Hong Kong code of conduct will oblige legislators to ‘sincerely support' Beijing
The proposal for the new code, introduced on Wednesday, included tiered penalties for legislators who breach the code, including suspension without payment for the most serious offences.
It stipulated that legislators must 'sincerely support the central government's overall jurisdiction while securing the Hong Kong SAR's [special administrative region's] high degree of autonomy', as well as the principle of 'patriots administering Hong Kong', referring to election reforms which ensure that only pro-Beijing candidates can run.
'They should not intentionally vilify the governance credibility of the chief executive and the SAR government, nor should they deliberately undermine or weaken the effectiveness of executive-led governance,' it said.
The president of the legislative council of Hong Kong, Andrew Leung, told media the new rules wouldn't restrict legislators from speaking up, but they must be careful to 'not cross the red line', Hong Kong Free Press reported.
Hong Kong's governance system has undergone major overhauls in recent years, after a crackdown on the city's pro-democracy movement and politicians saw major interventions by the government in Beijing.
Every major democratic party has disbanded or begun the process of disbandment, and thousands of people – including politicians and activists – have been prosecuted under national security laws.
A separate proposal this week flags new prison rules which include only allowing visits pre-approved by the correctional services department, would empower the department to consider restrictions on clergy visits, and seek rulings to bar visits by specific legal representatives to imprisoned clients.
'In the past, some people have abused the visiting mechanism and conducted visits in the name of 'humanitarian support',' said the amendment proposal. 'In fact, they are using soft means to influence prisoners, intending to incite them to resist the supervision of the correctional services department, arouse their hatred towards the central government and the SAR government, and even make them become potential risks to national security and public safety after returning to society.'
The crackdown on Hong Kong's pro-democracy population has been widely criticised by human rights and legal groups. Senior foreign judges have left or resigned from Hong Kong's appeal court, with several specifically citing concerns over the new environment. Hong Kong authorities reject the claims.
In an interview published by an academic journal this week, the UK's Brenda Marjorie Hale, who quietly declined an offer to extend her post on the Hong Kong court in 2021, said she was now 'all the more convinced that it was the right thing to do'.
'Because, as things have developed, the National Security Law has taken over the Basic Law,' she said, referring to Hong Kong's mini constitution.
'Even though the foreign judges are not likely to be asked to sit on national security cases, they are being asked to give respectability to a system that despite the best efforts ... are not going to succeed.'
Additional research by Lillian Yang and Jason Tzu Kuan Lu
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
3 hours ago
- The Guardian
Leaders of Russia and China snub Brics summit in sign group's value may be waning
Russia and China are not sending their leaders to a Brics summit starting in Brazil on Sunday in what may be a sign that the group's recent expansion has reduced its ideological value to the two founding members. China's 72-year-old leader, Xi Jinping, has attended Brics summits for the past 12 years. No official reason has been given for sending the premier, Li Qiang, other than scheduling conflicts. Russia's president, Vladimir Putin, is facing an international criminal court arrest warrant and may have decided not to travel to Rio to avoid embarrassing the summit hosts, who are signatories to the ICC statute. Mongolia has been in an acrimonious legal dispute with the ICC after it did not act on the warrant when Putin visited last year. Putin abandoned his plans to attend the 2023 Brics summit in South Africa after the president, Cyril Ramaphosa, was unable to offer any guarantees regarding Putin's arrest or otherwise under the warrant. Putin is accused by the ICC of being instrumental in abducting and deporting tens of thousands of Ukrainian children. Brics, often described as the developing world's alternative to the G7 group of nations, has undergone a recent rapid expansion, but in the process has diluted its coherence as a body offering an ideological alternative to the western capitalism represented by the G7. Its founding members were Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa, but the group last year expanded to include Indonesia, Iran, Egypt, Ethiopia, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, countries in various stages of economic development and with varying levels of antagonism towards the west. The additions skewed the body towards autocracies, leaving Brazil, South Africa and India uneasy. Brazil has said the Brics grouping is just one sign of an emerging new world order. Speaking recently at the Overseas Development Institute, the former Brazilian foreign minister and current ambassador to London, Antonio Patriota, said Donald Trump's 'America first' foreign policy would move the world order away from the US as a superpower and towards a multipolar world with power spread more evenly. 