[00:00 - 00:24] questions, I'm going to give you some time, a few minutes, right?

You
can brainstorm, you can discuss with your friends how you are going to approach it,
right? I'm not expecting you to flesh out your answers. No, I'm not. I just want to
hear from you what you think I'm trying to get you to tell me in the answer, right?
[00:24 - 00:50] And then I'm going to give you my suggested answers, so you know
how to score great in the exam. Does that work for everybody? Yeah? So, we have an
exam here, right? There's a total of seven questions, right? Now, we're going to go
through them one by one.
[00:50 - 01:21] And in the real thing, in the real exam, you don't answer all the
questions, right? You get a choice of questions. But to prepare you for the exam,
we've got to go through all of them. So, without further ado, please, can I ask you to
look at question one? Look at question one. Then we're going to start discussing the
answer to question one in maybe five to seven minutes.
[01:22 - 01:49] It's a pretty simple question, all right? Now, if you want to discuss in
groups, feel free to be my guest, all right? And after that, I'm going to go around the
room and ask you guys what you think the answer should be, all right? So, I think
seven minutes. Seven minutes to discuss this question in your group, please. Thank
you.
[05:40 - 06:08] All right, before we start discussing the question, I just want to point
out an important thing. It's a two-hour exam. We've got seven questions total in the
exam. Five questions from section A, two questions from section B. You only need to
answer three out of five questions in section A and one out of two questions for
section B, all right?
[06:08 - 06:38] So, a total of four questions. Now, before I talk to you about the
answers, I just want to tell you that these section A questions are shorter questions.
They're only worth 20 marks each. So, these are shorter answers. They're not short
answers, but shorter answers, all right? Whereas the section B question would more
resemble a type of essay question, right? So, you would be expected to write more
for section B.
[06:39 - 07:04] Lengthwise, I think for section B, or complexity-wise, I think it's close
to one of your written assignments. Of course, the writing can't be as polished as a
written assignment because it's a timed thing, right? But the sort of complexity, I
would compare that with a section B question.
[07:04 - 07:26] Whereas section A questions are more trying to elicit information
from you, trying to test your knowledge of certain issues. Also, if you want to prepare
for the exam, of course, I would suggest you to prepare for everything, right?
[07:26 - 07:50] Because there's no picking and choosing. I'm not sure when you're
going to be sitting for the exam. Of course, each exam is different, but I make sure
that most of the topics are covered in all my questions. So, if you want to go in fully
prepared, then of course, you prepare for everything. But if you want to go in
knowing full well that you want to focus on certain topics, I just wanted to tell you
that you might be taking a risk.
[07:50 - 08:13] Because what you're hedging on might not, there's a possibility that it
might not come up in the exam. Although I try very hard to make sure everything is
being covered in my exam questions. There's no guarantee that what you focus on, if
you try to pick and choose topics to study, there's always a risk.
[08:13 - 08:36] So, try to prepare for all the topics before you sit and complete the
exam. And also, time yourself accordingly. What I see a lot of students do in the
exam is that they spend a whole lot of time answering the section A questions. And
then they only have 30 minutes left for the section B questions.
[08:37 - 08:59] And then they stop answering. That way, you lose out on a lot of
points. If you don't write something for section B or you write something completely
irrelevant, I just can't give you a point. I just can't. So, be sure to plan your time,
manage your time accordingly. That's my advice. Try to prepare for everything going
into the exam.
[08:59 - 09:21] It's kind of dangerous. Okay, now let's talk about the first question.
How far, if at all, is the Joint Declaration of Student Lovers to our understanding of
the Basic Law? Now, don't worry, I'm going to guide you guys. But I expect this to be
a little bit more interactive than our lecture.
[09:21 - 09:46] After all, this is a review session. I can give you the answers at the
end, but I'm not going to do that. So, answer me. Is the Joint Declaration still
relevant to the understanding of the Basic Law? Well, it's not in case, yes. Okay, now
the more difficult question. How so? What is the nexus between the Basic Law and
the Joint Declaration?
[09:47 - 10:13] Why is it relevant? Anyway. Okay, that's a good starting point. But
you need to go deeper. You need to tell me why. Anybody here to share?
