關於 u.s. customs declaration ，我們在網路上蒐集到這些相關的討論、資訊與評價

My recent article😎😎😎

https://apps.orangenews.hk/app/common/details_html…

Opinion | Ulterior Motives behind Opposition Camp's refusal to recognize HKSAR political system

HK Current

2020.09.03 11:39

By Athena Kung

In fact, the political system adopted by the HKSAR is executive-led. Under this structure, the executive authorities, legislature and judiciary complement each other, with built-in checks and balances.

In the year of 1840, Hong Kong was occupied by Britain after the Opium War. In accordance with the Sino-British Joint Declaration signed on 19th of December, 1984, the Chinese and British Governments had a hand-over ceremony on 1st of July, 1997, which marked the resumption of sovereignty by China over Hong Kong. Meanwhile, the HKSAR of the PRC was formally established. The Hong Kong Basic Law, which was adopted in April 1990 at the Third Session of the Seventh National People's Congress, formally came into effect. The Basic Law clearly states and defines the specifications as to how the high degree of autonomy as well as the political, economic, cultural and educational systems of the HKSAR to be run.

To comply with the Basic Law, since 1st of July 1997, the Chinese government has been carrying out the basic policies of "One country, Two systems," "administration of Hong Kong by the Hong Kong people" and "a high degree of autonomy" in the HKSAR. Under "One country, Two systems", even though China is a unified country and the mainland practices the socialist system, Hong Kong's previous capitalist system before 1st of July 1997 and way of life has been remaining unchanged for 50 years. To properly implement "administration of Hong Kong by the Hong Kong people", the HKSAR has all along been administering by the Hong Kong people on their own, and the central authorities have never sent officials to the HKSAR to fill any local official posts. To fulfill "a high degree of autonomy", apart from foreign and national defense affairs which should be administered by the central authorities, the HKSAR has fully enjoyed the power to decide all other matters within its autonomous jurisdiction. The central authorities has never interfered in affairs within the scope of autonomy of the HKSAR. All along, the HKSAR government has been making the final decisions on all matters within its autonomous jurisdiction as prescribed in the Basic Law.

Under the political system of the HKSAR, its major organs of power include the Chief Executive, the Government, the Legislative Council and the Court of Final Appeal. The Executive Council assists the Chief Executive in policy-making and advises the Chief Executive on matters relating to the introduction of bills and subsidiary legislation. Being independent agencies, both the Commission Against Corruption and the Audit Commission are directly accountable to the Chief Executive. In accordance with the conditions procedures as prescribed by law, the Chief Executive shall have the power to dismiss the legislative organs whereas the legislative organs shall have the power to impeach the Chief Executive and the administrative organs shall be accountable to the legislative organs. The Chief Executive, administrative and legislative organs shall supervise and cooperate with each other, which is however not the separation of powers as described by the Opposite Camps from time to time.

The Chief Executive of the HKSAR is both the head of the HKSAR and the head of the HKSAR government. His or her dual status enables him or her to have extensive functions and powers. The Chief Executive shall be selected from among residents of the HKSAR by election or through consultations held locally, and be appointed by the Central Government. Thus, the Chief Executive who is appointed by the Chinese Government to manage the HKSAR plays a very superior role in the HKSAR political system.

In short, the Chief Executive is responsible for implementing the Basic Law, signing bills and budgets, promulgating laws, making decisions on government policies and issuing Executive Orders. Article 48 of the Basic Law empowers the Chief Executive a variety of powers and functions:
" Article 48
The Chief Executive of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region shall exercise the following powers and functions:
(1) To lead the government of the Region;
(2)To be responsible for the implementation of this Law and other laws which, in accordance with this Law, apply in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region;
(3)To sign bills passed by the Legislative Council and to promulgate laws;
To sign budgets passed by the Legislative Council and report the budgets and final accounts to the Central People's Government for the record;
(4)To decide on government policies and to issue executive orders;
(5)To nominate and to report to the Central People's Government for appointment the following principal officials: Secretaries and Deputy Secretaries of Departments, Directors of Bureaux, Commissioner Against Corruption, Director of Audit, Commissioner of Police, Director of Immigration and Commissioner of Customs and Excise; and to recommend to the Central People's Government the removal of the above-mentioned officials;
(6)To appoint or remove judges of the courts at all levels in accordance with legal procedures;
(7)To appoint or remove holders of public office in accordance with legal procedures;
(8)To implement the directives issued by the Central People's Government in respect of the relevant matters provided for in this Law;
(9)To conduct, on behalf of the Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, external affairs and other affairs as authorized by the Central Authorities;
(10) To approve the introduction of motions regarding revenues or expenditure to the Legislative Council;
(11)To decide, in the light of security and vital public interests, whether government officials or other personnel in charge of government affairs should testify or give evidence before the Legislative Council or its committees;
(12)To pardon persons convicted of criminal offences or commute their penalties; and
(13)To handle petitions and complaints.

