26 September 2020
“Hong Kong and Chinese government officials reject the [Chinese term for the separation of powers] mainly because it is considered to be inconsistent with the [Chinese term for an executive-led system], which they believe to be the accurate description of the nature of the HKSAR political system.”
“It is true that there is a different understanding between Hong Kong and the Mainland on separation of powers, but this is more than a matter of interpretation. The understanding will affect how one sees the development of the system.“
“This has nothing to do with the sovereign power. Nor is it inconsistent with the power coming from the sovereign. But if the objection is that the sovereign has power over the judiciary and the judiciary is expected to be a compliant judiciary, that is of course not our understanding and contrary to what the Basic Law has provided for."
 Sir Anthony Mason, “The Place of Comparative Law in the Developing Jurisprudence on the Rule of Law and Human Rights in Hong Kong” (2007) 37 HKLJ 299, 305.
 Luk Ka Cheung v Market Misconduct Tribunal  1 HKLRD 114, 130, Re Easy Concepts International Holdings Ltd  6 HKC 391, 407, Koon Wing Yee v Financial Secretary  1 HKLRD 76, 93 and Chief Executive of the HKSAR v President of the Legislative Council  6 HKC 417, 434.
 Re Easy Concepts at 407.
 Teresa Cheng, “Why separation of powers has no place in Hong Kong’s political structure”, South China Morning Post, 9 Sept. 2020.
 Deputy High Court Judge Cheng’s judgment made reference to four Australian, and one US, decisions on the meaning of judicial power.
 MJC Vile, Constitutionalism and the Separation of Powers (Indianapolis: Liberty Fund, 2nd ed., 1998) at page 14.
 See Danny Gittings, “Separation of Powers in Hong Kong: Inching Towards a More Flexible Judicial Interpretation” (2019) 49(1) HKLJ 1, 11-13.
 Lau Kwok Fai v Secretary for Justice (unrep., HCAL 177 and 180/2002,  HKEC 711) at para. 19, citing from R v Kirby, ex p Boilermaker’s Society of Australia (1956) 94 CLR 254, an Australian judgment which has been widely criticized, including in Sir Anthony Mason, “A New Perspective on Separation of Powers” (1996) 82 Canberra Bulletin of Public Administration 1, 5.
 In the inaugural lecture of the Common Law Lecture Series on 18 March 2005, three months after a highly formalist judgment in Re Chu Wai Ha  2 HKC 36. See Gittings (n7) at 14.
 Luk Ka Cheung at 134.
 Gittings (see n7) at 14-17
 Deng Xiaoping, “Speech at a Meeting with the Members of the Committee for Drafting the Basic Law of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region”, 16 April 1987 in Deng Xiaoping on the Question of Hong Kong (Beijing: Foreign Languages Press, 1993) at page 55
 Zhu Zheng, “Separation of powers in Hong Kong: Yes or no?”, CGTN, 10 Sept. 2020.