Report by : Gan Yung Chyan
/ KUCINTA SETIA
The Hong Kong Bar Association issued a statement today (July 1) on the legislation of the "National Security Law of Hong Kong", expressing serious concern about the content and legislative approach of the legislation, arguing that it would undermine the guarantee of a high degree of autonomy for Hong Kong in the "Sino-British Joint Declaration". It also weakens Hong Kong's core values of judicial independence, human rights and freedom protection under one country, two systems. The Guild also pointed out that some of the provisions of the National Security Law of Hong Kong are inconsistent with the provisions of the Basic Law.
The Bar Association said that before the NPC legislation, the citizens had not read the provisions. The law is now in effect and the provisions are not even in English, pointing out that this is contrary to the current bilingual legal system in Hong Kong. The guild also stated that Article 62 of the National Security Law of Hong Kong mentioned that if local laws were inconsistent with the National Security Law, the National Security Law would prevail.
The Bar Association is concerned that the National Security Office in Hong Kong has the right to enforce laws in Hong Kong, and the Central Government of the People’s Republic of China also retains jurisdiction, that is, suspects may be sent to the mainland for trial. This is different from the current arrangements for the transfer of fugitive offenders in Hong Kong. Lost the handover trial procedure and due legal protection. The guild is also concerned about the possibility of fair trial and adequate legal protection once the suspect is sent to the Mainland for trial.
The Bar Association is dissatisfied with the arrangements for the Chief Executive to designate judges to hear Guoan cases, believes that it will weaken judicial independence, and is concerned about the Department of Justice’s right to require cases without jury trials. The Guild stated that the National Security Law targets four types of crimes, but lacks clear guidelines, and believes that the law is not directly proportional to violations of basic human rights, including affecting freedom of thought and freedom of expression.
Source : Ming Pao
No comments:
Post a Comment