Showing posts with label Michael Davis. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Michael Davis. Show all posts

Tuesday, November 3, 2020

Zoom Book Talk on "MAKING HONG KONG CHINA The Rollback of Human Rights and the Rule of Law" (7 Nov 2020)

A Zoom Webinar book talk with author, Michael C. Davis:

Date & Time: 
Saturday, November 7, 2020 
9:30am – 11:00am (Hong Kong Time) 
Language: English 

This webinar is organized by the Faculty of Law at The University of Hong Kong and will be held via Zoom Meeting. Prior registration will be required. 

ABOUT THE AUTHOR 
PROFESSOR MICHAEL C. DAVIS is in the Fall of 2020 a Visiting Professor in the Faculty of Law at the University of Hong Kong where he teaches core courses on international human rights. He is also currently a Global Fellow at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars in Washington DC and a Professor of Law and International Affairs at O.P. Jindal Global University in India (where he is in residence each spring). He was a professor in the HKU Law Faculty until late 2016. 

DISCUSSANTS 
PROFESSOR ANDREW NATHAN - Class of 2019 Professor of Political Science, Columbia University. Nathan has served on the advisory boards of Freedom House, Human Rights in China, the National Endowment for Democracy and Human Rights Watch, Asia. 
MS SHARON K. HOM - is Executive Director of Human Rights in China (HRIC). She is a Professor of Law Emerita at the CUNY School of Law, an Adjunct Professor of Law at New York University School of Law (2017- present), and a Visiting Professor at The University of Hong Kong Faculty of Law (2019). 

MODERATOR
DEAN FU HUALING – Warren Chan Professor in Human Rights and Responsibilities, Faculty of Law, The University of Hong Kong

For Registration, please click HERE
For inquiries, please email Shelby Chan at shelbyc@hku.hk.
To buy the book, please click HERE

Tuesday, October 6, 2020

New Book: Making Hong Kong China: The Rollback of Human Rights and the Rule of Law (Michael Davis)

Michael C. Davis (Visiting Professor)
Columbia University Press
Published in October 2020
166 pp.
Description: How can one of the world’s most free-wheeling cities transition from a vibrant global center of culture and finance into a subject of authoritarian control? As Beijing's anxious interference has grown, the “one country, two systems” model China promised Hong Kong has slowly drained away in the years since the 1997 handover. As “one country” seemed set to gobble up “two systems," the people of Hong Kong riveted the world’s attention in 2019 by defiantly demanding the autonomy, rule of law and basic freedoms they were promised. In 2020, the new National Security Law imposed by Beijing aimed to snuff out such resistance. Will the Hong Kong so deeply held in the people’s identity and the world’s imagination be lost? Professor Michael Davis, who has taught human rights and constitutional law in this city for over three decades, and has been one of its closest observers, takes us on this constitutional journey.  To view Democracy Digest's review of this book, click here.  The New Books Network podcast interviewed Professor Davis about his new book on 19 November 2020. To listen to the interview conducted by Ms Jane Richards (PhD candidate), click here.

Thursday, October 19, 2017

Michael Davis on Strengthening Constitutionalism in Asia (J of Democracy)

"Strengthening Constitutionalism in Asia"
Michael Davis (CCPL)
Journal of Democracy
Oct 2017, Vol. 28, No. 4, pp. 147-161
Abstract: Much has been written about the retreat of liberal democracy. In Asia, a region where the notion of illiberal democracy has long been advocated, illiberalism and populism have spawned numerous constitutional crises. Drawing on experience from countries across Asia, this article stresses seven principles as a roadmap to establishing and maintaining a liberal constitutional democracy. These cover all stages of the process, from early mobilization and constitution-making to full implementation and consolidation, and they address issues of institutional autonomy, popular engagement, and ethnic and regional inclusion. Efforts at democratization in Asia have too often given insufficient attention to constitutional fundamentals and popular inclusion as critical ingredients on the path to establishing and maintaining stable democracies.

Monday, August 28, 2017

HKU Law Faculty Members Comment on the Recent Jailing of Hong Kong Protesters

Julia Hollingsworth and Chris Lau
South China Morning Post
25 August 2017
On the night of September 26, 2014, amid the glare of television cameras and floodlights, student leader Joshua Wong Chi-fung leapt onto a fence around ­government headquarters in ­Admiralty.
     As he curled his spindly legs around the metal bars, the sight of the bespectacled teenager with his floppy mop of hair valiantly trying to scale the three-metre-high barrier, along with fellow ­student leader Alex Chow Yong-kang, galvanised others into ­action...
     Last week, student activists Wong, then 17, Law, then 21, and Chow, then 24, were slapped with jail sentences of six, seven and eight months respectively by an appeal court, after being spared prison by a lower court last year, for their acts that fateful evening.
     The higher sentences sparked a torrent of criticism in the city and abroad that Hong Kong’s ­independent judiciary was now succumbing to a government-led bid to hand out harsher punishments to its young critics...
     The courts’ only “crime” was that it was caught up in a politically charged event, University of Hong Kong legal scholar Simon Young Ngai-man said. “This is natural. You see it in other societies,” he said...
     But University of Hong Kong law scholar Eric Cheung Tat-ming questioned whether the Court of Appeal had gone beyond its scope.
     Under common law, Cheung said, the norm was not for the appellate court to meddle in the factual findings in appeal hearings and “re-cast” the facts. Cheung quoted former Court of Final Appeal judge Henry Litton’s ruling in a case in which he chastised an appeal court judge for “shedding his appellate gown” to take on a fact-finding role...
     His colleague, associate professor Peter Chau, who specialises in criminal law, also argued the sentences were excessive, as the appeal court had taken reference from past English cases when petrol bombs or rocks were hurled, sometimes targeting law enforcement officers...

