Chief Executive Carrie Lam arrives for a meeting at the Legislative Council on May 22. Pro-democracy lawmakers, businesses and foreign envoys have expressed their concerns about proposed amendments to Hong Kong’s extradition laws. Photo: AP
Discussions on the presently hotly debated extradition bill were sparked by the high-profile case of Poon Hiu-wing, who was allegedly murdered by her boyfriend during their holiday in Taiwan last February.
The boyfriend, then 19-year-old Chan Tong-kai, has already been charged and sentenced for money laundering. However, the Hong Kong authorities have hit a roadblock with regard to the murder case against him, because there is no existing extradition agreement between Hong Kong and Taiwan that sets out the jurisdictional arrangements. The existing extradition laws are also insufficient to send Chan and other fugitives back to wherever they are alleged to have committed the offence.
With the enactment of the proposed bill, the Hong Kong government will have the power to transfer fugitives back to not only Taiwan, but also Macau and – most controversial for some – the mainland.
There are clearly two main interests to balance: first, the safety of ordinary, innocent citizens who are going about their daily lives, and second, the fugitives who are feeling victimised by the possibility of standing trial in the jurisdiction where they have committed a crime.
One side of the story is the argument that the human rights of Hong Kong residents may be endangered but, on the other side, some openly support the bill.
Logical reasoning tells us that the extradition bill is necessary to ensure the safety of all Hong Kong residents. Whichever side a person is on, it reflects that person’s own position and the consequences they may face once the bill is passed.
One may argue: why would any ordinary, innocent citizen feel threatened by the bill if they have done nothing wrong and only work diligently to contribute to society and support their family? Exporting fugitives out of Hong Kong would undeniably allow them to continue to do so and be at greater ease.
A fresh law often appears to be infeasible and inflexible at the time of enactment, but a fine-tuning process is inevitable and necessary, in order to fit the law to the culture and needs of a society.
Barry Chin, vice chairman, Hong Kong Legal Exchange Foundation
Trams are stranded as thousands of people block the streets during a protest against a controversial anti-subversion law based on Article 23, in Hong Kong on July 1, 2003. Photo: AFP
In row over extradition law, echoes of Article 23
People who are unsure about the disastrous proposal to amend Hong Kong’s extradition laws that is being pushed by Beijing should consider the pamphlet brought out by Michael Davis, then professor of law at Chinese University, in response to the Hong Kong government’s efforts to enact national security legislation in line with Article 23 of the Basic Law in 2002.
He made very clear comparisons with foreign law, which would clearly identify the falsehoods in the claims of the Carrie Lam administration about today’s proposed changes to the extradition law.
In that context, applicable today, Davis identified the problems inherent in bringing the mainland’s “legal” concepts into Hong Kong. Could the chief executive object to a request for extradition to the mainland of someone accused of “theft of state secrets”?
How would our common law system handle extradition requests from Beijing, which has previously used interpretations by the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress to challenge Hong Kong court judgements, such as in the infamous “right of abode” case in 1999?
Davis was among those who suggested the publication of a “white bill” for consultation, a move our chief executive would perhaps not welcome, given her propensity to follow a mainland style of leadership.
