Chapman Chen:Co-location Arrangement—An Oedipal Self-castration Scheme for Hong Kong

Share This:
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  

Transport and Housing Bureau website、Highways Department website

(中文版《割地自宮石敬瑭》,作者曾焯文,見英文版之後)

In his Final Policy Address, Chris Patten, the last governor of Hong Kong, presents a list of benchmarks for checking whether one country-two systems fares well in Hong Kong after 1997, one of which is:- “Is the integrity of Hong Kong/Guangdong border being maintained, including the separate border controls operated by the Hong Kong Immigration Department.” The co-location arrangement of the Hong Kong Section of the Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Rail is precisely a scheme designed and packaged with law by the Hong Kong Communist Government, with a view to masochistically inviting Communist China to cross the border, erode Hong Kong jurisdiction, and damage one country-two systems.

On 25 July, the Hong Kong SAR Government announced the co-location plan, whereby part of the area of West Kowloon Terminus of Express Rail Link (XRL) will be designated as Mainland Port Area, where China law, instead of Hong Kong law, will prevail. At a press conference held on the same day, the Secretary for Justice, Rimsky Yuen, said that the Basic Law does not “define” the territory of Hong Kong, that all the land and resources within Hong Kong belong to the State, and that the co-location plan does not amount to ceding HK land to Mainland China. Yuen maintained that since the co-location arrangement does not change the ICQ procedures, the rights and obligations of (HK) passengers will remain the same. He also stressed that the arrangement was put forth by the HK Government rather than the Central Government, that the Hong Kong Government will, based on Article 20 of the Basic Law, request the State Council to authorize Hong Kong to implement the arrangement.

In the following paragraphs, I will retort Rimsky Yuen’s argument point by point. Admittedly, the territory of HK is only demarcated by Order of the State Council of the People’s Republic of China No. 221, as an instrument attached to the Basic Law of Hong Kong, whilst the basic law of most autonomous regions in the whole world clearly demarcates their boundary. Nonetheless, if all Hong Kong land belongs to China, how could Hong Kong lease it back to China, as argued by the Hong Kong Government? While Hong Kong has always been enforced in the geographical area of West Kowloon Terminus, China law will take its place there after the implementation of the co-location system. How can it be maintained that the rights of Hongkongers there will remain the same? Despite Hongkongers’ objection, the Hong Kong Communist Government constructed Express Rail Link, proposed the co-located arrangement, and is going to appeal to Beijing for authorization of Hong Kong to forsake its own jurisdiction over portions of West Kowloon Terminus, thereby enabling the claws of Communist China to stretch into the heart of Hong Kong. Only a colonial regime betraying the interests of local people will take such pathetic, suicidal, self-emasculating measures.

Tenant Leasing Room to Owner?

First, Rimsky Yuen maintained that “there is no question of any cession or giving up of land. The reasons are obvious. According to Article 7 of the Basic Law, the land and natural resources within the HKSAR shall be State property. The HKSAR shall be responsible for their management, use and development and for their lease or grant to individuals, legal persons or organisations for use or development… the Mainland Port Area will be leased to the relevant Mainland authorities, and there will not be any transfer of property ownership.” This is, however, self-contradictory, illogical and preposterous. For, on the one hand, “there will not be any transfer of property ownership” implies that Hong Kong has “property ownership” of the land; on the other hand, all land in Hong Kong is “State property”. In other words, if all the land within Hong Kong belongs to China, then Hong Kong is a tenant and China is the owner. How could a tenant possibly lease to the owner a room rent from the owner? (Rimsky actually said, “why not”.) According to Yiu Chung-yim, an expert in city planning, if a tenant allows the owner to freely enter and leave the rented place, an essential component of the tenancy is already violated, in accordance with British case law. Consequently, the lease rights originally enjoyed in Hong Kong will be invalidated immediately. (Apple Daily article

Does the Basic Law Define the Territory of Hong Kong?

At the press conference, when asked by a reporter, “Now that the Basic Law clearly demarcates the boundary of Hong Kong, isn’t the co-location system overriding the Basic Law by way of local legislation?” Yuen replied, “When the National People’s Congress set up the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region in 1990, the State Council was authorized to handle the boundary of Hong Kong, which is demarcated by Order of the State Council No. 221. Thus, from a legal perspective, the Basic Law does not define [sic] the boundary of Hong Kong, neither do Hong Kong ordinances define the boundary of Hong Kong.” Yuen went on to clarify that the co-location agreement, which is based on the Shenzhen Bay Area model, will be submitted by the State Council, decided by the Standing Committee of National People’s Congress, and approved by the State Council. Thus, “it is not local legislation overriding the State Council’s order.”

Order of the State Council of the People’s Republic of China No. 221 turns out to be Instrument 11 as attached to the Basic Law . It states the boundary of Hong Kong, but the Basic Law does not specify that the boundary of Hong Kong will always have to strictly follow the 1997 version of Order of the State Council No. 221. Contrastively, Act on the Autonomy of Åland (1991/1144) stipulates that “Åland comprises the territory it has at the time of the entry into force of this Act.” Since the order was passed by the State Council, presumably it has the right to change its contents. In fact, the Hong Kong Basic Law is neither by the people of HK, nor for the people of HK, nor of the people of HK(Stand News article).

The Basic Law of Most Autonomous Polities in the World Clearly Demarcates their Boundaries

For instance, The Special Statute for Trention-Alto Adige Su:dtirol (2001) — Trention-Su:dtirol being a German-speaking autonomous region under Italy — states, “The Region consists of the Provinces of Trento and Bolzano/Bozen. 2. The communes of Proves, Senale, Termeno, Ora, Bronzolo, Valdagno, Lauregno, San Felice, Cortaccia, Egna, Montagna, Trodena, Magrè, Salorno, Anterivo and the district of Sinablana within the commune of Rumo in the Province of Trento” (Art. 3 1) .

Moreover, to change any portion of the aforementioned Act of Autonomy of the Swedish-speaking autonomous region Åland under Finland, including the demarcated boundary of the region, consent of both the Åland and the Finnish parliaments must be gained by a qualified majority of two thirds of votes cast.

Will the Rights of HK Passengers Really Remain Unchanged?

Rimsky Yuen also claimed that “the co-location system will not change the CIQ (customs, immigration, quarantine) procedures or the applicable law, and the rights and obligations of passengers when going through the procedures will remain the same.” The fact is that Hong Kong Law has already been enforced in the geographical area of West Kowloon Terminus. But when the co-location arrangement is implemented, Communist China Law will be enforced in the Mainland Port Area on B2, B3, and the platform on B4, some passages in the terminal as well as carriages traveling and stopping in HK. How can the Secretary for Justice so unreasonably argue that the rights of Hong Kong passengers will remain the same?! (Article 18 of the Basic Law: “National laws shall not be applied in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region except for those listed in Annex III to this Law… Laws listed in Annex III to this Law shall be confined to those relating to defence and foreign affairs as well as other matters outside the limits of the autonomy of the Region as specified by this Law.”)

A White Elephant Project

The Secretary for Justice asserted that “it is the HKSAR Government who decided to construct the XRL.” However, the Express Rail Link is simply a white elephant project. The HK Communist Government took the initiative to build it exactly because it has been a colonial government betraying Hong Kong to Communist China. On 16 January 2010, the Legislative Council, in contravention of public opinion, forcefully passed an allocation of 66.9 billion HK dollars for the construction of Express Rail Link. Thousands of angry Hong Kong protestors consequently besieged the Legco building. Subsequently, there have been additional funding requests such that the cost of the project would eventually amount to 100 billion HK dollars. Many civil organizations and individuals have already pointed out that the Express Rail Link is an ineffective, eco-hostile, money-wasting rail(Hong Kong In-Media article) .

HK Government as Self-castrating Oedipus

According to Sigmund Freud’s interpretation, when King Oedipus found that he had married his mother and killed his father, he identified with his aggressive father and punished himself by piercing his own eyes in an act of symbolic self-castration. The Hong Kong Communist Government seems to be doing something similar. (cf. Tanya Chan, 2017). The Secretary for Justice said, “It is the HKSAR Government who proposed to study the implementation of the co-location arrangement; the implementation of co-location arrangement is neither a directive nor an order by the Central People’s Government.” After a co-operation arrangement is made by Hong Kong with the Mainland Government, it will be submitted by the State Council for approval by the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress. Then, based on Article 20 of the Basic Law, Hong Kong will be authorized by the Central Government to implement the co-location plan, to which effect will finally be given by way of local legislation. Article 20 of the Basic Law states that “The Hong Kong Special Administrative Region may enjoy other powers granted to it by the National People’s Congress, the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress or the Central People’s Government.” Unexpectedly, the Hong Kong Communist Government is now using it to apply for power to give up part of its jurisdiction. The co-location system enables the claws of Communist China to directly extend to the very core of Hong Kong. After its implementation, Hong Kong dissidents, like the Causeway Bookstore directors, may no longer need to be escorted to China by boats. If the HKSAR Government were a government serving local interests, it would not propose such a treacherous plan as the co-location scheme and would not apply for power to emasculate its home town.

