DOCSLIB.ORG

How Technology Enabled Civil Disobedience by Hong Kong Anti-Extradition Bill Protesters 8Th Asian Privacy Scholars Network Conference Paper 2020

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Protests Decentralised: How technology enabled civil disobedience by Hong Kong anti-extradition bill protesters 8th Asian Privacy Scholars Network Conference Paper 2020 Janis Wong School of Computer Science University of St Andrews, Scotland ABSTRACT 例(修訂)條例IH) (FOMLA). While the use of technology in The proposal of the Fugitive Oenders and Mutual Legal Assis- protest movements is not new and is widely written by schol- tance in Criminal Matters Legislation (Amendment) Bill 2019 ars [75] [76] [81], Hong Kong anti-extradition law amendment Í送- (2019t逃¯Ê刑事事宜ø互法律T©法例(修訂)條例I bill ( ) (anti-ELAB) protesters learnt from their civil dis- H) (FOMLA) by the Hong Kong government, aimed at closing obedience pasts and transformed how such new and old tech- the gap for extradition to Taiwan, Macau, and Mainland China, nologies can further protester aims. sparked dozens of city-wide protests as demonstrators feared This paper aims to examine how Hong Kong protesters used it would erode Hong Kong’s legal system, including rights to technology to enable civil disobedience in preserving their fun- privacy and data protection, under the Hong Kong Basic Law damental rights and freedoms, thus safeguarding their identi- (HKBL). ties. In Section 2, I will outline Hong Kong’s legal framework, Facilitated by technology, the leaderless, decentralised the rights granted to the people under the law, and the legisla- demonstrations furthered the anti-extradition bill protests by tive process. I will also introduce FOMLA and how it ts into establishing legitimacy, participation, trust, and privacy be- this legal and political structure, leading up to the start of the tween citizens under the ‘One Country, Two Systems’ frame- anti-ELAB protests. While this section aims to provide back- work. Based on these themes, this paper assesses how Hong ground information for audiences unfamiliar with the Hong Kong protesters found novel uses of technology such as Tele- Kong legal system, it does not comprehensively cover all events gram, Apple Airdrop, cash and untraceable transactions, that take place during the protests. Further, protests in Hong LIHKG Forum, and protest livestreams to self-organise, demon- Kong are ongoing at the time of writing and the use cases iden- strate their support for the movement, and maintain its mo- tied may be subject to change. In Section 3, I introduce the mentum. The protesters’ use of technology also shaped Twit- demands of the Hong Kong protesters beyond the withdraw of ter, Facebook, and Youtube policies, removing bot accounts and the FOMLA bill, outlining how these demands tie in closely state-sponsored disinformation from their platforms. with preserving the Hong Kong identity through protecting the Learning from the city’s past protests, arrests, and convic- rights of the Hong Kong people. Exploring technology through tions, this paper illustrates how Hong Kong protesters trans- the themes of participation, legitimacy, trust, and protection formed their use of technology as a means to protect their in Section 4, I explore how demonstrators changed their use of personal identities, preserve their rights enshrined under the technology over time to enable and sustain their civil disobe- HKBL, and strive for democratic freedoms. dience. In Section 5, I briey discuss what Hong Kong’s future may hold with regards to how protesters, the Government, and China may react to how technology has enabled the anti-ELAB 1 Introduction protests. Finally, I conclude that while technology did not cause Technology has become an important part of communication, or determine the protests, it played a crucial role in shaping the freedom of expression, and how individuals and communities anti-ELAB movement in Hong Kong and changed the interna- express themselves both online and oine. As one of the most tional discourse on civil disobedience. connected cities in the world, Hong Kong is no exception. The city has one of the fastest internet speeds globally [5] and is 2 The Hong Kong Legal System and home to the Nobel Prize in Physics recipient Sir Charles Kuen Kao (高錕) for his work on bre optic communications [64], Anti-Extradition Bill the most mobile connections per capita [15], and is ranked Governed by the Hong Kong Basic Law (HKBL) [73], the Hong fourth in technological infrastructure innovation [18]. In Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People’s Republic Kong’s data-driven society [57], it is therefore no surprise that of China represents an oddity of colonial legislative and polit- technology played an important role in enabling civil disobe- ical history. After 156 years of British rule since the end of the dience for the protest against the Fugitive Oenders and Mu- First Opium War in 1842 [6], the territory of Hong Kong was tual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Legislation (Amend- handed over to China in 1997. To ease the transition, the new ment) Bill 2019 (2019t逃¯Ê刑事事宜ø互法律T©法 legal framework ‘One Country, Two