'The US, through its policies, including on tariffs and sovereignty, is accelerating the transition to multipolarity in different ways,' Patriota said. He added that new alliances were likely to develop that would challenge the current distribution of power. 'It's difficult to argue today that Europe converges with the US policy on trade or on security or on sustaining democracy, for example. So where there used to be one unique western pole, now perhaps there are two.' Brazil, an emerging diplomatic powerhouse in the global south, may benefit from Russia and China's leaders being absent this weekend, since it wants to use the summit to champion a theme of inclusive global governance reform. It would not want the focus to be solely on criticism of western double standards in the Middle East and Ukraine. The hosts have a set of concrete proposals: the green energy transition, cooperation on vaccines and expanding most-favoured nation status to all countries in the World Trade Organization. Patriota denied that new multipolarity – a world in which many different cooperative alliances are formed – was inherently unstable, arguing it was unilateralism that had been the more disruptive force. 'There is strong support for preserving multilateralism, but that does not mean that we need to preserve it as it stands,' he said. 'Brazil is arguing we shouldn't wait for another world war, or for something of that nature, or scale, to start reforming. Unless there is a strong movement towards reform now, we run the risk of reaching a tipping point.' But Dr Christopher Sabatini, a senior fellow for Latin America at Chatham House, has argued Brazil will struggle to impose an agenda on the Brics. 'Brics was an unwieldy group before it opened its membership – even if the stated goals of the emerging-economy alliance were initially laudable and long-overdue,' he wrote recently. 'While UN security council expansion was once a stated goal, China was always likely to block India's accession to the body. Brazil's commitments to reduce carbon emissions were also likely to collide with Saudi Arabia, Russia and the UAE's oil- and gas-based economic interests (though Brazil has doubled down on oil production and exports despite its public rhetoric over climate change).' India is also opposing the idea of a Brics currency as an alternative to the dollar. Nevertheless, Xi's decision to stay away is puzzling, given the US's retreat from its global leadership role has provided a golden opportunity for China to pick up the mantle. Dr Samir Puri, the director of the centre for global governance at Chatham House, questioned whether a transition to a new multilateralism was happening. 'It seems that the ending of one international order does not necessarily beget the sudden arrival of another,' he said. 'The vacuums created by the US's sudden retreat from multilateralism and global governance will not be automatically filled by others.'
The Guardian
9 hours ago
- The Guardian
Trump to start TikTok sale talks with China, he says, with deal ‘pretty much' reached
Donald Trump has said he will start talking to China on Monday or Tuesday about a possible TikTok deal. The United States president said the US 'pretty much' had a deal on the sale of the TikTok short-video app. 'I think we're gonna start Monday or Tuesday ... talking to China – perhaps President Xi or one of his representatives – but we would, we pretty much have a deal,' Trump told reporters on Air Force One on Friday. Trump also said he might visit Xi Jinping in China or the Chinese leader may visit the US. The two leaders last month invited each other to visit their respective countries. Trump last month also extended a deadline to 17 September for China-based ByteDance to divest the US assets of TikTok, a social media app with 170 million users in the US. A deal had been in the works this spring to spin off TikTok's US operations into a new US-based firm, majority-owned and operated by US investors, but it was put on hold after China indicated it would not approve it following Trump's announcements of steep tariffs on Chinese goods. Trump said on Friday the US would probably have to get a deal approved by China. Asked how confident he was that Beijing would agree to a deal, he said: 'I'm not confident, but I think so. President Xi and I have a great relationship, and I think it's good for them. I think the deal is good for China and it's good for us.' Trump's June extension was his third executive order to delay the ban or sale of TikTok and gave ByteDance another 90 days to find a buyer or be banned in the US. Trump's first executive order giving TikTok a reprieve came on his first day in office – just three days after the supreme court ruled to uphold the ban. Trump issued the second executive order in April. The deadline for the sale or ban was then set for 19 June. Now, TikTok has until September. In a statement issued the same day, TikTok thanked Trump and JD Vance. 'We are grateful for President Trump's leadership', the statement said, and TikTok would 'continue to work with Vice President Vance's Office' to come to an agreement. Democratic senator Mark Warner, vice-chair of the Senate intelligence committee, accused Trump of sidestepping the law with an executive order. With reporting by Dara Kerr
