I’ve questioned the narrative of “Beijing encroachment”. Asked “when, where, how”.
And noted some ways things are better since the handover: like District Council elections which are universal and proper. I’ve taken part in one, as the chairman of an election committee for our candidate. The process was tough and rough fought just like an election anywhere. (We lost).
I wonder how much of the “Beijing encroachment” narrative is actually more day-to-day stuff: mainlanders buying up milk powder, occupying hospital beds, taking top-end jobs, not following queueing etiquette, dancing aunties simplified characters, etc. All grating, perhaps, depending on your patience and tolerance, but not the same as Beijing’s black hand.
And today an article on why there’s such hatred of mainlanders, here.
Meantime in this letter R. Heng (21/10) points out improvements in the rule of law since the handover.
/snip from Heng’s letter…
It has always seemed a little strange to me that commentators, the media and even legal professionals refer to the post-1997 period as being one during which Hong Kong’s rule of law has progressively deteriorated into “rule by law” by Beijing. The alleged erosion of the rule of law principally arises from when the National People’s Congress (NPC) Standing Committee interprets the Basic Law over the final adjudication of the Court of Final Appeal and from the lack of completely democratically elected institutions to act as checks and balances on executive power.
And noted some ways things are better since the handover: like District Council elections which are universal and proper. I’ve taken part in one, as the chairman of an election committee for our candidate. The process was tough and rough fought just like an election anywhere. (We lost).
I wonder how much of the “Beijing encroachment” narrative is actually more day-to-day stuff: mainlanders buying up milk powder, occupying hospital beds, taking top-end jobs, not following queueing etiquette, dancing aunties simplified characters, etc. All grating, perhaps, depending on your patience and tolerance, but not the same as Beijing’s black hand.
And today an article on why there’s such hatred of mainlanders, here.
Meantime in this letter R. Heng (21/10) points out improvements in the rule of law since the handover.
/snip from Heng’s letter…
It has always seemed a little strange to me that commentators, the media and even legal professionals refer to the post-1997 period as being one during which Hong Kong’s rule of law has progressively deteriorated into “rule by law” by Beijing. The alleged erosion of the rule of law principally arises from when the National People’s Congress (NPC) Standing Committee interprets the Basic Law over the final adjudication of the Court of Final Appeal and from the lack of completely democratically elected institutions to act as checks and balances on executive power.
There may be some merit to this view but it isn’t clear that there has been a decline in the rule of law in Hong Kong post-1997 versus pre-1997.
Before 1997, Hong Kong, being a British colony, had no fully democratic locally elected institutions. There were no checks and balances limiting the executive power of the governor. During most of the colonial era, Hong Kong lacked a locally elected legislative body to formulate its own laws.
Hong Kong’s laws were adopted from those issued by the British Parliament in London. Most were simply copied with minor adaptations made to some to suit the local context. Laws were not vetted by a democratically elected body in Hong Kokng. Statutes or legislation in effect had no democratic validity, at least if we are to consider them within the local Hong Kong context. [read it all]
Before 1997, Hong Kong, being a British colony, had no fully democratic locally elected institutions. There were no checks and balances limiting the executive power of the governor. During most of the colonial era, Hong Kong lacked a locally elected legislative body to formulate its own laws.
Hong Kong’s laws were adopted from those issued by the British Parliament in London. Most were simply copied with minor adaptations made to some to suit the local context. Laws were not vetted by a democratically elected body in Hong Kokng. Statutes or legislation in effect had no democratic validity, at least if we are to consider them within the local Hong Kong context. [read it all]