[10:13 - 10:38] Yes, I mean, yes, of course. Some of the articles from the Basic Law
are taken almost verbatim from the Joint Declaration. Well, to answer that question,
first step. Where from the Joint Declaration can we see a lot of these provisions from
the Basic Law being taken? How is the Joint Declaration being structured?
[10:40 - 11:00] Does anybody have a point? No. How is the Joint Declaration being
structured? Is it just a main instrument? Yes or no? Oh, is there more to it?
[11:07 - 11:28] Okay, yes. But how is it being structured? Do you remember? How
many components are there in the Joint Declaration? Yes, thank you. There's a main
instrument.
[11:28 - 11:49] There's the main article, the main Declaration itself. Then there's
what you rightly noted, annexes. I mean, there are a couple of them. There are a
couple of them. But my focus, when we talk about the Basic Law, is Annex I. Annex I.
[11:50 - 12:13] Now, what does Annex I do? Well, you don't just look at Annex I.
Why talk about Annex I? The Enforcer of Random. Why do you tend to look at
Annex I? The thing to remember about Annex I is that it explains a certain paragraph
in the main body of the Sino-British Joint Declaration.
[12:14 - 12:35] And in my class, I spend a lot of time talking about this specific
paragraph in the main Declaration itself. If anybody can remember, almost all of my
discussion of the Sino-British Joint Declaration was on this specific paragraph.
[12:38 - 12:59] You know what? Along this paragraph, what comes after two?
[13:00 - 13:32] What goes between two and four? What goes between two and
four? The paragraph three. Okay? Paragraph three is the paragraph to remember.
You need to remember a particular paragraph of the Sino-British Joint Declaration.
Now, why is that? Because this paragraph, which is then further subdivided into
twelve subsections or subparagraphs, contains the basic policies that China has for
Hong Kong.
[13:34 - 14:02] So your favourite principle, one country, two systems, fifteen years
remain unchanged. These sort of principles, they're all found in paragraph three of
the Sino-British Joint Declaration. Twelve basic policies to remember. Now, because
paragraph three is just a paragraph, there's not a whole lot of explanation in it.
[14:02 - 14:27] Other than stating that the principle is one country, two systems, that
these basic principles should be then codified into a basic rule, that kind of thing.
The real explanation of these basic policies comes in annex one. So annex one fleshes
out paragraph three of the Sino-British Joint Declaration.
[14:28 - 14:56] Is everybody with me? Therefore, that's what this question is really
testing you on. It's basically testing you on the historical origins of the basic rule. It's
asking you, or it's testing your knowledge, as to whether you know the Sino-British
Joint Declaration provides the historical origins of the basic rule.
[14:58 - 15:18] Now, that's different from the PRC Constitution. Remember, I spent a
whole lot of time talking to you about Article 31 of the PRC Constitution, how it
creates the Hong Kong SAR, how it allows for the basic rule to exist. Well, that's a
constitutional basis for the existence of the basic rule.
[15:19 - 15:46] But the Sino-British Joint Declaration is the historical origins.
Remember our second lecture on the constitutional history of Hong Kong's basic
rule. I talked to you about what happened in the 19th century when the British came
to Hong Kong. Building up towards that climax of signing of the Sino-British Joint
Declaration and then the drafting of the basic rule.
[15:47 - 16:10] I told you that the Sino-British Joint Declaration is the predecessor to
the basic rule, because so many of its provisions are taken from the Sino-British Joint
Declaration. So when you try to answer this question, these things should really be
going into your brainstorming session, when you're brainstorming an answer.
[16:10 - 16:43] Now, if you're the standard student and you're aiming at the 4th and
4th, you would also be talking to me about things like the preamble of the basic rule.
The preamble of the basic rule. Remember what the preamble is. It's the
introduction of the basic rule. It goes the full Article 1. It also mentions the Sino-
British Joint Declaration as a useful extrinsic material. When you try to interpret the
basic rule, it might be useful as a sort of extrinsic resource.
[16:44 - 17:12] Also, in the case of Mngalek, it also mentions the Sino-British Joint
Declaration as a predecessor to the basic rule. I mean, if you're trying to ink up better
schools, you would try to incorporate a bit more to your answer. Citing case
authorities, citing basic rule provisions for extra stuff to fully develop your answer.