Systems’ was implemented HOW LAWS ARE MADE Appendix in order for Hong Kong to maintains its legal, economic, and LAW-MAKING PROCESS Chief Executive in the Government Legislative Council Where bill complies Executive Council Policy Bureaux Members with Article 74 of the administrative systems while demonstrating Britain’s commit- Basic Law and RoP ment to the ‘One-China’ policy. The head of the Hong Kong Government Presentation of bill and Policy Bureaux Presentation of bill and arrangement of publication arrangement of publication Government, the Chief Executive, is appointed by China’s Cen- of bill in Gazette by Clerk Legislative Council of bill in Gazette by Clerk tral People’s Government (Article 15). The Legislative Council to the Legislative Council to the Legislative Council is the legislature of Hong Kong (Article 67). Under the exist- First Reading House Committee Moving of motion on ing political framework, Hong Kong citizens are only able to Second Reading (debate to be adjourned) directly elect 35 out of 70 Legislative Council geographical con- Decision to form Decision not to form Bills Committee Bills Committee stituency Members [33] despite Article 68 outlining that ‘the ul- Bills Committee Notice of resumption of timate aim is the election of all the members of the Legislative debate given by public Report to House ofcer/Member in Resumption of Council by universal surage’. Under the HKBL, Hong Kong Committee charge of bill Second Reading debate Voting upon motion on can ‘exercise a high degree of autonomy and enjoy executive, Negatived End Second Reading legislative and independent judicial power, including that of - Passed nal adjudication, in accordance with the provisions of this Law’ Committee of the whole Council (Article 2). The existing rights of Hong Kong people are also Voting procedures According to the Basic Law, the Legislative Examination of and voting on clauses of bill Council shall adopt the following procedures protected by the HKBL, including ‘the right to vote and the (and proposed for voting on motions, bills or amendments: Reporting of bill from Committee amendments if any) right to stand for election’ (Article 26), ‘freedom of speech, of 1. Motions, bills or amendments introduced of the whole Council and by the Government: voting upon motion on the report Negatived End the press and of publication; freedom of association, of assem- require at least a simple majority vote of Members present. Passed bly, of procession and of demonstration; and the right and free- 2. Motions, bills or amendments to Government bills introduced by individual Moving of motion on Third Reading dom to form and join trade unions, and to strike’ (Article 27), Members: require a simple majority vote of each Debate on Third Reading and Negatived End ‘freedom and privacy of communication’ (Article 30), and ‘free- of the following two groups of Members voting upon motion on Third Reading present: dom of conscience’ (Article 32). The ‘One Country, Two Sys- (i) Members returned by functional Passed constituencies; and Submission of bill to the tems’ framework governing Hong Kong includes that the ‘capi- (ii) Members returned by geographical Chief Executive for signature Report by the Government to constituencies. the Standing Committee of the talist system and way of life shall remain unchanged for 50 years’ Promulgation of bill in Gazette by National People's Congress (Article 5). Chief Executive and taking efect for record In February 2019, the Hong Kong Government rst proposed Further Reference: Legislative Council Secretariat FigureLegislative Council 1: Thein Brief No. law-making 5 – What is a Bill process in the Legislative CouncilEducation Service Team [32]. Legislative Council in Brief No. 8 – How Does the Legislative Council www.legco.gov.hk FOMLA to close the extradition gap following the murder of Approve Public Expenditure 22 Dec 2017 Poon Hiu Wing (X曉N) by her boyfriend Chan Tong Kai (s “Legislative Council in Brief”are prepared for general information only. They are not legal or other professional advice and shall not be relied on as such. Whilst The Legislative Council Commission (the Commission) endeavours to make the materials contained in “Legislative Council in Brief” accurate, the Commission and its employees do not warrant the accuracy and completeness of the materials and disclaim all liabilities for loss or damage. 同s that“Legislative the Council in Brief” bill are subject towould copyright owned by the Commission. undermine The Commission permits accurate thereproduction of international“Legislative Council in Brief” for non-commercial use in community’s a manner not adversely afecting ) in Taiwan in 2018, where the two Hong Kong residents the Legislative Council provided that the source is acknowledged. were visiting at the time. As Hong Kong does not have extra- condence with Hong Kong’s judicial system [83]; the President dition treaties with Taiwan, the Hong Kong government pro- of the American Chamber of Commerce said that passing the posed amendments to the Fugitive Oenders Ordinance (Cap.
Recommended publications
  • Surrounded by Slogans Perpetual Protest in Public Space During the Hong Kong 2019 Protests

    Surrounded by Slogans Perpetual Protest in Public Space During the Hong Kong 2019 Protests

    12 Spaces of perpetual protest The breakdown of ‘normal’; continuously The Study reacting to and accommodating the protests Surrounded by slogans Perpetual protest in public space during the Hong Kong 2019 protests Milan Ismangil On the way to the metro, I walk past graffiti and posters asking me to be conscious and supportive of the protests. In the metro itself footage of protesters is shown on the many television screens.1 Public space in Hong Kong can no longer be neutral, it seems. The protests in Hong Kong are entering their fifth month at the time of writing. Originally demanding the withdrawal of a controversial extradition bill, they quickly transformed into a larger cry for accountability of those in power, with universal suffrage and an independent investigation into police brutality amongst the five main demands. The Lennon Walls 2 that have popped up all over Hong Kong and other places across the world are home to post-its, posters and various other visual media, put there by anyone wishing to Fig. 1 (above): express their support for the movement. In this The ‘Lennon Bridge’ in Tai Wo Hau. article I discuss the transformation of Hong Fig. 2 (left): Kong’s public areas into spaces of perpetual Remembering the movement near Wong protest. Tai Sin temple. Fig. 3 (below): Appeals to history and memory at the Chinese t is nearly impossible to walk anywhere the attacks on protesters by assailants with University of Hong Kong. in Hong Kong today without encountering knives on 21 July 2019, and the second to Fig.
  • Chapter 6 Hong Kong

    Chapter 6 Hong Kong

    CHAPTER 6 HONG KONG Key Findings • The Hong Kong government’s proposal of a bill that would allow for extraditions to mainland China sparked the territory’s worst political crisis since its 1997 handover to the Mainland from the United Kingdom. China’s encroachment on Hong Kong’s auton- omy and its suppression of prodemocracy voices in recent years have fueled opposition, with many protesters now seeing the current demonstrations as Hong Kong’s last stand to preserve its freedoms. Protesters voiced five demands: (1) formal with- drawal of the bill; (2) establishing an independent inquiry into police brutality; (3) removing the designation of the protests as “riots;” (4) releasing all those arrested during the movement; and (5) instituting universal suffrage. • After unprecedented protests against the extradition bill, Hong Kong Chief Executive Carrie Lam suspended the measure in June 2019, dealing a blow to Beijing which had backed the legislation and crippling her political agenda. Her promise in September to formally withdraw the bill came after months of protests and escalation by the Hong Kong police seeking to quell demonstrations. The Hong Kong police used increasingly aggressive tactics against protesters, resulting in calls for an independent inquiry into police abuses. • Despite millions of demonstrators—spanning ages, religions, and professions—taking to the streets in largely peaceful pro- test, the Lam Administration continues to align itself with Bei- jing and only conceded to one of the five protester demands. In an attempt to conflate the bolder actions of a few with the largely peaceful protests, Chinese officials have compared the movement to “terrorism” and a “color revolution,” and have im- plicitly threatened to deploy its security forces from outside Hong Kong to suppress the demonstrations.
  • Reddening Or Reckoning​?

    Reddening Or Reckoning​?

