0

It is surprising how things have escalated over a few days. I learned that the reason for the protests was that some people had concerns about the central government tightening the grip on Hong Kong via this extradition bill.

However, I've also learned that

  1. the motive of modifying the bill does not involve the central government. It was modified because of a Taiwan criminal who fled to Hong Kong.

  2. the modification was not done by the central government.

  3. the modified extradition bill is no different from other existing ones.

  4. Hong Kong government has modified the bill several times in response to the protests.

So, aside from speculation, I have not seen any actual reason that backs up the protesters' concerns.

My question is: has anyone see any evidence that the modified bill grants the central government the power to do things that concern the protesters?

I've seen news reports from different sides. It's surprising how they can only include the stuff in favor of their story. Hence I choose not to accept vague statements in a news report without a reliable source, so please provide reliable reference if possible (official documents for example).


This answer on the same topic had an interesting statement. I commented below to get a source. But I don't think I am going to get any response there. If anyone happens to have a reference please answer here.

The comment:

The problem with the current version of "extradition" is that instead of being evaluated in a Hong Kong court, a representative of the Chinese government is simply allowed to approve extradition for crimes including things like protesting the Chinese government. If I may ask, what are you basing this on? Is there any offcial document that says so?

  • 1
    This Q. generally assumes protests that become action-packed do so because the protestors are inflamed by some political talking point. But what sometimes upgrades a protest from squall to hurricane is the relative abnormality of the government's response. At which point the protest becomes about the right to protest, (i.e. to protest any grievance), in of itself. – agc Aug 9 at 17:47
5

Wikipedia lists five demands with an added rationale. I will quote them here, as those seem to be the the concerns of the protesters. Combined with the rationale, it seems neither of those have been addressed yet. From Wikipedia:

Permanent withdrawal of the extradition bill

While suspended on 15 June, the bill could be resurrected with its current "pending resumption of second reading" status, becoming law within a few days. Some pro-government political party members, like Ann Chiang, indicated that the bill could be resumed with additional promotion work after the protests cooled down.

Withdrawal of the "riot" characterization

The government had originally used the word "riot" to describe the 12 June protest. Later the description was amended to say there were some protesters who rioted. However protesters contest the existence of acts of rioting during the 12 June protest.

Unconditional release of all arrested protesters without charges

Protesters consider the arrests to be politically motivated; they question the legitimacy of policemen arresting protesters at hospitals using their confidential medical data in breach of patient privacy.

Independent investigation into police violence and abuse of power

Civic groups felt that the level of violence used by the police on 12 June, specifically those against protesters who were not committing any offences when they were set upon, was unjustified; Police performing stop-and-search to numerous passers-by near the protest site without probable cause was also considered abusive.[50] Some officers' failure to display or show their police identification number or warrant card despite being required to do so by the Police General Orders is seen to be a breakdown of accountability.[51] The existing watchdog lacks independence, and its functioning relies on police cooperation.

Carrie Lam to step down and implement full universal suffrage[52]

The Chief Executive of Hong Kong and many other politicians lack legitimacy due to the absence of a democratic mandate.

With regard to your question, the first point seems the most relevant. Since the protesters are asking for the bill to be withdrawn permanently, something which hasn't happened yet, the protests still have the same basis as they did initially in that regard. The other demands follow from the protest and the government's response, but the first reflects the original aim of the protests.


In answer to your comment question:

The problem with the current version of "extradition" is that instead of being evaluated in a Hong Kong court, a representative of the Chinese government is simply allowed to approve extradition for crimes including things like protesting the Chinese government. If I may ask, what are you basing this on? Is there any offcial document that says so?

This is something that has been a concern, not just in the media but also from the European Union's point of view. Quoting from the European Parliament resolution of 18 July 2019 on the situation in Hong Kong (2019/2732(RSP)):

D. whereas the proposed bill could facilitate the rendition to China of people for political reasons and their exposure to a judicial system with serious human rights failings; whereas under the proposed amendments, the Hong Kong court would not have the clear, explicit jurisdiction and legal obligation to examine the various human rights involved in cases being handled by the courts in mainland China or in other countries;

The above resolution is dated July 2019. Earlier in May 2019, Reuters reported on the EU expressing concern stating:

Critics, including foreign governments, legal and business groups, have expressed fears the law could erode Hong Kong’s rule of law and leave individuals, including foreign nationals passing through the city, vulnerable to being sent back for an unfair trial on the mainland.


My question is: has anyone seen any evidence that the modified bill grants the central government the power to do things that concern the protesters?

Yes, section 1.4 of the bill deals with who may be surrendered:

A person in Hong Kong who is wanted in a prescribed place for prosecution, or for the imposition or enforcement of a sentence, in respect of a relevant offence against the law of that place may be arrested and surrendered to that place in accordance with the provisions of this Ordinance.

I did not find, nor does the above state, that the offense has to be an offense in Hong Kong. As such, without having seen anything in the bill to the contrary, the Chinese court system could ask for the extradition of an individual in Hong Kong on the basis of this proposed law.

  • Thanks for your reply. But perhaps you misunderstood a little bit... I 'll edit my question to highlight what I want to ask. – user27595 Aug 8 at 22:21
  • @FMP I added a bit, though there's probably a better (more complete) answer out there if someone has studied the bill more carefully. ;) – JJJ Aug 8 at 22:36
  • Thanks. Just trying my luck here. – user27595 Aug 8 at 22:44
  • @FMP yea, I guess it'd be better to reflect your question in bold in the title. Basically you're asking what evidence there is that the bill allows extraditions to Mainland China. That's a good objective question, nontrivial, so it should get some more attention and it will probably get more Google hits too if you focus on those key words: evidence, Hong Kong protests, extradition to Mainland China. – JJJ Aug 8 at 22:48

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy