Higher Education Restructuring and Academic Freedom in Hong Kong

A former British colony, Hong Kong was reunited with the People's Republic of China in 1997 under the ‘one country two systems’ model. The Hong Kong Basic Law contains detailed provisions for academic freedom, ensuring that local academics enjoy far greater freedom than their counterparts in mainland China. Hong Kong academics and the broader community have also publicly supported academic freedom when they perceived it to be under threat. The authors argue, however, that the recent restructuring of Hong Kong's universities may ultimately pose a greater threat than any explicit interference from the local or national governments.

Download Full-text

One Country, Two Systems

Chinese Studies ◽

10.1093/obo/9780199920082-0009 ◽

2013 ◽

Author(s):

Joseph Cheng

Keyword(s):

Hong Kong ◽

Social Systems ◽

Mainland China ◽

The State ◽

Deng Xiaoping ◽

Systems Model ◽

The People ◽

Two Systems ◽

One Country Two Systems ◽

The One

Deng Xiaoping (b. 1903–d. 1997) secured power and launched a policy program of economic reforms and an opening to the external world at the end of 1978. He also initiated a peace offensive toward Taiwan, and had to face a new challenge in China’s Hong Kong policy. In January 1979, the Chinese authorities announced a nine-point proposal for solving the Taiwan issue and guaranteed that after reunification, the existing economic and social systems, as well as the way of life, would remain unchanged. Subsequently, the new Constitution of the People’s Republic of China promulgated in December 1982 contains a new provision; Article 31 states, “The state may establish special administrative regions (SAR) when necessary” (available online). In March 1979, Sir Murray MacLehose (b. 1917–d. 2000), then Governor of Hong Kong, visited Beijing. He met Deng Xiaoping and formally raised “the New Territories lease” question. Chinese leaders gradually began to understand that the Hong Kong future issue could no longer be delayed. The view of recovery gained a distinct edge; Liao Chengzhi (b. 1908–d. 1983), head of the newly established Hong Kong and Macau Affairs Office of the State Council, was given the responsibility of planning for the recovery of the territory. In April 1981, he proposed the “one country, two systems” model policy, which demonstrated the Chinese leadership’s liberation in thinking at that time. The leadership was eager to show the world that China could govern Hong Kong better than the British colonial administration; it wanted the Hong Kong model to have a significant demonstration effect on Taiwan. The policy played a key role in maintaining the confidence of Hong Kong people, and facilitated Chinese leaders’ success in the Sino-British negotiations on the territory’s future. In the decade and a half since Hong Kong’s return to China, the “one country, two systems” model has been working quite well. Stability and prosperity have been maintained; the rule of law and the freedoms enjoyed by the people have been largely intact. Hong Kong’s relative international economic competitiveness has been in slow decline, and the economy has become increasingly dependent on that of Mainland China.

Download Full-text

What model for extradition between Hong Kong and mainland China? A comparison between the 2019 (withdrawn) amendment to Hong Kong extradition law and the European Arrest Warrant

New Journal of European Criminal Law ◽

10.1177/2032284420972190 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 11 (4) ◽

pp. 504-523

Author(s):

Yanhong Yin ◽

Irene Wieczorek

Keyword(s):

Hong Kong ◽

Mainland China ◽

Arrest Warrant ◽

Republic Of China ◽

Domestic Legislation ◽

European Arrest Warrant ◽

One Country Two Systems ◽

The One ◽

International Systems

This article provides an analysis of the bill proposed in 2019 to amend Hong Kong Fugitive Offenders Ordinance (FOO), Hong Kong domestic legislation on extradition. The FOO Amendment Bill introduced the possibility of, and detailed the conditions for, surrendering fugitives from Hong Kong to other regions of the People’s Republic of China (PRC), among which, controversially, mainland China. After multiple protests, the proposal was withdrawn. It nonetheless represents the first attempt of introducing a legal basis for extradition between Hong Kong and mainland China, and it is thus deserving of close scrutiny. The article describes the unique constitutional setting in which this amendment was proposed, Hong Kong and mainland China being two regions of the same sovereign country which have two radically different legal systems under the ‘One Country, Two Systems’ principle. It compares the proposed system for extradition between these two regions with the rules regulating extradition between Hong Kong and third states, and with international systems for surrender, including the European Arrest Warrant and the UN Model Extradition Treaty. It shows that the FOO Amendment Bill would have put in place a surrender system in some respects less advanced and subject to more obstacles than standard international extradition Treaties and than the system regulating extradition between Hong Kong and third countries. This is the case, for instance, for the rules on penalty thresholds and on double criminality. Conversely, in other respects, it would have been even more advanced (and with fewer obstacles) than the European Arrest Warrant, one of the most advanced systems of international surrender. This is notably the case for the rules regulating extradition of Hong Kong residents to other parts of the PRC. These latter were, however, among the more controversial aspects of the proposal. The article also discusses the challenges that reintroducing a similar proposal would face in the future, including in light of current political and legal developments – notably the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress’s July 2020 adoption of the ‘Hong Kong National Security Law’. It suggests that one avenue to smoothen surrender proceedings between Hong Kong and mainland China would be taking a procedural rather than a substantive approach, namely by increasing the role of courts and decreasing the role of executive bodies in the extradition procedures.