    Reddening or Reckoning​? An Essay on China’s Shadow on Hong Kong Media 22 Years after Handover from British Rule Stuart Lau Journalist Fellow 2018 Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism University of Oxford August 2019 CONTENTS 1. Preface 2 2. From top to bottom: the downfall of a TV station 4 3. Money, Power, Media 10 4. “Political correctness”: New normal for media 20 5. From the Big Brother: “We are watching you” 23 6. Way forward - Is objective journalism still what Hong Kong needs? 27 1 Preface Hong Kong journalists have always stood on the front line of reporting China, a country that exercises an authoritarian system of government but is nonetheless on track to global economic prominence. The often-overlooked role of Hong Kong journalists, though, has gained international attention in summer 2019, when weeks of citywide protests has viralled into the largest-scale public opposition movement ever in the city’s 22-year history as a postcolonial political entity under Chinese sovereignty, forcing the Hong Kong government into accepting defeat over the hugely controversial extradition bill. While much can be said about the admirable professionalism of Hong Kong’s frontline journalists including reporters, photojournalists and video journalists, most of whom not having received the level of warzone-like training required amid the police’s unprecedentedly massive use of potentially lethal weapons, this essay seeks to examine something less visible and less discussed by international media and academia: the extent to which China influences Hong Kong’s media organisations, either directly or indirectly. The issue is important on three levels.
  • Individual Civil Society Report Submitted to the Human Rights

    Individual Civil Society Report Submitted to the Human Rights

    Individual Civil Society Report submitted to the Human Rights Committee ************************** for consideration in the preparation of the list of issues at the 129th Session (29 June 2020- 24 July 2020) of ICCPR ************************** Submitted by: Sounds of the Silenced Human Rights Now April 2020 Sounds of the Silenced & Human Rights Now 1. Introduction 1. The Sounds of the Silenced1 (‗SOS‘) was founded in response to the rapid erosion of rights in Hong Kong amid the 2019 Protests. The SOS is a non-profit organisation comprising of Hong Kong citizens that are legal practitioners, law students and individuals with a legal background. Human Rights Now2 (‗HRN‘) is a Tokyo-based international human rights NGO focusing on human rights issues in the Asia region through fact-finding, advocacy, and empowerment work. HRN was founded in 2006 by lawyers, academics, and journalists; has over 700 members; and received special consultative status with the Economic and Social Council in 2012. 2. This report responds to the Fourth Report of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (―HKSAR‖) in light of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights ("ICCPR") (hereinafter referred to as the "HKSAR 4th ICCPR Report") and the concluding observations on the fourth report of Hong Kong, adopted by the Committee at its 107th session (hereinafter referred to as the ―Concluding Observations 2013‖). 3. In view of the recent protests that began over the now withdrawn Fugitive Offenders and Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Legislation (Amendment) Bill 2019 (the ―Amendment Bill 2019‖, or ―Extradition Bill‖) in June 2019, we can see an opportunity to provide critical updates and supplementary information to that already contained in the HKSAR 4th ICCPR Report.
  • Hong Kong: in the Name of National Security Human Rights Violations Related to the Implementation of the Hong Kong National Security Law

    Hong Kong: in the Name of National Security Human Rights Violations Related to the Implementation of the Hong Kong National Security Law