Telegraph
9 hours ago
- Telegraph
Starmer's Government is grossly naive about the threat posed by China
The Labour government's China policy is a shambles. It did not list China as a top threat under its new foreign-influence rules – even though the government admits that China has undermined Britain's economic security and engaged in espionage and acts intended to undermine democracy. The government's failure to apply these rules means that China, and China-controlled entities, do not have to register their activities with the British government. Those who lobbied against designating China as a top-tier threat argued that it would have a chilling effect on closer economic ties. The China lobby carried the day. It's part of a pattern that sees London determined not to offend China ahead of Keir Starmer's rumoured trip to Beijing later this year. 'China will continue to play a vital role in supporting the UK's secure growth,' David Lammy, the foreign secretary, said last week in a speech announcing the country's new engagement policy, the China Audit, tucked inside the UK's National Security Strategy. The government seems set on emulating the 'golden years,' when David Cameron and China's leader Xi Jinping shared a pint at a British pub, even as the danger posed by China grows more pronounced. 'Cooperate where we can, compete where we need to, and challenge where we must,' coos Labour, but there's little challenge. Why has Labour gone off the rails with its China policy? Starmer's background as a human rights lawyer and Labour's historical concern for human rights have fallen victim to a mistaken belief that China will somehow save the British economy. Starmer is right to focus on economic growth. But he's looking for it in the wrong place. Despite being the world's second-largest economy, China registers below France as a British trading partner, and remains an insignificant investor. China dominates trade between the two countries, with its almost £70 billion exports to Britain, more than double the £29.7 billion Britain sends to the People's Republic. Britain's exports to China fell by £3.8 billion, or 12 per cent, in 2024 and accounted for only 3.4 per cent of the country's shipments abroad. The EU and US made up 63.8 per cent of the total. The investment picture is even less promising, with Sino-British investments well under one percent of total investments. With its economy faltering under a sustained property crash, China hardly seems like the market of the future, notwithstanding the boasts of Rachel Reeves, who says she signed deals during a trip to Beijing in January that would bring an additional £600 million in benefits to Britain over the next five years. Britain has proven unwilling or unable to hold China to account for breaching its treaty obligations under the Sino-British Joint Declaration. Britain handed Hong Kong to China in exchange for a promise that the colony would enjoy its tradition of freedom and would be protected by the common-law system. China shredded that agreement. In the five years since Beijing imposed a vague and sweeping National Security Law on the city, nearly 2,000 people have been jailed on political charges. Newspapers have been forcibly shuttered, and the last remaining pro-democracy party this week announced it has been forced to disband. Jimmy Lai, a newspaper publisher and British citizen, remains in solitary confinement in Hong Kong, jailed for more than 1,600 days because of his commitment to free speech and his desire to uphold the values that Britain bequeathed to its former colony. British diplomats have not even been able to meet with Mr Lai to provide consular access. In London, officials prepare to approve a mega-embassy, China's largest diplomatic outpost in Europe, despite opposition ranging from London residents to US politicians. The irony is that this will do little for the economy all while undermining the very national security that it's designed to protect. During her trip to Beijing in January, Rachel Reeves published an opinion piece in The Times titled, 'Choosing not to engage with China is no choice at all.' That's setting up a strawman. No one is suggesting that engagement with China should be cut off. But engagement should uphold the British values of freedom, liberty, and the rule of law rather than rewarding China for its lawless behaviour.
