The constitution, basic law or other laws of any country or self-governing territory give its administrative head, be it a president, prime minister or chief executive, emergency powers for dealing with emergency situations such as natural disasters, social disorder or invasions. A state of emergency might be called martial law, military law or various other terms, but there is not much difference when it comes to the dictatorial nature of such powers.
The crisis in Hong Kong shows no sign of abating. Rumor has it that after the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) leaders’ annual Beidaihe meeting ended on Aug. 16, CCP General Secretary Xi Jinping (習近平) remarked, with regard to Hong Kong: “Whoever caused the trouble will have to fix it.”
Evidently, he does not want to take the blame for the unrest or anything that goes wrong when trying to quell it. No matter who should take responsibility, the person under the highest pressure is certainly Hong Kong Chief Executive Carrie Lam (林鄭月娥).
Commentators originally expected that the Beijing government would dispatch the People’s Liberation Army or the People’s Armed Police to resolve the Hong Kong problem based on the relevant articles of Chinese laws governing the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, namely articles 6, 14 and 29 of the Garrison Law and Article 18 of the Basic Law.
This threat was brought to the fore in 2017, when then-Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs spokesperson Lu Kang (陸慷) stated that the 1984 Sino-British Joint Declaration on Hong Kong was just a historical document. These conditions would make it relatively easy for China to renege on the promise that it made in the declaration to maintain “one country, two systems” in Hong Kong.
Many members of the international community have expressed their concern about the situation in Hong Kong, and on Aug. 26, G7 leaders issued an end-of-summit statement in which they reaffirmed the “existence and importance” of the Sino-British Joint Declaration.
Also during the past few days, an old law dating from the days of British colonial rule over Hong Kong has come to the fore, namely the Emergency Regulations Ordinance, which allows Hong Kong’s “chief executive in council” — originally meaning the British governor — to exercise dictatorial powers.
This ordinance was enacted in 1922, at a time of destitution and social unrest after the end of World War I, when Hong Kong was hit by a seamen’s strike that had the support of then-president of the Republic of China Sun Yat-sen (孫逸仙) and his military government in Guangzhou.
The strike paralyzed Hong Kong’s sea transport, and after the British governor imposed martial law, it grew into a general strike by 100,000 workers, three of whom were shot dead in the Sha Tin massacre. The strike eventually ended after the British consul-general in Guangzhou stepped in to negotiate.
The 1922 seamen’s strike was followed by the Canton-Hong Kong Strike of 1925–1926 and a wave of other strikes in various parts of China. To be sure, Beijing does not want a similar chain reaction to happen again.
The 1922 Emergency Regulations Ordinance gave tremendous powers to the chief executive, who was then the governor. These include the power to amend or suspend existing laws, take control of people, things and land, appropriate property and search premises, and even to unilaterally impose any penalty or sanction short of the death penalty.
Section 2, Subsection 3 of the ordinance further states: “Any regulations made under the provisions of this section shall continue in force until repealed by order of the Chief Executive in Council.”
This ordinance was enacted a long time ago, and has since been amended nine times, reflecting the major changes that have taken place in Hong Kong over the years.
Notably, it has been amended since the UK handed Hong Kong back to China in 1997, showing that both the UK and China have continued to recognize the validity of the ordinance.
If Lam assumes dictatorial powers based on the Emergency Regulations Ordinance, rather than the Basic Law or the Garrison Law, the UK, as the originator of the ordinance, might find itself in an embarrassing position.
It would also be awkward for Beijing, because it would mean that China recognizes the legitimacy of the legal system of British-ruled Hong Kong, which is part and parcel of the “two systems” aspect of the “one country, two systems” formula.
Any political solution for Hong Kong’s current predicament must involve concessions by Beijing, but Xi seems to be shrugging off the problem. That is how it looks, but could his attitude really mean that a “hardline solution” is in the offing?
HoonTing is a political commentator.
Translated by Julian Clegg
The White House’s decision to take a 9.9 percent stake in Intel Corp is looking like very shrewd business indeed. Since the government bought in at US$20.47 a share last August, the US chipmaker’s surging stock price has delivered the US a US$43 billion return. One of the reasons the investment has so far proved so sound is that the White House has made sure of it. According to The Wall Street Journal, Howard personally pushed deals on Intel’s behalf with some of the most lucrative clients imaginable. They include Nvidia Corp, the company at the heart of the AI
The Ministry of the Interior, working with the navy and coast guard, is organizing Taiwan’s first joint exercise simulating escort tankers carrying liquefied natural gas (LNG) and oil through a Chinese blockade. The drills simulate fuel transport along three maritime corridors leading toward Japan, the Philippines and the US. Deputy Minister of the Interior Sawyer Mars (馬士元) said that a blockade of the Taiwan Strait would amount to “almost a 100 percent blockade of the regional energy supply.” Minister of National Defense Wellington Koo said planning to counter a blockade is standard practice in Taipei. While the exercise is limited in
A single photograph can cut through a lot of noise, but it can also be used to misrepresent the truth. At the very least, it can concentrate the mind on something that requires further investigation. On Monday last week, Ma Ying-jeou Foundation CEO Tai Hsia-ling (戴遐齡) and former National Security Council secretary-general King Pu-tsung (金溥聰) held a news conference in which they showed a photograph of former foundation CEO Hsiao Hsu-tsen (蕭旭岑), now Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) deputy chairman. In the image Hsiao is seated next to Xiamen Taiwan Businessmen Association chairman Han Ying-huan (韓螢煥). The two men were holding
I first met Professor Ray Jiing (井迎瑞) as a film and documentary student at Shih Hsin University’s (SHU) Department of Radio Television and Film in 1988. The following year, he went on to become the director of the Chinese Taipei Film Archive — forerunner of the Taiwan Film and Audiovisual Institute (TFAI). Over his eight-year tenure, Jiing rescued and restored over 200 classic Taiwanese films. In 1997, he established the Graduate Institute of Studies in Documentary and Film Archiving at Tainan National University of the Arts (TNNUA), and I joined the program in his third cohort of students. Beyond a
RSS