    HONG KONG: IN THE NAME OF NATIONAL SECURITY HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATIONS RELATED TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE HONG KONG NATIONAL SECURITY LAW Amnesty International is a global movement of more than 10 million people who campaign for a world where human rights are enjoyed by all. Our vision is for every person to enjoy all the rights enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other international human rights standards. We are independent of any government, political ideology, economic interest or religion and are funded mainly by our membership and public donations. © Amnesty International 2021 Except where otherwise noted, content in this document is licensed under a Creative Commons (attribution, non-commercial, no derivatives, international 4.0) licence. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/legalcode For more information please visit the permissions page on our website: www.amnesty.org Where material is attributed to a copyright owner other than Amnesty International this material is not subject to the Creative Commons licence. First published in 2021 by Amnesty International Ltd Peter Benenson House, 1 Easton Street London WC1X 0DW, UK Index: ASA 17/4197/2021 June 2021 Original language: English amnesty.org CONTENTS INTRODUCTION 2 1. BACKGROUND 3 2. ACTS AUTHORITIES CLAIM TO BE ‘ENDANGERING NATIONAL SECURITY’ 5 EXERCISING THE RIGHT OF PEACEFUL ASSEMBLY 5 EXERCISING THE RIGHT TO FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION 7 EXERCISING THE RIGHT TO FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION 9 ENGAGING IN INTERNATIONAL POLITICAL ADVOCACY 10 3. HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATIONS ENABLED BY THE NSL 12 STRINGENT THRESHOLD FOR BAIL AND PROLONGED PERIOD OF PRETRIAL DETENTION 13 FREEDOM OF MOVEMENT 15 RETROACTIVITY 16 SPECIALLY APPOINTED JUDGES 16 RIGHT TO LEGAL COUNSEL 17 ADEQUATE TIME AND FACILITIES TO PREPARE A DEFENCE 17 4.
  • VI. Developments in Hong Kong and Macau

    VI. Developments in Hong Kong and Macau

    VI. Developments in Hong Kong and Macau Findings • During the Commission’s reporting year, a number of deeply troubling developments in Hong Kong undermined the ‘‘one country, two systems’’ governance framework, which led the U.S. Secretary of State to find that Hong Kong has not main- tained a high degree of autonomy for the first time since the handover in July 1997. • On June 30, 2020, the National People’s Congress Standing Committee (NPCSC) passed the Law of the People’s Republic of China on Safeguarding National Security in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (National Security Law), by- passing Hong Kong’s Legislative Council. To the extent that this law criminalizes secession, subversion, terrorist activities, and collusion with foreign states, this piece of legislation vio- lates Hong Kong’s Basic Law, which specifies that Hong Kong shall pass laws concerning national security. Additionally, the National Security Law raises human rights and rule of law concerns because it violates principles such as the presumption of innocence and because it contains vaguely defined criminal offenses that can be used to unduly restrict fundamental free- doms. • The Liaison Office of the Central People’s Government in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (PRC Liaison Office) declared in April 2020 that neither it nor the Hong Kong and Macao Affairs Office, both being State Council agencies, were subject to Article 22 of the Basic Law—a provision designed to protect Hong Kong’s high degree of autonomy. The Hong Kong government had long interpreted the provision to cover the PRC Liaison Office, but it reversed itself overnight in an ap- parent attempt to conform its position to that of the central government.
  • Prospects for Democracy in Hong Kong: China's December 2007

    Prospects for Democracy in Hong Kong: China's December 2007

    Order Code RS22787 January 10, 2008 Prospects for Democracy in Hong Kong: China’s December 2007 Decision Michael F. Martin Analyst in Asian Trade and Finance Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade Summary The prospects for democratization in Hong Kong became clearer following a decision of the Standing Committee of China’s National People’s Congress (NPCSC) on December 29, 2007. The NPCSC’s decision effectively set the year 2017 as the earliest date for the direct election of Hong Kong’s Chief Executive and the year 2020 as the earliest date for the direct election of all members of Hong Kong’s Legislative Council (Legco). However, ambiguities in the language used by the NPCSC have contributed to differences in interpretation of its decision. According to Hong Kong’s current Chief Executive, Donald Tsang Yam-kuen, the decision sets a clear timetable for democracy in Hong Kong. However, representatives of Hong Kong’s “pro- democracy” parties believe the decision includes no solid commitment to democratization in Hong Kong. The NPCSC’s decision also established some guidelines for the process of election reform in Hong Kong, including what can and cannot be altered in the 2012 elections. Since China established the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (HKSAR) on July 1, 1997, there have been questions about when and how the democratization of Hong Kong will take place.1 At present, Hong Kong’s Chief Executive is selected by an “Election Committee” of 800 largely appointed people, and its Legislative Council (Legco) consists of 30 members elected by universal suffrage in five geographic districts and 30 members selected by 28 “functional constituencies” representing various important sectors.
  • Hong Kong's National Security