Cliff Buddle
South China Morning Post
27 August 2017
The jailing of three prominent student leaders involved in Hong Kong’s Occupy protests has sparked a crisis of confidence in the city’s legal system and rule of law...
     University of Hong Kong law professor Simon Young said there should be more transparency in situations where the secretary for justice overrules senior prosecutors. In Canada, he said, there is a legal requirement that public notice be given when the Attorney General takes over control of a prosecution from the DPP. “It tells everyone I am intervening here, I am taking over. That will naturally have possible political implications and can attract the scrutiny of parliament. At least there is transparency. We don’t have that here,” Young added...

Catherine Lai
Hong Kong Free Press
24 August 2017
Hong Kong’s justice secretary has defending the jailing of three democracy activists, slamming claims that it amounted to political persecution...
Law professor Johannes Chan said during a Commercial Radio programme in response to Yuen’s comments that he accepted his explanation for the timing of the review, but Yuen should explain in detail whether the DOJ’s decision to review the sentences were mixed with considerations outside of legal ones – in order to dispel citizen’s concerns.
     In a column on Wednesday, Chan said that the first magistrate’s decision to hand down a lenient sentence, as well as the Court of Appeal’s decision to give a deterrent sentence, were both within the judiciary’s scope of discretion.
    “Even if we don’t agree with the Court of Appeal’s final judgement, it should not influence our belief in the judiciary’s independence,” he wrote...


Wednesday, August 10, 2016

Listen to Michael Davis' 4-Part Backstory on RTHK Radio 3

Professor Michael Davis was interviewed on Noreen Mir's 123 Show on RTHK Radio 3.  The interview was broadcast in four "Backstory" segments from 26 to 29 July 2016.  As a parting farewell to Hong Kong, the interview covers a wide range of topics over the course of Professor Davis' 30 years of scholarship and contributions to academic and public affairs in Hong Kong.  Click here to listen to the first segment (26 July 2016).

Saturday, July 23, 2016

Michael Davis Bids Hong Kong Farewell (SCMP Interview)

"Rights campaigner bids Hong Kong a reluctant farewell"
Jeffie Lam
South China Morning Post
23 July 2016
When Professor Michael Davis landed in Hong Kong from his home in Hawaii to take up a job at Chinese University teaching politics more than 30 years ago, the human rights law expert may not have realised he could not have picked a more fascinating destination for his research interests. Over his three decades in Hong Kong, Davis has witnessed – and participated in – numerous social movements. He took part in protests backing the pro-democracy drive by Beijing students in 1989, the campaign to oppose a ­controversial national security bill in 2003, and the marathon debates on the city’s constitutional reform that eventually triggered the Occupy sit-ins of 2014 among many other movements. Davis, whose ­graduated students have fanned out across the city and political spectrum to pursue careers, will retire from the University of Hong Kong’s law school and move to Washington in the United States this ­summer for a fellowship with the National ­Endowment for Democracy, a non-profit ­organisation. Ahead of his reluctant departure, he shares with the Post his views on stagnant political ­reform, unseen pressures on academia and his love of the city he has spent half his life in... Click here to read the full interview.

Wednesday, July 20, 2016

HKU Law Scholars on the 'Confirmation Form' Issue in the Legislative Council Elections 2016

Karen Cheung
Hong Kong Free Press
19 July 2016
Legal scholar and Basic Law Committee member Albert Chen Hung-yee says that there are grey areas in the law regarding the consequences for a Legislative Council election candidate who signs a declaration promising to uphold the Basic Law and then violates it.
     On a Monday RTHK show, Chen discussed a declaration that candidates are required to sign, which promises to uphold the Basic Law and to pledge allegiance to the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region. Chen said that it has not been clearly stated what the legal consequences are if a person signs and then violates the declaration. “Under current laws, there are no clear requirements, so it is a grey area.”
     Chen also said the existing laws do not require every candidate to sign a declaration, so the signature is an administrative arrangement. Therefore, it does not mean that all candidates who do not sign the declaration will not be able to get an effective nomination, he added.
     “It depends on the situation – if one has been advocating for Hong Kong independence and they refuse to sign the declaration… then the electoral officer may question whether the candidate is qualified to run,” Chen said...  Click here to read the full article.

Newswrap, RTHK Radio 3
19 July 2016
An associate dean at the University of Hong Kong’s Faculty of Law, Professor Simon Young, says elections laws make no reference to a form requiring potential Legislative Council election candidates to declare that Hong Kong is part of China. He says the assertion by the chairman of the Electoral Affairs Commission, Mr Justice Barnabas Fung, that it was merely introduced for administrative convenience, tends to play down the issue. Young tells Jim Gould that the form is redundant and has no legal force. Click here to listen to the interview.

