Content deleted Content added
→History: ce |
Integrate controversies into themes - content itself was not vetted for accuracy and sourcing |
||
Line 67:
On 4 June 1989, the BLDC's only two members representing the nascent [[Pro-democracy camp in Hong Kong|pro-democracy camp]], [[Martin Lee]] and [[Szeto Wah]], declared that they would suspend their participation after the military crackdown of the [[Tiananmen Square protests|Tiananmen Square protests of 1989]].{{r|Lo1992|p=23}} In September 1989, Lee announced that he would return to the BLDC after being urged to do so by many in Hong Kong.{{r|Lo1992|p=23}} However, the following month, Beijing expelled Lee and Szeto from the BLDC as "subversives".{{r|Lo1992|p=15}} Lee and Szeto had voiced support for student activists in Beijing and had led the [[Hong Kong Alliance in Support of Patriotic Democratic Movements in China]], an organisation instrumental in assisting political dissidents leave China after the military crackdown on 4 June.<ref name="Chang1992">{{cite journal |last1= Chang|first1= Parris H.|date=January 1992 |title=China's Relations with Hong Kong and Taiwan |journal=The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science|volume=519|pages=127–139 |jstor= 1046758}}</ref>{{rp|131–132}}
==
The basic constitutional principles of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region are written in the first chapter of the Basic Law. Article 1 stipulates that Hong Kong is part of the People's Republic of China.<ref name=chap1>{{cite journal|url=https://www.basiclaw.gov.hk/en/basiclawtext/chapter_1.html|title=Chapter I: General Principles|journal=Basic Law of Hong Kong Special Administrative Region|date=July 2006|pages=11–14}}</ref>. The Basic Law guarantees that Hong Kong has a high degree of autonomy and enjoys executive, legislative and independent judicial power.<ref name=chap1 /> Judicial power includes the power of final adjudication, which removes the colonial judicial recourse by appealing to the [[Judicial Committee of the Privy Council]] in the United Kingdom. Instead, the [[Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal|Court of Final Appeal]] was established to take up the role.
* The [[Hong Kong|Hong Kong Special Administrative Region]] is part of the People's Republic of China.<ref name=chap1>{{cite journal|url=http://www.basiclaw.gov.hk/en/basiclawtext/chapter_1.html|title=Chapter I : General Principles|journal=Basic Law of Hong Kong Special Administrative Region|date=July 2006|pages=11–14}}</ref>▼
▲* The laws previously in force in Hong Kong, that is, the [[common law]], rules of [[Equity (law)|equity]], ordinances, subordinate legislation and [[customary law]] (such as Chinese clan law){{clarify|date=September 2019}} shall be maintained, except for any that contravene the Basic Law and subject to any amendment by the legislature of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region.<ref name=chap1 />
Private ownership of [[private property|property]] is also a right protected in Hong Kong.<ref name=chap1 />
===Relationship with central government===▼
===Fundamental rights and duties===▼
===Political structure===▼
Except the Basic Law, national laws in force in mainland China cannot be enforced in Hong Kong unless they are listed in Annex III and applied through a local promulgation or legislation.