    Hong Kong's National Security

    FEBRUARY 2021 HONG KONG’S NATIONAL SECURITY LAW: A Human Rights and Rule of Law Analysis by Lydia Wong and Thomas E. Kellogg THE NATIONAL SECURITY LAW constitutes one of the greatest threats to human rights and the rule of law in Hong Kong since the 1997 handover. This report was researched and written by Lydia Wong (alias, [email protected]), research fellow, Georgetown Center for Asian Law; and Thomas E. Kellogg ([email protected]), executive director, Georgetown Center for Asian Law, and adjunct professor of law, Georgetown University Law Center. (Ms. Wong, a scholar from the PRC, decided to use an alias due to political security concerns.) The authors would like to thank three anonymous reviewers for their comments on the draft report. We also thank Prof. James V. Feinerman for both his substantive inputs on the report, and for his longstanding leadership and guidance of the Center for Asian Law. We would also like to thank the Hong Kongers we interviewed for this report, for sharing their insights on the situation in Hong Kong. All photographs by CLOUD, a Hong Kong-based photographer. Thanks to Kelsey Harrison for administrative and publishing support. Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY i The National Security Law: Undermining the Basic Law, Threatening Human Rights iii Implementation of the NSL iv I INTRODUCTION 1 THE HONG KONG NATIONAL SECURITY LAW: II A HUMAN RIGHTS AND RULE OF LAW ANALYSIS 6 The NSL: Infringing LegCo Authority 9 New NSL Structures: A Threat to Hong Kong’s Autonomy 12 The NSL and the Courts: Judicial
  • Hong Kong Protests

    Hong Kong Protests

    Country Policy and Information Note China: Hong Kong protests Version 1.0 February 2020 Preface Purpose This note provides country of origin information (COI) and analysis of COI for use by Home Office decision makers handling particular types of protection and human rights claims (as set out in the basis of claim section). It is not intended to be an exhaustive survey of a particular subject or theme. It is split into two main sections: (1) analysis and assessment of COI and other evidence; and (2) COI. These are explained in more detail below. Assessment This section analyses the evidence relevant to this note – i.e. the COI section; refugee/human rights laws and policies; and applicable caselaw – by describing this and its inter-relationships, and provides an assessment on whether, in general: • A person is reasonably likely to face a real risk of persecution or serious harm • A person is able to obtain protection from the state (or quasi state bodies) • A person is reasonably able to relocate within a country or territory • Claims are likely to justify granting asylum, humanitarian protection or other form of leave, and • If a claim is refused, it is likely or unlikely to be certifiable as ‘clearly unfounded’ under section 94 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002. Decision makers must, however, still consider all claims on an individual basis, taking into account each case’s specific facts. Country of origin information The country information in this note has been carefully selected in accordance with the general principles of COI research as set out in the Common EU [European Union] Guidelines for Processing Country of Origin Information (COI), dated April 2008, and the Austrian Centre for Country of Origin and Asylum Research and Documentation’s (ACCORD), Researching Country Origin Information – Training Manual, 2013.
  • Mass Internment Camp Implementation, Abuses