Indeed, the judicial independence plays a vital role to ensure that the acts and policies of the executive and the legislature fully comply with the Basic Law whereas all fundamental rights and freedoms to be enjoyed by all Hong Kong citizens in accordance with the law can be completely safeguarded. However, from the point of view of separation of powers, the relationship between the executive, legislature and judiciary in the HKSAR should be one of mutual-supervision, checks and balances. It is purely a kind of division of work.

The Opposition Camps has been keeping on refusing to recognize the executive leadership role played by the Chief Executive in accordance with the Basic Law. On the other hand, they intentionally and wrongly deny the executive-led political system adopted in the HKSAR so as to weaken the powers, functions and authorities of the Chief Executive. At the same time, they have been trying their best to expand the powers of the Legislative Council. Clearly, the Opposition Camp aims at making a change in the political system of the HKSAR, namely from executive-led to legislative-led in the hope of controlling the whole HKSAR Government once they can obtain more than 35 seats in the Legislative Council Election. Such step is a common strategy adopted in “Colour Revolutions” instigated by the U.S. Government. In reality, the Opposition Camp has been keeping on spreading rumors to provoke the public's hatred towards the Chief Executive so as to crack down the prestige of the executive-led system in the HKSAR and achieve its ultimate goal of Hong Kong Independence.

The author is Barrister-at-law.

The views don't necessarily reflect those of Orange News.

責任編輯：CK Li
編輯：Whon

【#TheDiplomat🌍】難得The Diplomat讀者對香港有興趣：

The series of iron-fisted moves last month in Hong Kong may seem sudden to international observers: Hong Kong government’s earlier reinterpretation of the China-Hong Kong relationship, the election of a pro-Beijing legislator to be a Legislative Council chair through a controversial mechanism, and Beijing’s recent decision to impose a national security law on Hong Kong. The desire to bring Hong Kong under the banner of “one country, one system” is not impulsive. Quite the contrary, it’s a calculated campaign to initiate a so-called “second reunification with Hong Kong” — since the first reunification after the handover, using a lenient soft-power approach, has supposedly failed.

What are Beijing’s calculations that motivate this bold campaign now? And more important, will the campaign work?

While I remain highly skeptical of solely applying the realist framework to study Hong Kong, Beijing’s mentality is nonetheless entirely realism-driven. It is therefore essential to use this lens to understand more of their thoughts.

COVID-19: A Golden Opportunity on the International Stage?

To start with, the coronavirus pandemic seems to have created an ideal backdrop for Beijing to push forward its iron-fisted policy toward Hong Kong. The West has been devastated by the pandemic, more so than China, and has been slower to recover economically. Instead of decoupling from China, Beijing thinks the West is desperate for an influx of Chinese capital and markets. This notion encourages Beijing to pursue brinkmanship, in the form of confrontative “wolf warrior diplomacy,” its escalation of sharp power, and, most recently, Hong Kong’s national security law. As long as the international community does not put their condemnation into action, Beijing will keep pushing the envelope.

Beijing is convinced that the chambers of commerce representing other countries in Hong Kong will always place profits above all else as long as the national security law does not threaten them. Business deals struck at the crucial moment can entice foreign businesses to use their lobby teams in their home countries in Beijing’s favor.

Although anti-China sentiment has become more mainstream, Beijing, the major beneficiary of globalization in the past two decades, has tied its destiny with various elites internationally. These “friends of China” can be swayed to safeguard Beijing’s interests, but the up-and-coming leaders in many countries look less friendly. Therefore, the window of opportunity for Beijing to act is closing before the new value-driven generation comes to power.

The Lack of Incentive Behind the U.S. and U.K.’s Escalating Rhetoric

While U.S. politicians from left to right are vocal against China, their ultimate goal, Beijing believes, is to win votes in the November election. They would hence avoid hurting the interest groups they represent and go easy on actions aiming to punish China, such as denying Hong Kong’s status as a separate customs territory, sanctioning Chinese companies listed in Hong Kong, or escalating the trade war.

Even though the Trump administration is ramping up the rhetoric to sanction China, protecting Hong Kong’s autonomy is not one of the United States’ core interests. In contrast, having control over Hong Kong is China’s core interest. Beijing would rather make concessions over other disputes with Washington in exchange for claiming victory in Hong Kong for its internal propaganda.

Britain, the co-signer of the Joint Declaration for Hong Kong’s handover, is arguably most entitled to denounce Beijing’s violation, which would give mandates to the United States to act. But Beijing is convinced that Britain, not as powerful as it used to be, will not make such a move. Beijing’s recent plans to withdraw businesses from the United States and list them in the London stock market is a move to place a wedge between the two powers. U.S. President Donald Trump’s unilateralism and his harsh stance against U.S. allies also strengthens Beijing’s conviction that the West will not follow the United States’ lead.