* The Chief Executive of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region shall be selected by election or through consultations held locally and be appointed by the Central People's Government.▼
Article 22 states that departments of the [[Central People's Government]] and its subordinate governments cannot interfere in affairs that Hong Kong may administer independently in accordance with the Basic Law. In April 2020, the provision sparked a debate after the [[Hong Kong Liaison Office|Liaison Office]] and the [[Hong Kong and Macao Affairs Office]] publicly criticised pro-democratic legislators for delaying the election of the chairperson of the Legislative Council House Committee.<ref>{{cite news |last1=Ho |first1=Kelly |title=Hong Kong democrats reject Beijing’s warning over legislative stalling tactics as ‘interference’ |url=https://hongkongfp.com/2020/04/14/hong-kong-democrats-reject-beijings-warning-over-legislative-stalling-tactics-as-interference/ |accessdate=13 May 2020 |work=Hong Kong Free Press |date=14 April 2020}}</ref> Pro-democratic legislators said the offices violated Article 22 by commenting on the election of a chairperson in the local legislature. In response, the Liaison Office said it is not subject to Article 22 because it was authorised by central authorities to handle Hong Kong affairs and not what is commonly understood as "departments under the Central People’s Government".<ref>{{cite news |date= 17 April 2020|title= Liaison Office 'not subject to Article 22'|url= https://news.rthk.hk/rthk/en/component/k2/1521237-20200417.htm|work= RTHK |location= |access-date= 17 April 2020}}</ref>
===External affairs===▼
* Although the PRC is responsible for Hong Kong's foreign affairs and defence, Hong Kong is permitted to participate in international organisations or conferences in certain fields limited to states and directly affecting the HKSAR. It may attend in such other capacity as may be permitted by the PRC government and the international organisation or conference concerned, and may express their views, using the name "Hong Kong, China". The HKSAR may also, using the name "Hong Kong, China", participate in international organisations and conferences not limited to states. The Hong Kong Special Administrative Region may on its own maintain and develop relations and conclude and implement agreements with foreign states and regions and relevant international organizations in the appropriate fields, including the economic, trade, financial and monetary, shipping, communications, tourism, cultural and sports fields.(Articles 13–14, 150–157)<ref name=chap7>{{cite journal|url=http://www.basiclaw.gov.hk/en/basiclawtext/chapter_7.html|title=Chapter VII : External Affairs|journal=Basic Law of Hong Kong Special Administrative Region|date=July 2006|pages=77–81}}</ref>▼
▲
=== Civil rights ===
Hong Kong residents have, among other things, [[freedom of speech]], [[freedom of the press]] and of publication; [[freedom of association]], [[freedom of assembly]], freedom of procession, of demonstration, of communication, of movement, of conscience, of religious belief, and of marriage; and the right and freedom to form and join trade unions, and to [[Strike action|strike]].<ref name=chap3 /> The freedom of the person of Hong Kong residents shall be inviolable. No Hong Kong resident shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful arrest, [[Detention (Imprisonment)|detention]] or imprisonment. Arbitrary or unlawful search of the body of any resident or deprivation or restriction of the freedom of the person shall be prohibited. Torture of any resident or arbitrary or unlawful deprivation of the life of any resident shall be prohibited.<ref name=chap3 /> The provisions of the [[International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights]], the [[International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights]], and international labour conventions as applied to Hong Kong shall remain in force and shall be implemented through the laws of the HKSAR.<ref name=chap3 />
=== Political rights ===
▲
▲
== Interpretation ==
Line 121 ⟶ 135:
The power to propose amendments is granted to the [[Standing Committee of the National People's Congress]], the [[State Council of the People's Republic of China]] and the [[Hong Kong Special Administrative Region]]. The proposed amendments require the approval of the [[Chief Executive of Hong Kong]], two-thirds of the [[Legislative Council of Hong Kong]] members and two-thirds of the deputies representing Hong Kong in the [[National People's Congress]], if they are proposed within Hong Kong, and can only be proposed by either the [[Legislative Council of Hong Kong]] or the [[Chief Executive of Hong Kong]]. In the former case, the amendment can be suggested by any member and debated and voted upon in accordance with the Standing Orders, after which it is voted upon by the Hong Kong deputies to the NPC, before reaching the Chief Executive for his/her approval. In the latter case, the Chief Executive suggests the amendment, which is then debated and voted upon by both the [[Legislative Council of Hong Kong]] and the Hong Kong deputies to the NPC. If initiated within the NPC, the suggested amendment must first be placed on the agenda by the Presidium before being debated and voted upon. Either way, the amendment must also be approved by the other side (e.g. by the NPC for those amendments initiated within the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region).
▲* '''[[Hong Kong Basic Law Article 23|Article 23 of the Basic Law]]''' requires Hong Kong to enact laws on its own to prohibit acts including treason, secession, sedition, subversion against the Central People's Government, and theft of state secrets. This became a subject of considerable controversy when the Government of the HKSAR [[National Security (Legislative Provisions) Bill 2003|attempted to introduce legislation]] to implement the Article in 2002 to 2003. The proposed legislation gave much power to the police, such as not requiring a search warrant to search a home of a "suspected terrorist". This has led to public outcry, and resulted in massive demonstrations ([[Hong Kong July 1 marches|1 July marches]]), where it is estimated that over five hundred thousand people took to the streets, on 1 July 2003. After the demonstrations, the government indefinitely shelved its drafted law.