    Mass Internment Camp Implementation, Abuses

    CONGRESSIONAL-EXECUTIVE COMMISSION ON CHINA ANNUAL REPORT 2020 ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS SECOND SESSION DECEMBER 2020 Printed for the use of the Congressional-Executive Commission on China ( Available via the World Wide Web: https://www.cecc.gov 2020 ANNUAL REPORT CONGRESSIONAL-EXECUTIVE COMMISSION ON CHINA ANNUAL REPORT 2020 ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS SECOND SESSION DECEMBER 2020 Printed for the use of the Congressional-Executive Commission on China ( Available via the World Wide Web: https://www.cecc.gov U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE 40–674 PDF WASHINGTON : 2020 CONGRESSIONAL-EXECUTIVE COMMISSION ON CHINA LEGISLATIVE BRANCH COMMISSIONERS House Senate JAMES P. MCGOVERN, Massachusetts, MARCO RUBIO, Florida, Co-chair Chair JAMES LANKFORD, Oklahoma MARCY KAPTUR, Ohio TOM COTTON, Arkansas THOMAS SUOZZI, New York STEVE DAINES, Montana TOM MALINOWSKI, New Jersey TODD YOUNG, Indiana BEN MCADAMS, Utah DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California CHRISTOPHER SMITH, New Jersey JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon BRIAN MAST, Florida GARY PETERS, Michigan VICKY HARTZLER, Missouri ANGUS KING, Maine EXECUTIVE BRANCH COMMISSIONERS To Be Appointed JONATHAN STIVERS, Staff Director PETER MATTIS, Deputy Staff Director (II) CONTENTS Page Section I. Executive Summary ................................................................................ 1 a. Statement From the Chairs ......................................................................... 1 b. Overview ....................................................................................................... 3 c. Key
  • “Chineseness” and Tongzhi in (Post)Colonial Diasporic

    “Chineseness” and Tongzhi in (Post)Colonial Diasporic

    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Texas A&M University “CHINESENESS” AND TONGZHI IN (POST)COLONIAL DIASPORIC HONG KONG A Thesis by CHI CH’ENG WAT Submitted to the Office of Graduate Studies of Texas A&M University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE December 2011 Major Subject: Sociology “Chineseness” and Tongzhi in (Post)colonial Diasporic Hong Kong Copyright 2011 Chi Ch’eng Wat “CHINESENESS” AND TONGZHI IN (POST)COLONIAL DIASPORIC HONG KONG A Thesis by CHI CH’ENG WAT Submitted to the Office of Graduate Studies of Texas A&M University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE Approved by: Co-Chairs of Committee, Ashley Currier Sarah N. Gatson Committee Members, Zulema Valdez Head of Department, Jane Sell December 2011 Major Subject: Sociology iii ABSTRACT “Chineseness” and Tongzhi in (Post)colonial Diasporic Hong Kong. (December 2011) Chi Ch’eng Wat, B.S., National Tsing Hua University, Taiwan; M.S. Texas A&M University Co-Chair of Advisory Committee: Dr. Ashley Currier Dr. Sarah Gatson In this thesis, I examine how colonial constructs on Chinese culture affects people’s views toward sexual minorities in Hong Kong. In the first Chapter, I explain the shift of my research focus after I started my research. I also conduct a brief literature review on existing literature on sexual minorities in mainland China and Hong Kong. In the second Chapter, I examine interviewees’ accounts of family pressure and perceived conflicts between their religious beliefs and sexual orientation.
  • China's National Security Law for Hong Kong

    China's National Security Law for Hong Kong

    China’s National Security Law for Hong Kong: Issues for Congress Updated August 3, 2020 Congressional Research Service https://crsreports.congress.gov R46473 SUMMARY R46473 China’s National Security Law for Hong Kong: August 3, 2020 Issues for Congress Susan V. Lawrence On June 30, 2020, China’s National People’s Congress Standing Committee (NPCSC) passed a Specialist in Asian Affairs national security law (NSL) for the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (HKSAR). Hong Kong’s Chief Executive promulgated it in Hong Kong later the same day. The law is widely seen Michael F. Martin as undermining the HKSAR’s once-high degree of autonomy and eroding the rights promised to Specialist in Asian Affairs Hong Kong in the 1984 Joint Declaration on the Question of Hong Kong, an international treaty between the People’s Republic of China (China, or PRC) and the United Kingdom covering the 50 years from 1997 to 2047. The NSL criminalizes four broadly defined categories of offenses: secession, subversion, organization and perpetration of terrorist activities, and “collusion with a foreign country or with external elements to endanger national security” in relation to the HKSAR. Persons convicted of violating the NSL can be sentenced to up to life in prison. China’s central government can, at its or the HKSAR’s discretion, exercise jurisdiction over alleged violations of the law and prosecute and adjudicate the cases in mainland China. The law apparently applies to alleged violations committed by anyone, anywhere in the world, including in the United States. The HKSAR and PRC governments have already begun implementing the NSL, including setting up the new entities the law requires.