Tag: Carrie Lam

Letter of Covid Frustration

A Hong Kong resident has written an open letter to Chief Executive Carrie Lam – and posted it across social media – which pretty much sums up most Hongkongers’ frustrations with the government’s inept and incompetent handling of the Covid19 pandemic.

“Dear Chief Executive

I am writing to express not only my dissatisfaction but also my incomprehension and, frankly, disgust at your policies for dealing with Covid in Hong Kong.

Time and time again you announce a policy, often contradictory to other, recent, announcements that fly in the face of science, medicine and the public good.

You, personally, have taken Hong Kong from zero to the world’s worst outbreak in under 30 days and this is, solely, a result of your indecisiveness and poor decision making. I find it very difficult to believe that your scientific and medical advisors have steered you into this course of action, one that flies in the face of the evidence from the rest of the world.

You have opened hair salons but closed beaches – please explain the thought process behind this to me.

You place no restrictions upon public transport, including the densely packed MTR, but a family of 3 have to sit at two separate tables in a restaurant despite living in the same apartment. How does this prevent the spread of the virus?

Arriving in Hong Kong and testing negative means that a traveller must spend 14 days, at their own expense, in a quarantine hotel (assuming that they can even get a booking) yet arriving and testing positive sees one carted off to a government paid-for facility and released after a negative test on the 6th day. Please, if you can, explain the logic of this to me.

Why do we have 9 countries on the flight ban list when their situations are less severe than that of Hong Kong? Can you explain how it is more dangerous for Hong Kong to let people come home than it is for us to be able to travel?

Can you justify to me why, as I look to travel home to the UK to see my father for what may well be the very last time, I need to be looking at an absolute minimum of 6 weeks away from my family in Hong Kong? Why the travel and cost constraints that you are imposing mean that I can’t even take them with me?

Why have you not worked harder to get the population vaccinated, particularly the elderly, whilst making those of us who have suffered restrictions on our lives? Why haven’t the consumption vouchers been linked to vaccination status?

You know the answer to these questions, we know that you know and you know that we know – so why, for the love of all that is decent, do you persist with this idiocy? If you, truly, cannot see the errors in your decision making to date then you have absolutely no business being in any position of power.

Your actions to date have seen hundreds of, preventable, deaths, thousands of people lose their jobs and livelihoods, businesses close, mental health decline across all demographics, children’s education suffers, and the diminishment of Hong Kong’s reputation as a business centre and a city of stable government. You have done more, in 18 months, to damage Hong’s people, economy and reputation than any bad actor could ever dream to do, and you are supposed to be on our side.

You must, surely, understand that zero Covid, whether ‘dynamic’ or otherwise is an impossibility? If you haven’t, by now, accepted the advice from medical professionals that this virus is never going away then you must, by implication, be deliberately choosing ignorance. If you have not, by now, accepted that we need to start living, fully, with the virus and work towards restoring Hong Kong to its former status and vibrancy then, frankly, you have no business acting as our leader.

I am sharing this letter on social media not to wallow in my own misery, mine is just one story amongst thousands, but because I want you to see this. I don’t just want to send you an email and receive an anodyne reply from a junior member of your staff.

I, very much, hope that you will find the decency to reply.”

‘Mask Law’ Found Unconstitutional by High Court

The ‘Mask law’ introduced by Carrie Lam under the Emergency Regulations Ordinance, Cap 241 was found to be unconstitutional by the High Court in a Judgement issued today, 18 November, 2019.

There were two separate court actions against the ‘Mask Law’ and they were heard together. Here is the press summary, the full judgement can be found here HCAL2945/2019 and HCAL2949/2019

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO 2949 of 2019

IN THE MATTER of the Emergency Regulations Ordinance, Cap 241
and
IN THE MATTER of the Prohibition on Face Covering Regulation, Cap 241K

Between
LEUNG KWOK HUNG (梁國雄)
and
SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE – 1st Putative Respondent
CHIEF EXECUTIVE IN COUNCIL – 2nd Putative Respondent

DATES OF HEARING:  31 October and 1 November 2019

DATE OF JUDGMENT:  18 November 2019

REPRESENTATION:

Gladys Li SC, Mr Johannes Chan SC (Hon), Mr Earl Deng, Mr Jeffrey Tam, Mr Geoffrey Yeung and Ms Allison Wong, instructed by Ho Tse Wai & Partners, for the 1st to 24th Applicants in HCAL 2945/2019