割地自宮石敬瑭

曾焯文

一九九六年港督彭定康告別施政報告,提出一系列指標以量度判斷九七年後香港,一國兩制是否運作暢順。這些指標包括香港跟廣東省的邊界會否變得模糊不清,香港入境處人員是否仍在有效管理出入境事宜。一地兩檢正是港共政權,由律政司以法律包裝,邀請中共越過邊界,侵蝕香港司法管轄權,破壞一國兩制。

香港特區政府七月廿五日公佈廣深港高鐵香港段一地兩檢安排,在高鐵西九龍站劃出部份區域為中國口岸區,並行中國法律。律政司司長袁國強在記者會表示《基本法》無界定香港「範圍」,香港所有土地歸國家擁有,一地兩檢無所謂割地效果;一地兩檢無改海關、入境、檢疫程序,香港乘客的權利義務無變;一地兩檢由特區政府提出,並非中央指示,但會根據基本法第二十條,提請國務院授權香港執行。

以下且由筆者逐條分析質疑。雖然《基本法》暗藏殺機,香港領域僅由文件十一國務院221號令界定(世界各地自治政體基本法多清楚列明邊界),但如香港所有土地歸中國擁有,則無理由可租返畀中國。西九龍站區域原行香港法律,一地兩檢安排高鐵底下幾層改行中共法,焉能話無變?!港共違反民意,主動提出起高鐵及一地兩檢,並引基本法第二十條,請中共授權香港,自行放棄西九站部份區域之司法管轄權,令中共魔爪得以直接伸延到香港市中心,皆因其為賣港殖民政權,饒有石敬瑭風範。(五代後晉開國皇帝石敬瑭,將燕雲十六州獻畀契丹,令中原喪失北方屏障,並稱細其十年之遼太宗耶律德光為「父皇帝」,自稱「兒皇帝」。)

租客租房畀業主?

袁國強在記者會上表示,一地兩檢絕無任何割地元素或效果,皆因《基本法》第七條列明香港境內的土地和自然資源屬國家所有,由特區政府負責管理、使用、出租等,所得收入由特區政府支配,並指有關區域是以租賃形式交由中國有關單位使用,並不涉及業權轉移。然而袁國強引《基本法》第七條,難免自相矛盾,蓋如香港境內土地屬中國所有,則港府係香港土地租客,中國係業主,試問租客又怎可以租房畀業主呢?(袁司長竟然話可以)城市規劃專家姚松炎認為,袁國強以「租客論」比喻一地兩檢是嚴重錯誤,「若租客容許業主自由進出租賃地點,根據英國案例,已違反構成租約的必要條件,令香港原本享有的租約權益馬上失效。」(蘋果日報報道

基本法無define香港範圍?

其後再有記者問袁國強,《基本法》明文表述香港範圍,現時做法是否用本地立法凌駕《基本法》。袁回應道,一九九零年全國人大成立香港特別行政區,授權國務院處理香港範圍,而香港範圍是根據國務院221號令的文字表述及圖講述,故從法律觀點看,「基本法無define(定義)香港範圍,香港本身本地法例亦無define香港邊界」,一地兩檢合作協議參考深圳灣模式,經國務院呈交,人大常委決定,再由國務院回覆,故非「純粹用本地立法override(凌駕)國務院令」。

查國務院221號令為《基本法》文件十一,有明文規定香港「範圍」,但基本法無話明香港邊界要永遠跟實一九九七年通過的國務院221號令,而國務院既自行通過221號令,按理亦可改變其內容。故曰:基本法機關處處,漏洞重重(獨立媒體:【反高鐵,六年1】當年的20個反高鐵理由),既非香港全民所立,亦非為港人而設,更非港人所有(The Hong Kong Basic Law is neither by the people of HK, nor for the people of HK, nor of the people of HK) 。如此陋法,尚要永遠延續乎?