Beijing’s Divide and Conquer Strategy in Hong Kong

Hong Kong’s parliament, the Legislative Council (LegCo), is a major roadblock to Beijing’s control, as demonstrated twice since the handover — in 2003 when the national security law was first introduced and in 2019 with the anti-extradition legislation that sparked city-wide protests. In both setbacks, Beijing lost control when moderate pro-establishment legislators broke away from the party line in the face of public outcry. As the September LegCo election approaches, the last thing Beijing wants is for the election to become a de facto referendum on the single issue of the national security law, which could result in another landslide win for the democratic parties. The law would be untenable to the international community if it’s opposed by both pro-democracy voters, which according to polls account for 60 percent of the votes, and moderate pro-establishment voters.

The moderates, despite their reluctance to embrace hardline rule in Hong Kong, differ from the more militant faction within the non-establishment camp in that the former rejects the so-called “mutual destruction” option, which risks Hong Kong’s special trade status — its economic lifeline — as a bargaining tactic to force Beijing to back off. Now that Washington is considering withdrawing Hong Kong’s privileges, the possibility of mutual destruction is becoming real. As Beijing has been promoting a narrative that all supporters of the protest movement’s “Five Demands” are bringing about mutual destruction, Beijing hopes the moderates, in fear of losing their financial assets, might turn toward the establishment.

On the other hand, the pro-democracy camp is at risk of breaking apart. Moderate pro-democracy supporters have been going to rallies to keep up with the political momentum. However, marches with more than a million participants would be impossible under the current oppressive environment. For example, the authorities abuse COVID-19 social distancing measures to suppress rallies, permits for peaceful protests are increasingly difficult to obtain, pro-establishment businesses heavily censored the social media activities of employees, and outspoken individuals are often cyberbullied.

Without support from the moderates, some within the pro-democracy camp may radicalize, as Beijing expects. The radicalization would fit Beijing’s tactic of painting protests as separatism and terrorism, justifying the imposition of the national security law. The trajectory would be similar to Beijing’s handling of the 1959 Tibetan “riots,” during which Mao Zedong’s directive was “the more chaotic the scene, the better.”

The Nationalistic Agenda to Divert Domestic Attention

But after all, to Beijing, Hong Kong is not just Hong Kong. In the wake of the pandemic, Beijing urgently needs to uphold nationalism to divert unwanted attention from its economic crisis. That includes a global propaganda campaign to promote its triumph over COVID-19. Upgrading the Hong Kong protests to a national security issue — as a battle against foreign interference to complete the “reunification with Hong Kong” — best suits the nationalist atmosphere. The all-time low sense of belonging with China among the new generation in Hong Kong further justifies a strong-arm approach. The success of the strategy would offer a way to reunite with Taiwan, which would consolidate Xi’s leadership within the Communist Party.

Also, including the Hong Kong issue as part of the national agenda means that the Hong Kong government, which has already lost its will to govern, will dance to Beijing’s tunes.

This comprehensive crackdown on Hong Kong’s civil society is unprecedented. Beijing believes that the heavy-handed approach would pervade Hong Kong with a sense of powerlessness and bring it to its knees. As long as the international response is limited, the execution of the national security law, according to Chairman Mao’s “theory of contradiction,” will follow a script of “a soft hand” and “a firm hand.” That is, after its imposition, the law will initially apply restraint and be used only on individuals to set a stern example, so that the general public would feel as if the law does not impact them at all and property and stock prices would not fall. Gradually and subtly, if the realist formula of Beijing works, the “second reunification” could become a self-proclaimed success story for Beijing’s propaganda.

However, Beijing’s evaluations are not foolproof. Any single miscalculation could lead to a contradictory outcome for the People’s Republic of China. Is it really prepared?

▶️ 國安法：中國的現實主義框架
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HjhRbV8qTgo
⏺ 中美夏威夷峰會
https://www.patreon.com/posts/38378214

特朗普發言的全文

//Thank you very much. Good afternoon. Thank you. I am here today to talk about our relationship with China and several new measures to protect American security and prosperity. China's pattern of misconduct is well known. For decades they have ripped off the United States like no one has ever done before. Hundreds of billions of dollars a year were lost dealing with China, especially over the years during the prior administration. China raided our factories, offshored our jobs, gutted our industries, stole our intellectual property, and violated their commitments under the WTO. To make matters worse, they are considered a developing nation getting all sorts of benefits that others, including the United States, are not entitled to, but I have never solely blamed China for this.