[17:13 - 17:46] Now, all of that was really brainstorming. We haven't really put down
those answers in a very logical sequence. When I test you, if I grade the answers, I'm
also looking for logic. I'm also looking for structure. I'm also looking for good writing,
clear writing. So what I like to do when I answer these exam questions on the CLS, I
would always recommend my students to always go in with some sort of structure.
[17:46 - 18:08] You have some headings to work with. You build your answer based
on these headings. Now, the first thing I would recommend you do. You don't need
to call me a theory teacher. I mean, everybody's got their own style. But if it were
me, it would be up to me to answer this question.
[18:08 - 18:50] I would first tell my examiner, what's this joint declaration? Why did
we add it in the first place? Then give a summary of the structure for the joint
declaration. Because remember what I said, you will have to talk about Agile 3. You
will have to talk about Annex 1. That's why you need to talk to your instructor. And 3,
you need to explain the length between the declaration and the answer. So 2 follows
from 1, 3 follows from 2. That way you have a logical sequence. You have a very
logical progression.
[18:52 - 19:18] Structuring your answer is also important. Like I said, I'm going to give
you my suggested answers. You don't need to copy a thing. You don't need to take
photographs. You're going to have my copies provided to you at the end of the class.
So you don't need to copy a thing if you don't want to. You can just listen.
Background of joint declaration. Key things to hit for me. Because I really want you to
focus instead of just copying and doing whatever.
[19:19 - 19:46] Key things that I want you to hit when you write an answer like this.
This is a bilateral treaty or bilateral declaration. It really arose out of necessity.
Because they're trying to resume sovereignty on the 1st of July 1957. So it arose out
of this necessity.
[19:49 - 20:12] Earlier I told you about the Sino-British Joint Declaration providing
you with the historical origins of the Basic Law as opposed to the constitutional basis.
If you're a better student, you will try to show up a little bit here. The Sino-British
Joint Declaration and Article 31 of the PRC Constitution did different things.
[20:15 - 20:36] Article 31 of the PRC Constitution, legally speaking, authoritatively,
allows for the existence of the Hong Kong SAR to be governed by the Basic Law. The
Sino-British Joint Declaration does none of that. It's almost a high-level document.
It's discussing these things in the abstract.
[20:37 - 21:04] So it really provides the historical origins as opposed to the
constitutional basis for the existence of the Basic Law. Structure of the Joint
Declaration. Better students will be able to tell me that the Sino-British Joint
Declaration consists of the main declaration itself and then the annexes as well as
the new one.
[21:05 - 21:36] But if you can't remember any of that, at least tell me that there's an
annex 1. At least tell me that there's a paragraph 2 of the declaration which contains
the 12 basic policies. Now I don't expect you to list out all those 12 basic policies.
That would be crazy. This is a closed book exam. But you can give me some examples
of these 12 basic policies.
[21:41 - 22:09] Things like 50 years remain unchanged. Most importantly, the last
basic policy is for these basic policies to be contained in Basic New World Law. So
these are some of the main points that I want you to meet in depth in your work.
[22:10 - 22:40] Then you go in to discuss Annex 1. Annex 1 is the main annex that we
need to discuss because it fleshes out and develops these basic policies. It's
extremely long if you remember Annex 1. It almost reflects the Basic Law. Most of
the Basic Law provisions are in fact taken from Annex 1. A favorite article in the Basic
Law, Basic Law Article 2. The outcome has executive, legislative, and independent
judicial power.
[22:40 - 23:07] You need the final adjudication. Well, that's taken from Annex 1. So
this is the link. Remember this question I was asking you about. The link between the
Santa Cruz Joint Declaration and the Basic Law. We're supposed to expand on that.
The link between the Joint Declaration is contained in paragraph 3.12 of the Santa
Cruz Joint Declaration.
[23:09 - 23:37] Paragraph 3.12 says that the 12 basic policies that are listed in
paragraph 3, as well as the more elaborate explanation of them in Annex 1, will be
stipulated. I'm taking this verbatim from the main book. Will be stipulated in the
Basic Law of the Hong Kong SAR by the NPC of the PRC and they will remain
contained.
[23:38 - 24:00] That's what it says. This is clearly an express, clear reference to the
Basic Law, which will be implemented in Hong Kong, pursuant to Article 31 of the
Basic Law. If you can't mention paragraph 3.12 in this question, I'm sorry, you will not
get a very good one.