Owen Fung & Tony Cheung
South China Morning Post
17 July 2016
At least 10 pan-democrat or independent hopefuls challenged a change to election rules, despite the risk of being disqualified, as the nomination period for the Legislative Council polls in September opened on Saturday.
     The controversial change targeting independence advocates required that candidates, as well as making the standard declaration to uphold the Basic Law, must also have to sign a new form to confirm a clear understanding of the mini-constitution – mainly concerning Hong Kong’s status as a special administrative region of China. Refusal to sign could risk disqualification.
     Pan-democrats complained that the new rules amounted to political censorship and planned to meet the chief of the city’s election watchdog over the matter on Tuesday... Rao said although the Basic Law did not explicitly prohibit independence advocates from running for Legco, “since the mini-constitution affirmed Hong Kong’s legal status, how could it allow a lawmaker to advocate the city’s separation from the nation?”
     But University of Hong Kong law professor Benny Tai Yiu-ting told the Post that candidates do not need to sign the form.
     “Electoral officers do not have the power to invalidate a candidate’s nomination simply because he did not sign the new form,” Tai said... Click here to read the full article.

David Tweed
Bloomberg
15 July 2016
Candidates for Hong Kong’s Legislative Council elections will be required to sign a form saying they understand the city is an inalienable part of China, the latest bid by the government to deter candidates who advocate independence.
     Contenders for in the Sept. 4 vote must declare they uphold the Basic Law, the city’s mini-constitution. They will now need to sign a further form confirming they fully understand the Basic Law articles that detail the city’s position as an administrative region of China, the election commission said on Thursday in a statement.
     “Anyone making a false declaration in the nomination form is liable to criminal sanction,” the commission said.
     “The government is obviously targeting candidates that are running on an independence platform,” said Michael Davis, a professor of constitutional law at Hong Kong University. “Even if someone signs the confirmation acknowledging the government’s interpretation, it would still be subject to question in the courts.”... Click here to read the full article.

Tuesday, July 19, 2016

Michael Davis on Damage Control After the South China Sea Arbitration Award

"Why Beijing should seek damage control following the South China Sea decision"
Michael Davis
South China Morning Post
19 July 2016
It is time to get realistic over the South China Sea arbitral decision. Chinese officials and their supporters have made this case out to be some gross overreaching by the arbitral tribunal constituted under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.
     A better view is that the tribunal properly exposed some serious violations that China ought to correct both for its own reputation and for the sake of the natural environment. At the same time, it offered a platform for negotiating a reasonable settlement. The following 10 points are worth considering.
      First, we should appreciate that China signed on to the UN convention for good reason. Not traditionally a maritime power, the treaty offered China expanded rights in adjoining territorial seas, exclusive economic zones and the continental shelf, which would be rich in fisheries and minerals. Substantially hemmed in by its neighbours, China surely saw great advantage in embracing such treaty.
     Second, by agreeing to the treaty, China agreed to the associated arbitration that has just taken place. If China refused to appear, the tribunal was required to proceed without it and was bound to consider as best it could what it judged to be China’s arguments.
      Third, by refusing to appear, China waived its right to participate in selecting the five judges for the arbitration... Click here to read the full article.

Saturday, May 21, 2016

Michael Davis Comments on Zhang Dejiang's Hong Kong Visit (Time)

"Tight Security Foils Hong Kong Protesters on Last Day of Top Chinese Official's Visit"
Nash Jenkins
Time
19 May 2016
A small group of prominent Hong Kong democracy activists attempted Thursday to halt the motorcade of top official Zhang Dejiang — the most senior Chinese official to have visited the territory since 2014’s Umbrella Revolution — as it approached a major thoroughfare, but were foiled by police.
     The activists spilled into the road at the northern egress of the Eastern Harbour Crossing tunnel, which connects Hong Kong Island to the rest of the territory, as Zhang and his security detail were about to pass through it. Police officers, who outnumbered the activists twofold, were quick to intervene.
...
     For those who support self-determination, the logic is simple: Hong Kong’s freedoms have gradually been eroded since Britain returned the former colony to China in 1997; to preserve them, Hong Kong must do away with the constitutional dynamic known as “one country, two systems” and divorce itself from the mainland altogether.
      It is an idea that Zhang firmly condemned at a banquet given in his honor on Wednesday night. He assured his audience that Hong Kong would not lose its distinct sociopolitical identity, but then called on the local judiciary to crack down on political dissenters — “fulfill the solemn duty to safeguard the rule of law,” as he put it, according to a report in the South China Morning Post.
      “This is not the ‘rule of law’ as we understand it in Hong Kong,” Michael Davis, an expert on Chinese and Hong Kong law at the University of Hong Kong, told TIME on Thursday. “He basically spoke to the mainland version of ‘rule of law’ — that is, the party makes the law and is above the law, and the obligation of the people is to follow this law.”
      In this case, Davis says, the law concerns “national security,” a sweeping term used by Chinese authorities to forbid and punish acts of speech that threaten the hegemony of one-party rule. A sweeping piece of legislation ratified by China’s rubber-stamp legislature last July — on the anniversary, incidentally, of Hong Kong’s return to China — signified an unprecedented crackdown... Click here to read the full article.