Download Full-text

The Hangover after the Handover

10.3828/liverpool/9781789621952.001.0001 ◽

2020 ◽

Author(s):

Helena Y.W. Wu

Keyword(s):

Hong Kong ◽

Social Relations ◽

Real Life ◽

Cultural Representations ◽

Republic Of China ◽

British Colony ◽

One Country Two Systems ◽

The One ◽

The Cold War ◽

Interdisciplinary Study

As a former British colony (1842-1997) and now a Special Administrative Region (from 1997 onwards) practicing the “One Country Two Systems” policy with the People’s Republic of China, Hong Kong has witnessed at all times how relations are formed, dissolved and refashioned amidst changing powers, identities and narratives. With an eye to real-life events and cultural representations, the book presents an interdisciplinary study of “local relations” through the lens of the things and places that stand or that have once stood for Hong Kong’s “local”. The book argues that the signification of the local and the constellation of local relations embody the continuous acts of deterritorialization and reterritorialization beyond the political arena and through the cultural and social relations formed between cultural icons and urban dwellers. In its post-handover, post-hangover years where Hong Kong’s local multiples by appearance and connotation as in the 2014 Umbrella Movement and the 2019 Anti-Extradition Bill Protests, the book proposes lessons to learn from the city in face of the discourses of nationalism, globalization and localism. As more are to unfold, the book opens up manifold postcolonial perspectives by the agency of both human and nonhuman to confront and interrogate the contemporary experiences—unprecedented since the Cold War era—shared by Hong Kong and the world where established beliefs and systems are continuously challenged in the postmillennial era. After all, what does it mean, or take, to live in post-1997 Hong Kong when the local, global and national are constantly given new meanings?

Download Full-text

Academic Freedom and Critical Speech in Hong Kong: China's Response to Occupy Central and the Future of 'One Country, Two Systems'

10.31228/osf.io/h9wgx ◽

2017 ◽

Author(s):

Carole J. Petersen ◽

Alvin Y.H. Cheung

Keyword(s):

Hong Kong ◽

Academic Freedom ◽

Freedom Of Expression ◽

Governance Structure ◽

People’S Republic Of China ◽

People's Republic Of China ◽

Republic Of China ◽

Joint Declaration ◽

Basic Law ◽

Dramatic Decline

Since July 1997, when Hong Kong was reunited with the People’s Republic of China, academics in the Special Administrative Region of Hong Kong have fiercely protected their right to engage in critical speech and practice academic freedom. They have been aided by Hong Kong’s regional constitution (known as the “Basic Law”), which incorporates international human rights treaties into domestic law and contains unusually detailed protections for freedom of expression, academic freedom, and educational autonomy. These constitutional provisions originated in the Sino- British Joint Declaration, a bilateral treaty that was duly registered with the United Nations. Nonetheless, this article documents a dramatic decline in academic freedom in Hong Kong since the last comprehensive study of the topic was published in 2006. This is partly because the Chinese Communist Party has made a concerted effort to punish Hong Kong academics and student organizations for their role in the Umbrella Movement and other pro-democracy movements. Equally important, there have been significant changes to the governance structure in Hong Kong’s universities over the past decade, creating overly-centralized universities that are far too vulnerable to outside interference. These developments have already damaged the quality and international reputation of Hong Kong’s universities, which will ultimately hurt not only Hong Kong but also the People’s Republic of China.

Download Full-text

Protests Decentralised: How technology enabled civil disobedience by Hong Kong anti-extradition bill protesters

10.31228/osf.io/efvwn ◽

2020 ◽

Author(s):

Janis Wong

Keyword(s):