They were able to get away with a theft like no one was able to get away with before because of past politicians, and frankly past presidents; but unlike those who came before, my administration negotiated and fought for what was right. It is called fair and reciprocal treatment. China has also unlawfully claimed territory in the Pacific Ocean threatening freedom of navigation and international trade and they broke their word to the world on ensuring the autonomy of Hong Kong, the United States wants an open and constructive relationship with China but achieving that relationship requires us to vigorously defend our national interests.

The Chinese government has continually violated its promises to us and so many other nations. These plain facts cannot be overlooked or swept aside. The world is now suffering as a result of the malfeasance of the Chinese government. China's cover-up of the Wuhan virus allowed the disease to spread all over the world, instigating a global pandemic that has cost more than 100,000 American lives and over 1 million lives worldwide. Chinese officials ignored their reporting obligations to the World Health Organization and pressured the World Health Organization to mislead the world when the virus was first discovered by Chinese authorities. Countless lives have been taken, and profound economic hardship has been inflicted all around the globe.

They strongly recommended against me doing the early ban from China, but I did it anyway. It was proven to be 100 percent correct. China has total control over the World Health Organization despite only paying $40 million per year compared to what the United States has been paying, which is approximately $450 million a year. We have detailed the reforms that it must make and engage with them directly, but they have refused to act.

Because they have failed to make the requested and greatly needed reforms, we will be today terminating our relationship with the World Health Organization and redirecting those funds to other worldwide and deserving urgent global public health needs. The world needs answers from China on the virus. We must have transparency. Why is it that China shut off infected people from Wuhan to all other parts of China? It went nowhere else; it didn't go to Beijing, it went nowhere else, but they allowed them to freely travel throughout the world, including Europe and the United States. The death and destruction caused by this is incalculable.

We must have answers not only for us but for the rest of the world. This pandemic has underscored the crucial importance of building up America's economic independence, reshoring our critical supply chains, and protecting America's scientific and technological advances. For years, the government of China has conducted illicit espionage to steal our industrial secrets of which there are many.

Today I will issue a proclamation to better secure our nation's vital university research and to suspend the entry of certain foreign nationals from China who we have identified as potential security risks. I am also taking action to protect the integrity of America's financial system, by far the best in the world. I am instructing my presidential working group on financial markets to study the differing practices of Chinese companies listed on the U.S. financial markets with a goal of protecting American investors; investment firms should not be subjecting their clients to the hidden and undue risks associated with financing Chinese companies that do not play by the same rules. Americans are entitled to fairness and transparency.

Several of the most significant actions we are taking pertain to deeply troubling situations unfolding in Hong Kong. This week China unilaterally imposed control over Hong Kong security. This was a plain violation of Beijing's treaty obligations with the United Kingdom in the declaration of 1984 and explicit provisions of Hong Kong's basic law-it has 27 years to go.

The Chinese government's move against Hong Kong is the latest in a series of measures that are diminishing the city's long-standing and very proud status. This is a tragedy for the people of Hong Kong, the people of China, and indeed the people of the world. China claims it is protecting national security, but the truth is that Hong Kong was secure and prosperous as a free society. Beijing's decision reverses all of that. It extends the reach of China's invasive state security apparatus into what was formally a bastion of liberty.

China's latest incursion, along with other recent developments that degraded the territory's freedoms, makes clear that Hong Kong is no longer sufficiently autonomous to warrant the special treatment that we have afforded the territory since the handover. China has replaced its promised formula of one country, two systems with one country, one system; therefore, I am directing my administration to begin the process of eliminating policy exemptions that give Hong Kong different and special treatment.

My announcement today will affect the full range of agreements we have with Hong Kong from our extradition treaty to our export controls on dual-use technologies and more with few exceptions. We will be revising the State Department's travel advisory for Hong Kong to reflect the increased danger of surveillance and punishment by the Chinese state security apparatus. We will take action to revoke Hong Kong's preferential treatment as a separate customs and travel territory from the rest of China.

The United States will also take necessary steps to sanction PRC and Hong Kong officials directly or indirectly involved in eroding Hong Kong's autonomy and just if you take a look smothering, absolutely smothering Hong Kong's freedom. Our actions will be strong; our actions will be meaningful.

More than two decades ago, on a rainy night in 1997, British soldiers lowered the Union flag, and Chinese soldiers raised the Chinese flag in Hong Kong. The people of Hong Kong felt simultaneously proud of their Chinese heritage and their unique Hong Kong identity. The people of Hong Kong hoped that in the years and decades to come, China would increasingly come to resemble its most radiant and dynamic city. The rest of the world was electrified by a sense of optimism that Hong Kong was a glimpse into China's future, not that Hong Kong would grow into a reflection of China's past.

In every decision, I will continue to proudly defend and protect the workers, families, and citizens of the United States of America. Thank you very much. Thank you.//