Awaiting a Democratic Hong Kong
As usual I am pissed off and saddened that Hong Kong legislators themselves do not respect the law. It’s one thing to believe in the CCP and want to tow party line, it’s another when government officials and those who are "elected," legislators, people who are supposed to uphold the law, can simply ignore it or argue against it.
I saw Alan Hoo debate this issue with Martin Lee and I thought, someone should just revoke his license here and now, along with every other lawyer who seem to think the law is not solid and indisputable but one that can shift dependent of politics. It’s just horrific that we are now degraded to the point of debating the "concepts" of what "law" is. I think that’s should have been settled somewhere in the first year of law school, not to be argued 20 years after of practicing it. Forget the politics, does that mean next year we start to change "interpretation" of the laws on corruption? Crime? Citizenship? when it comes to dealing with Chinese officials and Hong Kong officials. Somehow their behavior is above "common," law, and "national" law sees it differently. The way things are going it’s not going to surprise me either.
By KEITH BRADSHER
Published: March 20, 2005
HONG KONG — From purchases of handheld toys to charters of supertankers, contracts in China are frequently written so that disputes must be resolved under Hong Kong law and in Hong Kong courts – even when the parties involved are mainland companies.
This reliance by the Chinese on Hong Kong’s robust legal system has given optimists hope that the mainland, where the Communist Party still wields ultimate authority, would inevitably accept the rule of law. They note that the party needs to attract increasing amounts of foreign investment to fuel the economic growth that underwrites its power, but investors want to know that their rights will be reliably protected by laws.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/20/weekinreview/20brad.html
Ted Aljibe/Agence France-Presse – Getty Images
Pro-democracy legislators in Hong Kong protested China’s decision to shorten the chief executive’s term from five years to two.
But the optimistic view has been shaken in the past two weeks, in ways
that have alarmed lawyers here and have underlined how far mainland
China is from understanding the necessity of a strong legal system.
Beijing authorities have forced the territory’s government to do an
about-face on a critical constitutional issue by shortening the term of
Hong Kong’s chief executive to two years from five. The executive is
selected by the Electoral Committee, most of whom are strongly loyal to
Beijing. This will tie the next leader, and therefore the way the
territory functions, much more closely to the mainland.
The Basic Law, Hong Kong’s mini-constitution, clearly says that the
chief executive must serve a full five-year term, said Andrew Bruce,
the vice chairman of the Hong Kong Bar Association. "It is as plain as
day, and the argument that some other systems should apply are simply
invalid," he said.
The question is why Beijing seems to be riding roughshod over Hong
Kong, given the negative publicity that will result. A session of the
National People’s Congress, which concluded last Monday in Beijing, was
notable for the enthusiastic remarks from deputies and legal scholars
alike about the importance of the Chinese legal system.
Some analysts say that, while China’s leaders are happy to encourage
abstruse debates about law, they remain unwilling to discuss a
fundamental question: should the government be able to supersede the
law when it wishes, or, as in a democracy, should limits be placed on
government power?
Particularly upsetting to lawyers has been the assertion by the
government here that the common law system should not apply to the
Basic Law, which was drafted by Chinese lawyers 15 years ago. Elsie
Leung, the secretary of justice, has contended that the law’s
interpretation should be based instead on the mainland legal system,
which provides broad latitude for judges and scholars to look at the
intent of the men and women who drafted the law.
Two mainland legal scholars have stepped forward to say that they
recall discussing shortened terms in the late 1980’s, even though the
discussion is not explicitly reflected in the Basic Law.
Hong Kong’s business leaders, unlike many lawyers, so far seem
relatively unfazed by the matter. John C. C. Chan, the managing
director of the Kowloon Motor Bus Company Ltd., one of the biggest
transportation companies here, said that he viewed the squabble as a
matter for politicians, not a threat to the legal system as it applied
to business dealings.
"There is no risk of the law not applying to contracts," he said.
But legal, financial and political matters are not always so easily
compartmentalized. Hong Kong, which was reunited with China in 1997,
having been in British hands since 1841, was supposed, under the terms
of the handover, to enjoy a high degree of autonomy for the next 50
years.
But now, one of the biggest risks for Hong Kong may be institutional
paralysis, as short-term leaders grow reluctant to pursue bold policies
that could imperil their reappointment.
For example, Henry Tang, the financial secretary and a likely candidate
this summer or in 2007 to become chief executive, put forward a budget
on Wednesday noteworthy for its lack of new policies.
The following morning, The Standard, a local newspaper, ran a political
cartoon showing him motionless as two large serpents slithered around
him, one labeled "Beijing opinion" and the other, "public opinion." Mr.
Tang remarks, "They can only see me if I move."
Yan Sham-Shackleton Online 