Tuesday, May 17, 2016

Michael Davis on the Demands, Evolution and Social Media of the Umbrella Movement (chapter in new CUP book)

"Promises to keep: the Basic Law, the 'Umbrella Movement,' and Democratic Reform in Hong Kong" in M Monshipouri (ed), Information Politics, Protests, and Human Rights in the Digital Age
 May 2016, Cambridge University Press, pp. 239-266
Abstract: In 2014 Hong Kong youth captured the global imagination in massive protests challenging China’s central government in Beijing over failed promises of democratic reform. Those promises, outlined in the 1984 Sino-British Joint Declaration, guaranteed Hong Kong all the ingredients of modern constitutionalism, democracy, human rights and the rule of law. Under “one country, two systems” there would be fifty years without change (or as Deng Xiaoping said, maybe more), a high degree of autonomy and Hong Kong people ruling Hong Kong. The 1990 Hong Kong Basic Law promised democratic reform and the ultimate aim of “universal suffrage.” In the summer of 2013 skeptical Hong Kong democracy activists, under the name “Occupy Central for Love and Peace,” promised to clog Hong Kong’s Central financial district with 10,000 occupying protesters if genuine democracy was not delivered. Instead, in the summer of 2014 Beijing issued a White Paper accusing Hong Kong people of a “confused and lopsided” view and the National People’s Congress Standing Committee issued a decision that turned “universal suffrage” into a Beijing-vetted election. Lead by student activists and the full panoply of tools for modern social movements, hundreds of thousands of protesters occupied the streets. Not a revolution, the social movement that followed demanded compliance with constitutional commitments already made. This chapter considers the demands, evolution and social media of the movement that became known world wide as the “umbrella movement.”  Contact the author regarding the chapter.  

Friday, April 15, 2016

Michael Davis on Beijing's Reaction to Hong Kong Independence Talk (Backchat)

Backchat, RTHK Radio 3
12 April 2016
On Backchat, we will talk about Beijing's reactions towards Hong Kong Independence. Liaison office's new legal chief Wang Zhenmin suggested that people discussing independence in a large-scale setting were not only in breach of the Basic Law, but also the Crimes Ordinance and Societies Ordinance. What's your reaction to the statement? Is Beijing tightening its policy on Hong Kong? Is the common law and 'One Country Two Systems' under threats? Speakers: Lawrence Ma, Barrister, and Chairman, China-Australia Legal Exchange Foundation, Albert Chan, Legislator, People Power, Michael Davis, Professor, Faculty of Law, University of Hong Kong, Junius Ho, Practising Solicitor and Tuen Mun District Councillor.  Click here to listen to the programme.

Friday, March 18, 2016

Michael Davis on the Survival of the Rule of Law in Hong Kong (SCMP)

Michael Davis
South China Morning Post
17 March 2016
Hong Kong is increasingly locked in a perception gap that has come to colour nearly every aspect of political life.
     National People’s Congress chairman Zhang Dejiang (張德江 ) and other Chinese leaders have taken to lecturing Hong Kong on maintaining the rule of law. We are told “street politics could tarnish Hong Kong’s image”. The implication is that protests are the primary threat to the rule of law.
     The reasoning involves a mainland version of constitutionalism and the associated rule of law that sees it primarily as the people and government carrying out the policies and directives of the Communist Party. This theory explains why the Beijing leaders are often quoted as supporting the constitution and yet have tended to jail people who support a more functional constitutionalism.
     In Hong Kong, this central government commitment to the rule of law is guided by the principle that Hong Kong people accept without question Beijing’s interpretations and directives concerning the Basic Law. Hong Kong resistance was said in the white paper on Hong Kong to reflect a “confused and lopsided” view.
     Hong Kong’s people and its courts adhere to a different version of the rule of law. This version has long held that top officials are bound by the same rules that govern the public at large. Under such a standard, nobody is above the law and everyone is subject to the law applied in the ordinary manner. The central and Hong Kong governments taking excessive liberty with the meaning of the Basic Law does not meet that standard. Such an approach elevates their expedient preferences over the reasonable meaning of the commitments expressed in the words of the Basic Law... Click here to read the full article.  Separately, Professor Davis was also interviewed by Time for the article published on 16 March 2016, "Students at Hong Kong's Oldest University are Calling for the City's Independence" by Simon Lewis.

Wednesday, March 9, 2016

Michael Davis Comments on the Return of Two Hong Kong Booksellers (Time)

"Two Hong Kong Booksellers Return Under Dubious Circumstances"
Nash Jenkins
Time
7 March 2016
Two Hong Kong booksellers who disappeared last autumn returned to the territory over the weekend after months in the custody of mainland Chinese officials.
     Lui Por and Cheung Chi-ping are among the five affiliates of Mighty Current Media — a Hong Kong publishing house that specializes in tawdry texts about the supposed private exploits of Chinese communist officials — who went missing in the last months of 2015. Four of the five detained employees, including Lui and Cheung, have appeared on Chinese television to say that they had been detained for selling thousands of illegal books in the mainland.
     “The mainland legal system is built around an inquisitorial system — a system of confessions,” Michael Davis, an expert in Hong Kong and Chinese law at the University of Hong Kong, told TIME on Monday. “There’s severe pressure on defendants to confess. Their trial procedures don’t meet international standards — it’s a rights violation.”
     On Friday, Hong Kong police released a statement confirming that Lui had returned to the territory and that he had requested they terminate the investigation into his disappearance; a virtually identical notification came on Sunday upon Cheung’s return. Authorities offered no further comment, but past reports suggest the two men may have been let out on bail... Click here to read the full article.