▲* '''The possibility of universal suffrage in 2007 and 2008.''' [[Universal suffrage]] for the election of the Chief Executive in 2007, and for all seats of the Legislative Council in 2008 is not ruled out under [[Hong Kong Basic Law Article 45|Articles 45]] and 68 of the Basic Law, the conservative camp and legal experts in Mainland China have claimed that this would violate the "Principle of gradual and orderly progress" and "in the light of the actual situation" set forth in [[Hong Kong Basic Law Article 45|Articles 45]] and 68. The controversy was finally settled through interpretation of Basic Law by the [[Standing Committee of the National People's Congress]], which ruled out the possibility of universal suffrage in 2007 and 2008 on 26 April 2004.
▲* '''The question of whether pay-cuts for civil servants and having a deficit budget are allowed under the Basic Law.''' According to the Article 100 of the Basic Law, the civil servants may remain in employment with pay, allowances, benefits and conditions of service no less favourable than before the handover. Article 107 stated the SAR Government should follow the principle of keeping the expenditure within the limits of revenues in drawing up its budget. During the economic downturn after 1997, there was a growing fiscal deficit (and, in 2007/08 a record surplus). The government imposed a pay-cut on the Civil Service during the economic downturn, and then sharply increased salaries during the recovery.
▲* '''The term of the new Chief Executive after the original Chief Executive resigned.''' This question arose after the original Chief Executive Tung Chee-hwa resigned on 10 March 2005. The legal community and the pro-democracy camp claim that the term of the new Chief Executive should follow [[Hong Kong Basic Law Article 46|Article 46]], that is, a 5-year term. However, the Hong Kong government, some Beijing figures and the pro-Beijing camp claim that it should be the remaining term of the original Chief Executive, by a technicality in the Chinese version of the Basic Law, introducing the remaining term concept. The HKSAR government has sought interpretation from the [[Standing Committee of the National People's Congress]] on 6 April 2005, and the standing committee ruled on 27 April 2005, that the Annex I of the Basic Law requires that if any Chief Executive should resign on or before 2007, the new Chief Executive should serve out the remainder of his predecessor's term. Hong Kong residents who favour autonomy view the "interpretation" from the Standing Committee as an intrusion into the Hong Kong legal system by the central government in violation of the spirit of the One Country, Two Systems policy, compromising the rule of law.
▲* '''No formal terms for [[extradition]] of suspects exist.''' Article 95 provides for mutual judicial assistance between Hong Kong and the PRC; however, serious stumbling blocks, such as capital punishment stand in the way of a formal understanding of [[extradition]]. Additionally, HKSAR authorities have ruled that Articles 6 and 7 of the PRC Criminal Code does not give Hong Kong sole jurisdiction in criminal matters, particularly when a crime is committed across provincial or SAR borders. The current status quo is that Hong Kong will ask for the return of Hong Kong residents who have committed crimes in Hong Kong and are arrested in the mainland. A mainlander who commits a crime in Hong Kong and flees back to the mainland, however, will be tried in the mainland. In cases of concurrent jurisdiction, the Central Government has demanded that the trial be held in the mainland. Prominent authorities, such as [[Albert Chen Hung-yee|Albert Chen]], a professor, and [[Gladys Li]], chairman of justice of the Hong Kong section of the [[International Commission of Jurists]], feel that this situation has serious ramifications for [[judicial independence]] in Hong Kong.
