In Shenzhen, on Monday June 15th, The Chinese Association of Hong Kong & Macao Studies (CAHKMS), a government think tank under the State Council’s Hong Kong and Macau Affairs Office, held a forum on the Hong Kong Basic Law. Deng Zhonghua, deputy director of the Hong Kong and Macao Office, mentioned in his speech that both the central government and the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (HKSAR) government need to establish agencies to maintain national security, and that the central government will supervise and guide relevant work in Hong Kong. Deng emphasized that most of the law enforcement and judicial work should be completed by the HKSAR government, but the central government will retain jurisdiction over some cases.

Deng added, “The central government has jurisdiction over crimes against national security in the HKSAR. It must have an effective control and produce effective deterrence. It cannot be merely shouting some slogans or putting on some show. The central government should also, under extremely special circumstances, retain the power to exercise jurisdiction over crimes in the region that seriously endanger national security. Of course, very few cases will come under the jurisdiction of the central government, which will not take over the responsibilities of the relevant authorities in the HKSAR; nor will it affect the independent judicial power and final adjudication power enjoyed by the HKSAR under the Basic Law.”

Billy Li, a Hong Kong barrister and Convener of the Progressive Lawyers Group, a pro-democracy civil group formed by legal professionals, commented that, “If the (central government) enforces the law in Hong Kong, I think it is a violation of the Hong Kong Basic Law. Judicial, administrative and legislative rights are all part of Hong Kong’s autonomy, as codified by the Basic Law. Once (the central government) enforces the law in Hong Kong, even if it (the central government) adjudicates these cases, it is violating the autonomous rights of Hong Kong.”

Johannes Chan, Chair Professor of Law and former Dean of the Faculty of Law at the University of Hong Kong, also pointed out that if the national security organs can supervise and guide the work of Hong Kong agencies, this will almost completely destroy the “two systems.” It is equivalent to the “nationalization” of Hong Kong’s autonomy and will change the Basic Law beyond recognition. Chan expressed concern about Deng Zhonghua’s remarks, that if the mainland’s national security organs exercise jurisdiction in Hong Kong, it would mean the one-stop process of arrest, investigation, trial, sentencing, and even the procedure of imprisonment.

Hong Kong’s Legislative Council member Dennis Kwok expressed strong opposition to the possibility of transferring national security cases to the mainland for trial. Kwok asked, “Why can some cases suddenly be handled without going through the jurisdiction of the Hong Kong courts? Article 19 of the Basic Law makes it clear that the HKSAR has jurisdiction over all cases (in Hong Kong). That is to say, all cases related to Hong Kong must be tried in the Hong Kong courts. This further proves that the ‘National Security Law’ is unconstitutional and illegal.”

Source: Radio Free Asia, June 15, 2020
https://www.rfa.org/cantonese/news/htm/hk-security-06152020082647.html

China’s Premier Li Keqiang recently pushed for a “street vendor economy,” encouraging people to set up street stalls as tens of millions have lost their jobs. However, the media in Beijing city and even the official mouthpiece did not follow suit. The Central Propaganda Department of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) has reportedly issued a directive requesting the media to delete past reports that promote Li’s proposal. It is believed that the discord highlights a disagreement between Xi Jinping and Li Keqiang’s economic policy.

During his trip to Yantai, Shandong, Chinese Premier Li Keqiang praised the street vendor economy as the vitality of China. For a time, the words “street stalls,” and “night market” became a hot topic among the people and the media.

Even before the heat died down, first-tier cities, including Beijing and Shenzhen, clearly stated that they are not suitable for a street vendor economy. Beijing Daily, the mouthpiece newspaper of the CCP committee in the capital city, published a commentary article on June 6, claiming that the street vendor economy is not suitable for Beijing. “As the capital of the country, Beijing carries the national image. As the country’s first super-scale city, it has its own functional positioning and management requirements.”

The official website of the Shenzhen city government posted an article entitled, “Forget about ‘Setting up the Stalls!” The article said, “At present, Shenzhen has not yet promulgated any management measures for the ‘street vendor economy’ and will not announce any locations for temporary stalls.”

China Central Television (CCTV), the CCP’s official TV network, followed up on June 8. It said that for large cities such as Beijing, Shanghai and Guangzhou, refined management is the right way and that major first-tier cities have not “blindly followed the trend.” It added that some cities have “clear minds” to say no to chaotic street vendors.

Radio Free Asia quoted some insiders from Beijing’s official Xinhua News Agency that, on the evening of June 4, executives from major official media received an injunction from the CCP’s Central Propaganda Department and began to delete previous reports (that promoted the street vendor economy). The Central Guidance Commission on Building Spiritual Civilization, a CCP commission in charge of brainwashing, withdrew previous official documents on the street vendor economy.

A Chinese independent scholar, Wu Qiang, reported that Hong Kong based Apple Daily, believed that this was an expression of the debate on whether the central government should strengthen or relax economic control after the epidemic. Li Keqiang has been promoting economic freedom policies such as reducing government approvals and giving the market a free hand; but Xi Jinping has continued to intervene to strengthen control of the economy. The two were always at odds.

On June 9, Frédéric Lemaître, a reporter from the French newspaper Le Monde, wrote that people believe Li Keqiang is more inclined toward the market economy, while Xi Jinping prefers a regulated economy through large state-owned enterprises. Li once said that China “still has about 600 million people whose monthly income is only 1,000 yuan (US $141), not even enough to be able to rent a room in an ordinary city.” His words stirred up a lot of discussions and also cast a shadow over Xi Jinping’s boasting about China’s anti-poverty “success.”

Source: Radio Free International, June 14, 2020
http://rfi.my/63lK.T