Friday, February 12, 2016

Michael Davis Interviewed on the Lunar New Year Street Violence in Hong Kong (FT)

"Scores injured as Hong Kong police clash with protesters"
Ben Bland
Financial Times
9 February 2016
Hong Kong police and several hundred protesters fought running battles in a popular commercial district early on Tuesday morning in the worst street violence the Asian financial centre has seen since the Occupy movement brought parts of the city to a standstill in 2014.
     Police fired warning shots and used baton charges and pepper spray to subdue what the government called “mobs” after officials faced demonstrations when they tried to remove illegal hawkers.
...
     CY Leung, Hong Kong’s chief executive, condemned what he called a riot, saying the protesters were “seriously jeopardising the safety of police officers and other people at the site”. He said the police would “apprehend the mobs and bring them to justice”.
     When asked by a reporter whether the violence was the result of dissatisfaction with his government, Mr Leung said “you have to ask those people who appeared to be organisers behind this riot” and insisted he would simply “enforce the laws of Hong Kong”.
     But Michael Davis, a professor of law at the University of Hong Kong, urged the government to look at the deeper issues.
     He said the fact that the protesters had rallied round the cause of the street hawkers underlined broader concerns with growing social inequality in the city and a sense that the government was becoming more heavy-handed.
     “You have to go back to the government and ask why has this radicalisation occurred?” he said. “Support for more extreme tactics may be in the minority but the concerns they are raising about democratic reforms and livelihood issues are fairly widespread and the government ignores this at its peril.”... Click here for the full article.

Saturday, January 23, 2016

Michael Davis Interviewed on Taiwan Election, China and Hong Kong (Christian Science Monitor)

"For Hong Kong democrats, a deeper resonance in Taiwan's orderly election"
Robert Marquand
The Christian Science Monitor
21 January 2016
In the weeks ahead of Taiwan’s Jan. 16 elections, Yueng Wen estimates that “nearly half” his student friends went from Hong Kong to Taipei. They watched, participated, tweeted and got to know every detail of the voting, which saw Taiwanese elect their first female president, Tsai Ing-wen, and deliver a knockout blow to the long-ruling Nationalist Party (KMT).
    Mr. Wen, a slender graduate student at Hong Kong University, took part in mass protests in 2014 to demand free and fair elections in this former British colony. Like many residents, he worries that Hong Kong, which reverted to Chinese rule in 1997, is losing its distinct identity and freedoms as Beijing asserts tighter control.
     “We really appreciate the Taiwan elections,” Wen says. “I am skeptical of both political camps there and it would take me 30 minutes to tell you why. But what we appreciate is choice. Taiwanese have a real choice, and we in Hong Kong do not.”
     For years, Hong Kong and Taiwan have lived in largely separate realms and have not paid much attention to each other. Beijing has not encouraged any official ties between the two entities, one of which it rules under special laws of autonomy (Hong Kong), and one of which it claims (Taiwan). Hong Kong chief executives do not visit Taiwan; official traffic from Taiwan to Hong Kong has mostly included city mayors.
     Yet in the past three years, youth in Hong Kong and Taiwan are being drawn together, online and in person, by shared interests that revolve around Chinese politics and their own future. They are meeting, holding conferences, and for the first time sharing insights into how their own leaders are dealing with superpower China.
     In Hong Kong last weekend one of the most-read tweets came from Taiwanese rocker-turned-politician Freddy Lim: “Don’t let Taiwan’s future be like Hong Kong’s present.”
      Mr. Lim’s politics emerged out of Taiwan’s student-led “Sunflower movement” that staged a weeks-long sit-in in 2014 of government buildings in Taipei to protest trade deals with China that the KMT was trying to enact in ways that students said lacked transparency. His political party, formed in November, now holds five seats in that legislature.
     In Hong Kong, Taiwan’s elections came amid fears over the apparent abduction of five members of a publishing firm and bookstore that specializes in gossipy accounts of Chinese politics. One was later paraded on Chinese TV making a confession. The Global Times, a hawkish Chinese newspaper, commented that it was “not only reasonable but legal” to investigate the company because it had undermined China’s “rule of law system.” 
'One country, two systems'
      The "one country two systems" formula by which China has ruled Hong Kong since 1997 was initially conceived as the formula by which China would someday govern Taiwan, according to Hong Kong University law professor Michael Davis.
      “China’s heavy handed policies – the abduction of the bookseller is one example – are driving Hong Kong and Taiwan into each other’s arms,” says Prof. Davis, who is active in human rights and democracy groups. “For Taiwanese it says, look at what “one country two systems” actually looks like. We don’t want any part of it.”
       For the democratic camp in Hong Kong that seeks freer elections including a direct vote for its leader, Taiwan’s orderly and peaceful election serves as a counter to the Chinese Communist Party’s oft-stated message that democracy breeds instability... Click here to read the full article.

Tuesday, January 19, 2016

Latest Commentary on the Lee Bo Case in Hong Kong

Simon Young
South China Morning Post
20 January 2016
Many feel “one country, two systems” has suffered a serious blow from the mysterious circumstances of Lee Bo’s case, but it is too soon to conclude that the Basic Law has been violated.
     If Lee crossed the border voluntarily and on his own, there would be no Basic Law issue. If private individuals unconnected to the mainland government were involved in forcing or persuading Lee to cross the border then, again, it is difficult to see this as a constitutional crisis, even though such individuals may have committed ordinary crimes.
     There are a number of indications, however, that mainland officials were implicated in Lee’s entry. First there are Lee’s statements that he is “assisting an investigation” on the mainland. The nature of the books sold by Lee’s bookstore, coupled with the disappearances of his four associates, suggest a criminal investigation into offences of spreading rumours or slander to subvert state power or other national security offences.
     Then there was the entry itself without the usual immigration clearances, suggesting official intervention. Finally, there is the unexplained need for Lee and his associates to remain on the mainland indefinitely if the “investigation” relates only to their associate Gui Minhai’s alleged case of vehicle homicide.
     Even if mainland officials were involved, this does not necessarily mean the Basic Law was breached because there are grey areas when it comes to cross-border criminal investigations.
      Certainly an abduction and forced rendition by mainland officials would constitute a serious infringement of the “one country, two systems” principle, but there are multiple ways to cause someone to cross the border. A chat in acha chaan teng, a phone call or a text message may be all that is needed to incite a person to make the trip... Click here to read the full article.

