police always have to perform their duties?

Before the fall of the Berlin Wall, East German soldiers were ordered to fire on those fleeing west. After the fall of the Berlin Wall, soldiers were brought to trial, arguing that they were merely performing their duties. The judge asked, you were ordered to shoot, but you can miss it.

(The serialization of "Hong Kong Lesson 1" is suspended today)