Dear people of Hong Kong,
As you may have noticed, the Hong Kong SAR government recently proposed to amend the Fugitive Offenders Ordinance to handle requests for assistance and surrender of offenders with any place with which Hong Kong has not signed a long-term agreement, including the Mainland, Taiwan and Macau.
 
I have to point out that the Fugitive Offenders Ordinance clearly states that the arrangements for the surrender of fugitive offenders are not applicable to any other part of the People’s Republic of China. This is due to the fact that when the Ordinance was drafted in 1997, after taking into account ‘One Country, Two Systems’ and the difference in the legal systems of China and Hong Kong, the article was included to safeguard Hong Kong people’s freedom. This is inconsistent with the ‘loophole’ rhetoric that the Secretary for Security Lee Ka Chiu has been using to describe the Ordinance. Instead of “plugging the legal loophole”, the government’s proposal is an invitation to tear down the legal barrier we built.
 
An arrangement between two countries or places for the surrender of fugitive offenders should only be in place after both sides have discussed about it. Both sides should have a thorough understanding of each other’s legal systems and respect for human rights, and then time should be given for the Legislature and the society to decide whether to accept or reject the proposed arrangement. I am sure many of us know why an arrangement between Hong Kong and the Mainland for the surrender of fugitive offenders is still not in place today, one only needs to take a look at the rule of law between both places.
 
According to the Rule of Law Index published last year by the independent non-profit organization World Justice Project, Hong Kong ranked 16th out of the 113 countries and jurisdictions surveyed. In contrast, China was only ranked at 75. How can the SAR government then guarantee the Hong Kong fugitive offender a fair trial after surrendering them to the Mainland authorities? How can the SAR government promise the fugitive offender that they will be able to find a lawyer who can really defend them there? Can the SAR government ensure that the fugitive will not be held in lengthy pre-trial detentions? I am sure many of us have not forgotten about how the prominent Chinese human rights lawyer Wang Quanzhang was detained by the Chinese government for more than 3 years, during which he was denied access to his family and to the outside world, let alone a trial. I do not think I need to go further to describe the level of respect Chinese authorities give for human rights.
 
The Fugitive Offenders Ordinance covers 46 kinds of crimes. The Chinese government can select any of them and make a custom-made offence for dissidents and foreigners and ask the Hong Kong government for extradition. We all know that the Chinese government has done this before. One instance is the case of Gui Minhai, one of the shareholders of the Causeway Bay Bookstore who was alleged to have been involved in a car accident. Another is the case of Yao Wentian, the owner of Hong Kong Morning Bell Press which published many so-called “forbidden books” in the Mainland – he was accused of smuggling chemical products. Another one is Ai Weiwei, a dissident artist who was accused of tax evasion. I am worried that once the proposed amendment to the Fugitive Offenders Ordinance is passed, the Chinese government can formally request that the dissidents and foreigners who are living in Hong Kong to be extradited to the Mainland, only to subject them to long-term detention or re-education just like the Uighurs.
Under the current proposal, once an administrative order is issued by the Chief Executive, the legal procedures for a suspect to be arrested will be triggered, and the suspect will be sent to court for a hearing and the decision. It is very important to point out that Hong Kong’s Chief Executive is not elected through universal suffrage – he or she would have been appointed by the Central Government. Can the Chief Executive then withstand the pressure from the Central Government and reject any of their potential political requests?
 
In addition, many legal scholars have pointed out that the court will not consider the human rights situation nor the transparency and fairness of the legal system of the other country involved, the court will only consider the documents and evidence submitted by the other party. Therefore, I think that neither the Chief Executive nor the Hong Kong courts can fully protect the rights and interests of the people of Hong Kong under the new circumstances.
 
I think that if the Government genuinely wants to deal with the happened Taiwan case and seek justice for the victim, the Government should either discuss with Taiwanese government so as to carry out a one-time-arrangement for this murder case in Taiwan. Or the Government should promptly study and amend the Criminal Jurisdiction Ordinance instead. If Hong Kong people have committed serious crimes outside of Hong Kong, such as murder, they should be put in trial in Hong Kong. I hope that the Government will be able to reconsider and revise their proposal carefully – otherwise, I will work with the people of Hong Kong and do everything possible to prevent this proposed amendment from passing. That is my solemn promise to all of you.