Jeffie Lam and Eddie Lee
South China Morning Post
19 January 2016
A person on a suspended jail term on the mainland cannot leave the country without official permission and authorities would not only keep a close watch on anyone fleeing but make a real effort to track them down, say legal experts. Once the law caught up with the offender, he would have to serve his sentence in prison.
     This was why legal eagles and observers said they found it mystifying, and unconvincing, that Gui Minhai had eluded arrest for more than 12 years and decided to turn himself only now and – of all places – while in a foreign land.
     Gui – one of the five missing shareholders and staff of publishing house Mighty Current which is linked to Causeway Bay Books – disappeared in mid-October after he was last seen at his apartment in the seaside town of Pattaya in Thailand.
     On Sunday night, he appeared in a recorded interview broadcast by China Central Television, in which he said he had surrendered out of guilt for killing a 23-year-old student while drink-driving in Ningbo, Zhejiang province, in 2004. The confession contrasted starkly with the widely held suspicion that he was abducted by mainland law enforcement agencies in Thailand for selling books that are banned by China.
     Professor Fu Hualing, a legal expert on the mainland criminal justice system, said he found it “totally illogical” for Gui to turn himself in now, after being on the run for so long.
     “It is very shocking that after so many years Gui voluntarily went back,” said Fu. “A person, after so many years, suddenly finds his conscience and wants to return. What I can say is we have an official story but what else … is anybody’s guess.”
     Fu said the personal freedom of people on a suspended prison term would be curtailed and they could not leave the country lawfully without official permission. Should the person violate the condition, as in Gui’s alleged case, he or she would be placed on the wanted list immediately and would have to serve the original sentence in jail... Click here to read the full article.

"Hong Kong's Missing Booksellers Expose Publishing Underbelly"
David Tweed and Ting Shi
Bloomberg
20 January 2016
Sandwiched between a pharmacy and a discount clothing store in Hong Kong’s Causeway Bay neighborhood is a narrow staircase leading to a shuttered bookshop that has become a symbol of the fears of China’s encroachment in the former British colony.
     Causeway Bay Books is one of the city’s best known “upstairs bookshops,” which sell titles such as “Overseas Mistresses of the Chinese Communist Party,” and “Secrets of Wives of CCP Officials” to mainland tourists hungry for the salacious and often thinly sourced tales about the alleged peccadilloes of their leaders. Outside hangs a sign in Chinese warning would-be customers to “watch out for police.”
     The store, located in the shadows of one the world’s priciest shopping districts, has been shut since late December when its owner Lee Bo vanished from the city. With Hong Kong authorities pressing for information, Chinese police confirmed Jan. 18 that Lee was in the mainland, without explaining how the bookseller got across the border without the required travel permit or the knowledge of Hong Kong immigration.
     “A disappearance off the streets raises questions in ordinary people’s minds about the future of Hong Kong and whether its distinctive qualities with which most Hong Kong people identify will be maintained,” said Michael Davis, a Hong Kong University law professor... Click here to read the full article.


Thursday, January 14, 2016

Reaction to Chief Executive's Remark that Hong Kong Could Quit Torture Convention (SCMP)

"Hong Kong could quit torture convention, says CY"
Jennifer Ngo and Christy Leung
South China Morning Post
14 January 2016
Chief Executive Leung Chun-ying says Hong Kong will unilaterally withdraw from an international convention on torture “if it is needed”, sparking criticism that such a move would undermine the city’s standing in the world .
     Leung’s unprecedented comments – which followed his announcement of a wholesale review of the current system for dealing with claims for refugee status and asylum in his policy address – are understood to have caused consternation among officials in the policy department responsible for such matters.
     A source with a knowledge of the review said officials were “completely surprised and shocked” by Leung’s comments . It is also unclear how, if at all, Hong Kong can withdraw from an international convention given that it is not a sovereign state.
     At a press conference after his address, Leung was asked by a journalist if the city needed to ditch its commitments under the United Nations Convention Against Torture.
     Leung responded: “We will consider the issue from different aspects, such as law enforcement and the law itself. You asked if there is a need to quit the international agreement: if it is needed, we will do so.”
     The reaction was swift with critics saying such a move would weaken human rights in the city at a time where Hongkongers are sensitive to any erosion of freedoms and rights, especially in light of the mystery surrounding missing booksellers.
     Kelley Loper, director of the human rights programme in the faculty of law at the University of Hong Kong, said pulling out of the convention would send a signal that Hong Kong thinks it acceptable to torture people.
     Puja Kapai, professor of law at the HKU and a former barrister at the High Court, said to withdraw from such an international treaty would have a major impact in the region. “It would cement the feeling that there are deliberate steps being taken to roll back on human rights in Hong Kong,” she said.
     Human rights lawyer Mark Daly called the chief executive’s comments shocking and showed a “dangerous and irresponsible attitude”. He said: “This is unravelling human rights and the rule of law ... principles that make Hong Kong an international city.”
     Hong Kong ratified the convention before the 1997 handover and China is also a signatory since 1986. Under the Immigration Ordinance, asylum seekers may lodge non-refoulement claims on grounds including torture, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, and persecution because of the convention.
     Another HKU law professor, Michael Davis, said pulling out of the convention would mean no refuge for those who need it in the city, as Hong Kong is not under the UN Convention of Refugees.
     In the policy address, Leung said there will be a comprehensive review of the strategy of handling non-refoulement claims, including a review of the Immigration Ordinance.