Hong Kong ◽

Mainland China ◽

Civil Disobedience ◽

Use Of Technology ◽

Basic Law ◽

One Country Two Systems ◽

Frame Work ◽

Closing The Gap ◽

The One ◽

Criminal Matters

The proposal of the Fugitive Offenders and Mutual Legal Assis- tance in Criminal Matters Legislation (Amendment) Bill 2019 (2019年逃犯及刑事事宜相互法律協助法例(修訂)條例草案) (FOMLA) by the Hong Kong government, aimed at closing the gap for extradition to Taiwan, Macau, and Mainland China, sparked dozens of city-wide protests as demonstrators feared it would erode Hong Kong’s legal system, including rights to privacy and data protection, under the Hong Kong Basic Law (HKBL).Facilitated by technology, the leaderless, decentralised demonstrations furthered the anti-extradition bill protests by establishing legitimacy, participation, trust, and privacy be- tween citizens under the ‘One Country, Two Systems’ frame- work. Based on these themes, this paper assesses how Hong Kong protesters found novel uses of technology such as Tele- gram, Apple Airdrop, cash and untraceable transactions, LIHKG Forum, and protest livestreams to self-organise, demon- strate their support for the movement, and maintain its mo- mentum. The protesters’ use of technology also shaped Twit- ter, Facebook, and Youtube policies, removing bot accounts and state-sponsored disinformation from their platforms.Learning from the city’s past protests, arrests, and convic- tions, this paper illustrates how Hong Kong protesters trans- formed their use of technology as a means to protect their personal identities, preserve their rights enshrined under the HKBL, and strive for democratic freedoms.

Download Full-text

The Law of the People's Republic of China on Safeguarding National Security in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region

International Legal Materials ◽

10.1017/ilm.2020.64 ◽

2020 ◽

pp. 1-17

Author(s):

Simon N.M. Young

Keyword(s):

Hong Kong ◽

National Security ◽

Chief Executive ◽

People’S Republic Of China ◽

Special Administrative Region ◽

People's Republic Of China ◽

Republic Of China ◽

Administrative Region ◽

Basic Law ◽

The Law

The Law of the People's Republic of China on Safeguarding National Security in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (NSL) was passed on June 30, 2020 by the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress (NPCSC). It did not have immediate direct effect in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (HKSAR). After consulting the Committee for the Basic Law of the HKSAR (BLC) and the Government of the HKSAR (HKSARG), the NPCSC added the NSL to Annex III of The Basic Law of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China (Basic Law) before the Chief Executive of the HKSAR (Chief Executive) promulgated the NSL for local application. All this happened on June 30, enabling the NSL to enter into force at 11 p.m., just ahead of the twenty-third anniversary of the establishment of the HKSAR on July 1, 2020.

Download Full-text

Jie Huang: Interregional Recognition and Enforcement of Civil and Commercial Judgments

Asian Journal of Comparative Law ◽

10.1515/asjcl-2014-0069 ◽

2014 ◽

Vol 9 (1) ◽

Author(s):

Tan Lee Cheng

Keyword(s):

Hong Kong ◽

Comparative Study ◽

Mainland China ◽

Status Quo ◽

The Us ◽

Two Systems ◽

The Status ◽

Recognition And Enforcement ◽

One Country Two Systems ◽

The One

AbstractReview of “Interregional Recognition and Enforcement of Civil and Commercial Judgments” by Professor Jie Huang (Oxford and Portland, Oregon: Hart Publishing, 2014) which analyses the status quo of judgment recognition and enforcement in the Mainland China, Macao and Hong Kong under the ‘One Country, Two Systems’ regime. The book also presents a comparative study of the interregional recognition and enforcement of judgments in the US and EU.

Download Full-text

Budget oversight in territorial autonomies: A comparative analysis of Hong Kong and Macao

International Review of Administrative Sciences ◽

10.1177/00208523211033816 ◽

2021 ◽

pp. 002085232110338

Author(s):

Brian C.H. Fong

Keyword(s):

Hong Kong ◽

Civil Society ◽

Comparative Studies ◽

Survey Methodology ◽

State Level ◽

Sovereign State ◽

Systems Model ◽

One Country Two Systems ◽

The Media ◽

The One

Traditionally, comparative budgeting scholars have focused on analysing budget oversight at the sovereign state level. Budget oversight at the territorial autonomy level remains largely under-investigated. Drawing on the Open Budget Survey methodology, this study is a pioneering attempt to compare the budget oversight institutions and practices in Hong Kong and Macao under the ‘one country, two systems’ model. This study finds that the varying practices of budget oversight of Hong Kong and Macao are the consequence of their different bases of opposition politics, including democratic opposition, the media and civil society. This study extends the research focus of existing comparative budgeting literature from sovereign states to territorial autonomies. Thus, it has important implications for budget oversight analysis and policy worldwide. Points for practitioners This article uses comparative studies of Hong Kong and Macao to illustrate how different bases of opposition politics have led to varying practices of budget oversight. For policymakers, the lesson from the comparative studies is that the rise of democratic opposition, the media and civil society will bring about pressures for budget oversight. More policy learning is necessary for policymakers across democracies and semi-democracies to share the experiences of handling the politics of budget oversight.

Download Full-text