[24:01 - 24:29] So don't pick this question if you don't remember anything about the
Joint Declaration. More importantly, if you don't know paragraph 3.12, don't write
about it. If you don't know Annex 1, don't write about it. So, you are completely right
that this question is testing that there are a lot of similarities between the Basic Law
and the Santa Cruz Joint Declaration.
[24:30 - 24:53] But it's really asking you, why? Why not? Better students, like I said,
will reference case law like garlic. Garlic has got a statement at this point in the Joint
Declaration. It's really a precursor of the Basic Law. So that's your question mark.
[24:54 - 25:16] I mean, it sounds very intimidating, but if you know about paragraph
3.12 and you know about Annex 1, I wouldn't recommend you to take that question.
It's just really eliciting information.
[25:19 - 25:45] Don't worry, I mean, after I go through all these questions, if you look
at your other acid-damp papers provided to you in the course manual, they all look
the same. Some of these questions get recycled. I'm not saying that you're going to
get the same questions. I'm just telling you that these questions come up maybe in
the motorcycles of these questions, or maybe more in some of these questions.
[25:45 - 26:12] By no means am I saying that these are the same. Question 2. What
does the Hong Kong Basic Law and related documents say about the oath that must
be sworn by legislators and others when they take office and the consequences of it?
Now, I'm going to give you time to discuss, but we're talking about taking office.
[26:12 - 26:36] The first thing that should come to you is a specific Basic Law article.
If you don't know that specific Basic Law article, by the way, that's the Basic Law
article on the floor, don't take this question. This has everything to do with Basic Law
article 104. But know what it says. What does the Hong Kong Basic Law and related
documents say?
[26:37 - 27:39] Basic Law article 104 doesn't say everything we need to know about
taking office. Related documents. What's related? So I'll leave that for you to
discuss. Take the next 7 or 8 minutes, and then we'll reconvene and I'll tell you for
our guide. Also, a hint. There's also a case that we talked about involving legislators.
[31:53 - 32:16] I'm going to guide you through this question. I told you that this
question, without a shadow of a doubt, is about Basic Law.
[32:18 - 32:55] Now that's just getting your foot through the door. Because it says
related documents. What related documents? Basic Law. And then, as an article, the
interpretation of Basic Law.
[32:55 - 33:20] Yes. It's impossible. You don't interpret the case. Interpretation is of
a Basic Law article or provision. So it's the interpretation of Basic Law article 104.
And you also rightly notice the overtaking case.
[33:20 - 33:43] I mean, this whole thing about Basic Law 104 arose because of the
overtaking case. It arose because Sixer Slough and Regina Yao refused to take the
Kristallnacht case. I'm not saying they did the right thing, I'm not saying they did the
wrong thing, I'm not saying any of that.
[33:43 - 34:14] I'm just saying it arose. The necessity to interpret Basic Law article
104 came from that case. So yes, this question is about all of that. But it's asking you
about those specific requirements and the consequences of failing to comply with
those specific requirements.
[34:16 - 34:44] The requirements are set up, of course, in Basic Law 104 because
Basic Law 104 is general, not very specific enough. That's why the NPCSE set up
those specific requirements in the interpretation. This question wants you to tell us
what those requirements are. And the failure and the consequences in the event you
fail to comply with those requirements.
[34:45 - 35:07] So this would require mastery of Basic Law 104 and very specific
knowledge of the article. I took you through that specific interpretation in class.
There's not a whole lot of Basic Law interpretations.
[35:08 - 35:31] So please go through all of them. Read them. Know them. This, of
course, is one of the more lengthy interpretations. But a bit more substantive
requirements in it. So the first thing you should talk about is identifying Basic Law
104.
[35:31 - 35:54] You tell us what it is. Now, because this is a closed book exam, I am a
normal person. I would not expect you to repeat or to be able to recite everything
from 104. That's unreadable. But I want you to be able to paraphrase this and at
least tell me the idea behind 104.
[35:54 - 36:18] That is, when assuming office, the chief executive, principal, officials,
members of executive and legislature, so basically these high-ranking government
officials and legislators, they need to take it out. What do they need to do? Well,
they need to take it out, pledging allegiance to Hong Kong SAR and to swear to Hong
Kong.