"Rights groups alarmed by Hong Kong chief executive's remarks on pulling out of UN torture treaty"
Racquel Carvalho, Jennifer Ngo and Christy Leung
South China Morning Post
15 January 2016
Experts have warned that Hong Kong cannot unilaterally pull out of the United Nations Convention Against Torture, after Chief Executive Leung Chun-ying raised eyebrows by declaring the city would do it “if needed”.
     Rights groups are alarmed at the prospect of Hong Kong abandoning the treaty signed by 158 of 193 UN member states after Leung announced a comprehensive overhaul of the current system for dealing with refugee status and asylum to stamp out alleged widespread abuse.
     “It would be an extreme measure – and very rare – for any state to withdraw from their commitments under international human rights law,” said Kelley Loper, director of the human rights programme at the University of Hong Kong’s Faculty of Law. Only China can withdraw from the convention, not Hong Kong on its own, Loper noted. “China would need to make the request on behalf of the state, not a particular part of the state,” she said. Loper pointed out that Beijing would have to give one year’s notice to the UN if it were to pull out. The convention also stipulates any commitments made before such a withdrawal must be met.
     She also explained that even if the central government rejected the convention, Hong Kong’s Basic Law and Bill of Rights duties would still apply. “Hong Kong also has a duty not to return anyone to face a serious risk of torture or other forms of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which has been entrenched into Hong Kong domestic law,” she said.
     Piya Muqit, executive director of Justice Centre, warned that if Hong Kong were to withdraw “it would join the ranks of repressive regimes such as Zimbabwe, the Central African Republic and North Korea”.
     The controversy comes two months after the Committee Against Torture, which monitors implementation of the convention, expressed concern over the Hong Kong’s portrayal of “all claimants in need of protection as abusers of the system”.
     The current system of screening asylum seekers started in March 2014, and there is a backlog of 10,922 cases , with 5,400 people having been screened so far. Chief Secretary Carrie Lam Cheng Yuet-ngor said yesterday the government receives around 400 new torture claims every month, with costs to taxpayers of HK$600 million a year.
     Puja Kapai, professor of law at the University of Hong Kong and a former barrister at the High Court, said the chief executive’s declarations reflected the government’s short-sightedness. “When you discover abuse or loopholes in a system, you work to plug the gap. You do not throw out the baby with the bath water,” she said. Kapai also criticised the timing of Leung’s comments, in light of the missing bookseller mystery. She said “As we await news on the facts surrounding the disappearance of Lee Bo, such a withdrawal would foment further distrust and deepen paranoia harboured against the government.”
     Hong Kong does not resettle asylum seekers, as it is not a signatory to the UN Refugee Convention, but is obligated to screen torture claims.
    A government source said officials were shocked by Leung’s remarks, as it was not discussed with related law enforcement agencies. “We have never heard of it before. We also find the remarks contradictory to the policy address, as Leung just pledged to add manpower to speed up screenings of asylum claims,” the source said. The chief executive has left them puzzling over how to handle current torture claims.
More recently, Simon Young joined a panel on the RTHK 3 radio programme, Backchat, to discuss the issue on 16 March 2016.  Click here to listen to the debate.

Friday, January 8, 2016

More Commentary on the Lee Bo Disappearance Case in Hong Kong (INYT, Time)

Michael Forsythe
International New York Times
7 January 2016
A Hong Kong-based editor, who specializes in gossipy books about Chinese leaders, vanishes. His wife files a missing persons report with the police. She abruptly withdraws it after a faxed letter surfaces, apparently in her husband’s calligraphy, stating that he is in mainland China of his own volition, helping with an investigation. Hong Kong border officials have no record of his ever leaving.
     The case of Lee Bo — Paul Lee is his English name — and his four missing colleagues has all the makings of an espionage thriller. But to many of the 7.2 million people in this former British colony, his disappearance and apparent surfacing across the border that demarcates Hong Kong from the rest of China have fueled a profound fear, by calling into question the legal guarantee that people here would be shielded until midcentury from Beijing’s reach under an arrangement known as one country, two systems...
     “The latest suggestion that the publisher went to Shenzhen and was arrested for having prostitution in Shenzhen is a laughable and well-known Communist smearing tactic,” Johannes Chan, a former dean of the University of Hong Kong’s law faculty, wrote in an email.  Click here to read the full article.