 

(中華人民共和國國務院令第221號,根據一九九零年四月四日第七屆全國人民代表大會第三次會議通過的 《全國人民代表大會關於設立香港特別行政區的決定》,《中華人 民共和國香港特別行政區行政區域圖》已經一九九七年五月七日國務院第五十六次常務會議通過:香港特別行政區,行政區域界線…陸地部分由以下三段組成: 〔一〕沙頭角鎮段 …〔二〕沙頭角鎮至伯公坳段…〔三〕 伯公坳至深圳河入海段…深圳河治理後,以新河中心線作為區域界線。)

世界各地自治政體邊界清楚列明

另一方面,世界各地自治政體基本法,則多清晰界定邊境管轄權,例如意大利有德文自治區,特倫天奴/南泰羅爾(Trentino-Alto Adige/Südtirol),其自治法令列明疆界內的城市區域(SPECIAL STATUTE FOR TRENTINO – ALTO ADIGE/SÜDTIROL〔2001〕Art. 3 1. The Region consists of the Provinces of Trento and Bolzano/Bozen. 2. The communes of Proves, Senale, Termeno, Ora, Bronzolo, Valdagno, Lauregno, San Felice, Cortaccia, Egna, Montagna, Trodena, Magrè, Salorno, Anterivo and the district of Sinablana within the commune of Rumo in the Province of Trento)。又芬蘭有瑞典文自治區奧蘭島(Åland ),其自治法令訂明奧蘭版圖由本法生效時的領域組成(Act on the Autonomy of Åland (1991/1144):Åland comprises the territory it has at the time of the entry into force of this Act)。要改自治法令中任何條款,包括邊界,須得芬蘭國會及奧蘭立法會三分二贊成,方得通過。

香港乘客的權利無變?!

袁國強又聲稱一地兩檢並無改變海關、入境、檢疫程序,或可應用法律,故香港乘客的權利義務無變。然而,西九龍站區域原行香港法律,一地兩檢一旦通過,B2、B3的劃定範圍,以及B4月台層,加上連接的通道、電梯、高鐵行駛中、停泊上落中的車廂等,均屬內地口岸區範圍,改行中國法律。袁國強豈可強詞奪理,狡辯香港乘客的權利無變呢?!(《基本法》第十八條規定:「在香港特別行政區實行的法律為本法以及本法第八條規定的香港原有法律和香港特別行政區立法機關制定的法律。全國性法律除列於本法附件三者外,不在香港特別行政區實施。凡列於本法附件三之法律,由香港特別行政區在當地公布或立法實施。任何列入附件三的法律,限於有關國防、外交和其他按本法規定不屬於香港特別行政區自治範圍的法律。」)

港共起廢鐵

袁國強謂高鐵由香港政府決定興建,然而,高鐵根本係大白象工程,港共主動提出,正因其為賣港政權。二零一零年一月十六日,立法會違反民意,強行通過六六九億高鐵撥款,約千七名反高鐵運動示威者包圍前立法會大樓,要求與運輸及房屋局局長鄭汝樺對話,最終演變成為警民衝突。其後不斷追加撥款,變成無底深潭,造價恐達千億。反高鐵停撥款大聯盟二零一零年早指出高鐵係廢鐵,又貴,又不夠快,又破壞環境(獨立媒體:【反高鐵,六年1】當年的20個反高鐵理由)。(二零一六年三月十一日,立法會財務委員會在混亂間,表決通過高鐵涉款共一九六億元追加撥款申請,其後有十幾名市民由示威區衝入立法會,佔領大堂通往立法會大樓一樓的扶手電梯位置,要求與財委會副主席陳鑑林會面。)

石敬瑭二十條自宮

袁國強又表示一地兩檢亦由香港政府主動提出,並非中央政府提出,大家不要將交通問題政治化。與大陸政府訂立合作安排後,將經國務院,呈交人大常委會審議批准,之後按基本法第二十條,由中央授權特區落實一地兩檢,最後本地立法。基本法第二十條規定,香港特區可享有全國人大、人大常委會及中央政府授予的其他權力;詎料港共申請用來主動割地。一地兩檢令中共魔爪得以直接伸延到香港市中心,實施後,香港異見人士,如銅鑼灣書店老闆,毋須循水路,用洗頭艇押上大陸了,港府若係本土政府,又焉會主動提出,兼且申請權力自戕?


Share This:
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  

Comments