[36:18 - 36:39] That is the simple point I want you to tell me. That's all there is to it.
You don't need to recite 104. You just need to remember these high-ranking
government officials as well as legislators. They need to do one more. They need to
pledge allegiance to Hong Kong SAR, swear to uphold the Basic Law. Now, you just
read 104.
[36:40 - 37:05] I mean, honestly, what does it mean? What does it mean to swear
allegiance to Hong Kong SAR? What does it mean to pledge, swear to uphold the
Basic Law? It's all there to name it. This is the reason why, in the case of the oath-
taking case, Regina Dow, 63rd, you had these two guys coming in, one man, one girl,
[37:06 - 37:26] coming in, taking an oath, not following prescribed format. The
question of whether those oaths that they took applied with the Basic Law 104
requirement, that's the whole point. So you're not required to repeat this article,
[37:26 - 37:53] but you must show an understanding that these high-ranking
government officials, legislators, they need to do these things. The real
requirements are set out in the interpretation itself. So in a way, the NPCSC is actually
adding to the Basic Law,
[37:54 - 38:15] as opposed to just interpreting the Basic Law. This is almost like
amending the Basic Law, but they decided to call it an interpretation. So the line
between interpretation and amendment is oftentimes very long. So what does it say,
what does this interpretation say?
[38:15 - 38:36] Well, this interpretation was delivered on the 7th of November, 2016.
Good answers will note that this interpretation includes additional requirements not
contained in Basic Law 104. If you can list all of them, good.
[38:37 - 38:59] If you can't list most of them, good. If you can list one or two, that's
decent. But if you can't say anything about it, then you don't qualify for this
interpretation. So these additional materials include no public office shall be
assumed by anyone who fails to lawfully and validly take the oath.
[39:00 - 39:20] 104 doesn't say anything about consequences. It doesn't say
anything about consequences. Here, we see consequences. Two, oath-taking must
comply with legal requirements in respect of its form and content. Now they're
making it a legal requirement.
[39:21 - 39:41] The NPCSC is saying this is law. It's a legal requirement that you need
to comply with. It's not just a form. It's substantive. It's law. Oath-takers must take
the oath sincerely and solemnly. Now that's a little bit different
[39:41 - 40:02] for the person who administers the oath to the judge. How would I
know if you're sincerely and solemnly taking the oath? But be that as it may, it's a
requirement. The person administering the oath, that's the person who's hearing
the role,
[40:02 - 40:27] he needs to be certain that you are taking it sincerely and solemnly.
Oaths must accurately, completely, and solemnly read out the oath prescribed by
law. So it's not just reading out the entire thing given to you, but you also need to
read it accurately, completely, and solemnly.
[40:27 - 40:48] You can't read it out in a joking manner. That would not be solemn.
That would also not be sincere. Those who don't fulfill these rules, well, accurately,
if you miss a word, if you read Hong Kong, and not the Hong Kong Special
Administrative Region,
[40:48 - 41:11] it doesn't mean you don't read out the oath properly. Those who
don't fulfill these requirements are DQed. Disqualified. That's why Sextus Leung and
Gao were disqualified. Oath-takers who fail to meet these requirements
[41:11 - 41:32] will not be given a second chance to take the oath properly.
Remember in the case of Sextus Leung and Regina Gao. The President of LegCo
allowed them to retake the oath. That case concerned the Chief Executive lodging a
judicial review against the President of LegCo for allowing them to take the oath a
second time.
[41:33 - 41:57] So this requirement killed off the possibility of taking the oath a
second time. One shot and one kill. Okay. So 104 clearly is supplemented by this
interpretation. You need to tell me that you understand that there are additional
requirements
[41:57 - 42:18] beyond Article 104 itself. You need to look to me for the
interpretation. Very good answers will also talk to me about the Sextus Leung case.
That's an old case. It's the Chief Executive. If you look at the CFI case,
[42:19 - 42:42] it's the Chief Executive of Hong Kong versus the President of LegCo
with the CE lodging a judicial review against the position of the President of LegCo.
Sextus Leung and Gao, I think, appealed the case, so they became a court. The
President of LegCo was no longer involved in that appeal case.