Nash Jenkins
Time
7 January 2016
Causeway Bay is Hong Kong’s busiest, brashest retail district — think gilded Gucci storefronts, perfume clouds, and many, many mainland Chinese tourists — but Causeway Bay Books is tucked into a second-floor corner of a dingy building that also houses a pharmacist and a beauty salon called Person Nail. The narrow stairwell up from Lockhart Road is lined with printouts that will give you a good idea of the bookstore’s wares: the faces of Chinese President Xi Jinping and Mao Zedong feature prominently, though at least two advertisements are for Antoine de Saint-Exupéry’s Le Petit Prince.
     Causeway Bay Books is also popular with mainland tourists, because many of the books it sells — tabloid tomes with lurid subject matter such as the sex lives of top Chinese Communist Party officials — are illegal north of the border that separates Hong Kong from China. But on Wednesday afternoon, the shop’s door had been bolted shut. There is nobody left to run it.
     Five of the company’s employees have disappeared. A sixth employee told BBC correspondent Rupert Wingfield-Hayes that he was afraid he would vanish next.
     The most recent disappearance was of the 65-year-old co-owner, a British man known as Paul Lee or Lee Bo, who was last seen at the company’s warehouse in Hong Kong on Dec. 30. (Four others, one of them a Swedish national, went missing while traveling overseas in October.) Lee called his wife Sophie Choi to tell her he was “assisting” an unspecified police investigation across the border in Shenzhen; Choi would later realize that his mainland travel permit, which Hong Kong residents must produce when crossing the border, was still at home. There is thus no official record of Lee leaving the city...
      “If Lee was kidnapped off the streets of Hong Kong, it would clearly violate the Basic Law,” Michael Davis, an expert in Hong Kong and Chinese law at the University of Hong Kong, tells TIME. “It would show a disregard for the separation of the Chinese and Hong Kong legal systems, which the constitution guarantees.”... Click here to read the full article.


Friday, September 25, 2015

Raj Kumar (SJD 2011), Michael Davis Speak at Law and Liberty Conference in Delhi

Professor Raj Kumar (SJD 2011), Dean of the Jindal Global Law School, opened a two-day conference on law and liberty held at the O.P. Jindal Global University on 18-19 September 2015.  Professor Michael Davis gave the keynote speech.  The Financial Express reported (24 September 2015) on the event as follows:
Jindal Global Law School (JGLS) and Jindal School of Government and Public Policy (JSGP) at the O.P. Jindal Global University jointly hosted the International Conference on “Law and Liberty”. The convention was organized in collaboration with The Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy Studies, a group of conservatives and libertarians interested in the current state of the legal order and justice, a public interest legal advocacy initiative of the Centre for Civil Society (CCS) aiming at advancing laws promoting personal, social and economic liberties, and at the same time imposing limits on the powers exercised by the state, through strategic litigation and legal advocacy.
     The forum on ‘Law and liberty’, had multiple tracks addressing a host of legal issues around Liberty vs Equality, License-Permit Raj to Competition Era, Separation of Powers–Judicial Activism, Usurping Executive Powers, Individual Rights vs Minority Rights and Right to Property.
     Over sixteen eminent speakers, both from India and abroad presented at the two day conference.
     “It is not very often, that one gets to see the word, ‘liberty’ appear beside, ‘law’,” said, Dr. Parth J. Shah, President, Centre for Civil Society, Delhi, while deliberating on the oxymoron that existed in the name of the International conference on ‘Law and Liberty’. Delivering his opening remarks at the conference, Dr. Shah, further examined the history of the concept of liberty in the democratic system of governance, and said, “Around the world, liberty, equality, justice and fraternity are known to be the cornerstones of any constitutional framework, with liberty taking precedence each time.”
     Delivering the inaugural address at the conference Professor (Dr.) C. Raj Kumar, Vice Chancellor, O.P. Jindal Global University (JGU), spoke of the ideological challenges pertaining to law and liberty in the country, he said, “In India particularly, we are living in the 19th, 20th and the 21st century together, and in a situation where you are living three centuries together, you simultaneously experience a form of political and constitutional discourse for which ideology alone does not suffice, and hence arises a need to develop a more nuanced understanding of issues”. Stressing on the critical need for the legal system to assume a larger role in the political and social discourse of the country, he stated, “As lawyers and public policy academics, one of the big challenges for many of us today, is to look at how law can actually be relevant to the larger political and social discourse that is taking place, we need to develop a deeper understanding of issues relating to law and liberty and we must have a contemporary view of these issues, I am certain that this conference will help address some of the fundamental and underlying issues related to law and liberty.”
      Speaking on constitutionalism in emerging states and the challenges faced by emerging democracies, Prof. Michael Davis, Distinguished Visiting Professor, JGLS & Professor, Faculty of Law, The University of Hong Kong, said, “Constitutionalism is not just about development of institutions, constitutions are not just words on paper endowed with original intent, rather they are avenues for interaction and mutual consent of the core institutions of government”. Debating if the process of constitutional judicial review actually serves the purpose of constitutionalism, he said, “Scholars have long appreciated that, constitutional judicial review, not only constraints but legitimates government undertakings, while simultaneously empowering people and in many cases functioning as a guardian of core institutions.... 
Click here to read the full article.

Saturday, September 19, 2015

Michael Davis on the Separation of Powers Debate in Hong Kong (SCMP)

"Separation of powers is already a fact of life in Hong Kong"
Michael Davis
South China Morning Post
19 September 2015
Zhang Xiaoming , head of the central government's liaison office in Hong Kong, caused quite a stir when he proclaimed that the city's executive-led government does not have separation of powers and that the chief executive is superior to the other two branches of government. He claimed that having three branches of government - the executive, legislative and judiciary - with each checking and balancing the other, did not amount to separation of powers. He also doubted separation of powers could apply to a sub-national government.
     One can speculate on what Zhang was attempting to achieve, but when it comes to his legal analysis, he is clearly confused. Zhang's claim that the Hong Kong system has never been characterised by separation of powers is simply false. His own recital of a dozen Basic Law provisions that afford oversight of one branch of the Hong Kong government over the others in a web of checks and balances belies such a claim.
     Indeed, contrary to his statement, when you have the three branches of government and each checks and balances the other, then you have separation of powers. That is quite literally the definition of separation of power originating in the writings of Montesquieu in the classic The Spirit of the Laws...  Click here to read the full article.