▲*'''"One Country" vs "Two Systems"''' – On 10 June 2014, Beijing released a new policy report asserting its authority over the territory that basically stated that pitched a conflict between "one country" and "two systems" by stating that the interests of China ("one country") should prevail over Hong Kong's constitutional autonomy ("two systems").<ref name="Full text">{{cite web|url=http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/china/2014-06/10/c_133396891.htm|title=Full Text: The Practice of the "One Country, Two Systems" Policy in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region |agency=Xinhua News Agency}}</ref> This ignited criticism from many people in Hong Kong, who said that the Communist leadership was undermining the Basic Law Article 8, in that it was reneging on its pledges to abide by the policy that allows for a democratic, autonomous Hong Kong under Beijing's rule.<ref>{{cite web | url = http://mobile.nytimes.com/blogs/sinosphere/2014/06/11/beijings-white-paper-sets-off-a-firestorm-in-hong-kong/ | title = Beijing's 'White Paper' Sets Off a Firestorm in Hong Kong | work = The New York Times | date = 11 June 2014 | accessdate = 23 June 2014 | archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20140618000943/http://mobile.nytimes.com/blogs/sinosphere/2014/06/11/beijings-white-paper-sets-off-a-firestorm-in-hong-kong/ | archive-date = 18 June 2014 | url-status = dead | df = dmy-all }}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=http://news.mingpao.com/pns/%E7%A8%8B%E7%BF%94%EF%B9%95%E4%BB%80%E9%BA%BC%E6%98%AF%E3%80%8A%E5%9F%BA%E6%9C%AC%E6%B3%95%E3%80%8B%E7%9A%84%E5%88%9D%E8%A1%B7%EF%BC%9F/web_tc/article/20150415/s00012/1429035223290?fb_action_ids=10153351923183319&fb_action_types=og.shares|title=程翔﹕什麼是《基本法》的初衷？}}</ref>{{Failed verification|date=December 2018}}
▲*The [[Causeway Bay Books disappearances|disappearances of five staff of Causeway Bay Books]], an independent publisher and bookstore, between October and December 2015 precipitated an international outcry. At least two of them disappeared while in [[mainland China]], one while in [[Thailand]]. One member was last seen in Hong Kong, eventually reappearing in [[Shenzhen]], across the Chinese border, without the necessary travel documents. While reaction to the October disappearances was muted, as unexplained disappearances and lengthy [[extrajudicial detention]]s are known to occur in mainland China,<ref name=bigstory1>{{cite web|url=http://bigstory.ap.org/urn:publicid:ap.org:acf943c14a5049e99aa1ab61bb9965dd|title=Hong Kong unsettled by case of 5 missing booksellers|agency=Associated Press|work=The Big Story|date=3 January 2016}}</ref> the unprecedented disappearance of a person from Hong Kong, and the bizarre events surrounding it, shocked the city and crystallised international concern over the possible abduction of Hong Kong citizens by [[Chinese public security bureau]] officials and their likely [[extraordinary rendition|rendition]], in violation of several articles of the Basic Law and the [[one country, two systems]] principle.<ref name=20160105nytimes>{{cite web|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/05/world/asia/mighty-current-media-hong-kong-lee-bo.html|title=Disappearance of 5 Tied to Publisher Prompts Broader Worries in Hong Kong|date=5 January 2016|work=The New York Times}}</ref><ref name=20160107guardianpull>{{cite web|url=https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jan/07/hong-kong-bookshops-pull-politically-sensitive-titles-after-publishers-vanish|title=Hong Kong bookshops pull politically sensitive titles after publishers vanish|author=Ilaria Maria Sala|work=The Guardian|date=7 January 2016}}</ref><ref name=20160105ejinsightunanswered>{{cite web|url=http://www.ejinsight.com/20160105-unanswered-questions-about-the-missing-booksellers/|title=Unanswered questions about the missing booksellers|work=EJ Insight|date=5 January 2016}}</ref> The widespread suspicion that they were under detention in mainland China was later confirmed with apparently scripted video "confessions" and assurances by the men that they were remaining in China of their own accord.<ref name=20160107guardianpull/> In June 2016, one of the five, [[Lam Wing-kee]], revealed in a dramatic press conference that he and the others had been held without [[due process]] and that Lee Po had indeed been illegally abducted from Hong Kong, all by a shadowy 'Central Investigation Team' ("中央專案組" or "中央調查組").<ref>[https://www.hongkongfp.com/2016/06/20/be-warned-the-booksellers-ordeal-in-china-could-happen-to-any-of-us/ All in it together: The bookseller’s ordeal in China could happen to any of us], HKFP, 20 June 2016</ref>
==See also==
| |||