Mr Hectar Pun SC, Mr Lee Siu Him and Mr Anson Wong Yu Yat, instructed by JCC Cheung & Co, assigned by the Director of Legal Aid Department, for the Applicant in HCAL 2949/2019

Mr Benjamin Yu SC, Mr Jenkin Suen SC, Mr Jimmy Ma and Mr Mike Lui, instructed by the Department of Justice, for the Putative Respondents in both HCAL 2945/2019 and HCAL 2949/2019

SUMMARY:

1.  These are two applications for judicial review seeking to impugn the Emergency Regulations Ordinance (Cap 241) (“ERO”) and the Prohibition of Face Covering Regulation (Cap 241K)(“PFCR”) made thereunder as being invalid and unconstitutional.

2.  By Ground 1, the applicants contend that the ERO is unconstitutional because it amounts to an impermissible grant or delegation of general legislative power by the legislature to the Chief Executive in Council (“CEIC”) and contravenes the constitutional framework under the Basic Law.  The court holds that the ERO, insofar as it empowers the CEIC to make regulations on any occasion of public danger, is incompatible with the Basic Law, having regard in particular to Arts 2, 8, 17(2), 18, 48, 56, 62(5), 66 and 73(1) thereof.  The court leaves open the question of the constitutionality of the ERO insofar as it relates to any occasion of emergency.

3.  As to Ground 2, the court holds that the ERO was not impliedly repealed by s 5 of the Hong Kong Bill of Rights Ordinance (Cap 383) (“HKBORO”).  Insofar as it is invoked in situations not falling within the kind of public emergency referred to in the HKBORO, the Bill of Rights is not suspended and the measures adopted will have to comply with it.

4.  On Ground 3, the court holds that the ERO does not in itself fall foul of the “prescribed by law” requirement (ie the principle of legal certainty).  Where regulations and measures are adopted under the ERO that curtail fundamental rights, the entire relevant body of law including the regulations and measures have to be taken together to see whether they meet the requirement of sufficient accessibility and certainty.

5.  Under Ground 4, the applicants contend that the general words in s 2(1) of the ERO are not to be construed as allowing the Government to adopt measures that infringe fundamental rights of the individual and that the PFCR is therefore beyond the power conferred on the CEIC by the ERO.  The court finds that it is not necessary to deal with this Ground and does not express any view on it.

6.  Under Ground 5A, the applicants contend that s 3 of the PFCR fails to satisfy the proportionality test (as explained in Hysan Development Co Ltd v Town Planning Board (2016) 19 HKCFAR 372, §§134‑135).  The court holds that the provisions in s 3(1)(a), (b), (c) and (d) of the PFCR are rationally connected to legitimate societal aims that the respondents intend by those measures to pursue but the restrictions that sub‑paragraphs (b), (c) and (d) impose on fundamental rights go further than is reasonably necessary for the furtherance of those objects and therefore fail to meet the proportionality test.

7.  Under Ground 5B, the applicants contend that s 5 of the PFCR fails to satisfy the proportionality test.  The court holds that the measure introduced by s 5 of the PFCR is rationally connected to the legitimate societal aims pursued but the restrictions it imposes on fundamental rights also go further than is reasonably necessary for the furtherance of those objects and therefore fail to meet the proportionality test.

8.  In the light of these conclusions, there will be a further hearing for the parties to make submissions on the appropriate relief and costs.

Lam Pours Fuel on the Fire

The Hong Kong government’s bypassing of Legco to unilaterally introduce a ‘mask law’ is an insult to all HongKongers and a violation of our rights under both the Basic Law and Hong Kong law.

Carrie Lam has ignored millions of HongKongers marching peacefully, she has ignored the input of the people invited to attend the community discussions that she instigated.

Instead of listening to the people she claimed to represent when elected, and looking to attempt to defuse the volatile situation she created with the Extradition Law, Lam has instead trampled over the rights and freedoms of all HongKongers.

There was no violence or masks at the original protests against the  extradition law. 

The violence was instigated and initiated by the HK Police who actively and deliberately choose to use excessive force to disperse peaceful protestors and who allowed triads to attack the public.

Masks arrived because of the police’s excessive, indiscriminate and illegal use of tear gas and pepper spray. 

The ‘mask law’ does not affect those Lam labels as ‘violent’ protestors, the penalties for ‘unlawful assembly’ far exceed those of the ‘mask law’. 

The newly instigated law looks to intimidate and shutdown the peaceful protestors who are freely expressing their opinions as enshrined in the Basic Law and allowed under HK Law.

It also appears to be worded to suppress and interfere with the Freedom of the Press and the media’s ability to cover the protests and the excessive violence of the HK Police against protestors and members of the public. It is after all hard to film and report when you have a faceful of tear gas and/or pepper spray.

The protestors violence directly stems from the police’s own actions.

The damage to the MTR stems from it’s own injunction turning passengers into criminals and from picking sides rather than remaining neutral and simply moving people around.

The only way ‘healing’ and peace can come is from the government and the new ‘mask law’ shows Lam has no interest in resolving the violent situation she created. Beijing only understands force, subjugation and repression of freedoms.

Lam will go down in history as woman who destroyed Hong Kong, we can only hope that the blood on her hands gives her nightmares for the eternity.

UN Human Rights Office Criticises HK Police

The UN Human Rights Office has reviewed credible evidence of law enforcement officials employing less-lethal weapons in ways that are prohibited by international norms and standards.

For example, officials can be seen firing tear gas canisters into crowded, enclosed areas and directly at individual protesters on multiple occasions, creating a considerable risk of death or serious injury.

In a press briefing note issued on the 13 August, 2019 the Office of the High Commission on Human Rights at the United Nations about the current protests against the China Extradition law – the United Nations criticises the HK Police for their illegal use of weapons against protestors.

The full text of the briefing, which can be found here, is as follows:

Press Briefing Note on Hong Kong, China

Spokesperson for the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights: Rupert Colville
Location: Geneva
Date: 13 August 2019
Subject: Hong Kong, China

The High Commissioner is concerned by the ongoing events in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (Hong Kong SAR) and the escalation of violence that has taken place in recent days.

The High Commissioner condemns any form of violence or destruction of property and urges everyone participating in the demonstrations to express their views in a peaceful way. She notes the Chief Executive’s commitment to “engage as widely as possible” and to “listen to the grievances of the people of Hong Kong.” She calls on the authorities and the people of Hong Kong to engage in an open and inclusive dialogue aimed at resolving all issues peacefully. This is the only sure way to achieve long-term political stability and public security by creating channels for people to participate in public affairs and decisions affecting their lives.

The rights of freedom of expression and peaceful assembly and the right to participate in public affairs are expressly recognized in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, as well as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights which is incorporated in the Basic Law of the Hong Kong SAR.

The UN Human Rights Office has reviewed credible evidence of law enforcement officials employing less-lethal weapons in ways that are prohibited by international norms and standards. For example, officials can be seen firing tear gas canisters into crowded, enclosed areas and directly at individual protesters on multiple occasions, creating a considerable risk of death or serious injury. The Office would urge the Hong Kong SAR authorities to investigate these incidents immediately, to ensure security personnel comply with the rules of engagement, and where necessary, amend the rules of engagement for law enforcement officials in response to protests where these may not conform with international standards.

The Office urges the Hong Kong SAR authorities to act with restraint, to ensure that the right of those who are expressing their views peacefully are respected and protected, while ensuring that the response by law enforcement officials to any violence that may take place is proportionate and in conformity with international standards on the use of force, including the principles of necessity and proportionality.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights adopted by the UN General Assembly in Paris in 1948 can be found here, below is a video of how declaration came about.

https://youtu.be/5RR4VXNX3jA

Hong Kong Philharmonic Orchestra 2017-18 Season

This week the Hong Kong Philharmonic Orchestra published it’s concert schedule for the 2017-18 season.

Sadly the leaders of the widely respected and hard working orchestra continue to venerate CY Leung, a man who has openly derided musicians, with the title Honorary Patron.

As such bc magazine will continue to actively not write about the Hong Kong Philharmonic Orchestra while he remains in that position.

We eagerly look forward to the day 689 is gone. Although we have no great expectations of Carrie Lam, she will be given the chance to show if she respects and has the best intentions for all HongKongers.

Not just those with private drivers who don’t know how to use the MTR! Or will she, after her ‘gift’ of $3.5billion to Beijing, keep her lips firmly on their rectum and allow them to rob Hong Kong blind to fund their massive vanity construction projects.