[42:43 - 43:06] Sextus Leung, I think, took center stage in the CA decision. Anyway,
that's not really important. What is important when talking to me about the case is
that you need to note that the interpretation of Article 104 came whilst the court of
first instance was deciding
[43:06 - 43:28] the court of first instance judgment. Submissions had been made.
The court reserved judgment. During that time, the NECSC interpreted basically
what happened. And that changed completely. Basically deciding the case for the
court of first instance.
[43:30 - 43:51] The court of first instance wouldn't do anything. And that's hard
because of the interpretation. So this question not only tests you about a certain
kind of interpretation, but it also cuts across multiple topics.
[43:52 - 44:17] Multiple things that we did. Interpretation of Article 104. As well as
the overtaking case. I talked about the overtaking case quite a lot. So this tests your
knowledge. It's not really a separate distinct topic.
[44:19 - 44:40] Any questions about question 2? Like I said, really questions trying to
extract information out of it. Elicit knowledge.
[44:41 - 45:01] As opposed to critical thinking. It's really testing your knowledge. It's
really fact-based. It's not a lot of thought. It's really just trying to get you to tell and
explain things. This too. This question. This is an easy question.
[45:02 - 45:23] If you sit for this exam, you find a question like this, What is the
domestic dimension to the basic law? In the case of Davenport. In this case, I've
discussed three dimensions to the basic law. There's the international dimension.
There's the domestic dimension.
[45:23 - 45:45] There's also the institutional dimension. Now this asks you
specifically on one dimension. It's rather straightforward. If you don't remember
what that is now, you go to your notes, your whole statement, and then a section of
it. You just need to repeat what's been stated in that part. So I think five minutes is a
good space.
[50:02 - 50:36] It's all China, right? Think of the basic law as a national domestic
dimension. So that all the organs of the philosophy of thought, Now, what in the
basic law,
[50:36 - 50:57] Which part of the basic law set these limits? Do you remember that I
told you that the basic law is divided into chapters? Chapter one is on general
principles.
[50:58 - 51:28] What's chapter two? What's chapter two of the basic law? What's
chapter two of the basic law? I'm going to ask you what is the title of chapter two of
the basic law.
[51:29 - 51:59] I'm going to come to article 22 later. But what is chapter two of the
basic law? Chapter three is on human rights, fundamental rights. It's the relationship
between Central Korean land and Hong Kong.
[51:59 - 52:20] So this chapter, chapter two, sets the boundaries for Hong Kong and
for China. One can only do this. Some things I can do, some things I can't. Example,
article 19, for instance, tells us what acts of state are.
[52:20 - 52:41] And Hong Kong has no role to play in these acts of state. But of
course, it's not included on matters of, say, foreign affairs. These things are out of
bounds for Hong Kong. Now, conversely, are there things that China can do when it
comes to Hong Kong?
[52:41 - 53:08] For Central Koreans, organs of the Central, you probably know, what
does article 22 say? You don't need to give me a verbatim presentation of that.
[53:09 - 53:34] But the idea behind it is what? Article 22. I mean, what does article
22 say to help us guarantee the high degree of authority?
[53:42 - 54:05] Yeah, yeah. No interference from the organs or the agents of the
Central Chinese government when it comes to matters that are within Hong Kong's
autonomy. Right? In a nutshell, we can't meddle in our day-to-day activities if those
matters fall within Hong Kong's autonomy.
[54:05 - 54:28] Say, Liancheng, an act of law. I mean, Liancheng, just enacted, well, it
has finished third reading of the Samsoy, Hong Kong, whatever, right? The cross-
border tunnels and all that, right? That's domestic legislation, right? That's
something within the autonomy of Hong Kong.
[54:29 - 54:50] The Central government or the agents of the Central government
can't come in and meddle in these matters. This is something within Hong Kong's
autonomy. Now, when it comes to things like national supremacy, now that's a
different issue, right? Because it might be considered as out of Hong Kong's
autonomy.
[54:53 - 55:13] So article 22 is clearly an example. It's clearly something we want to
discuss when it comes to the domestic dimension. Now, so this question is one of
the three dimensions referred to in the paper on Hong Kong. Remember the other
two dimensions.
[55:13 - 55:34] We've got the international dimension and the constitutional
dimension. Like I said, these things get tested all the time. This time, I'm asking
about domestic. I don't know if I'm going to ask about the international dimension
or the constitutional dimension, all right? So yeah, but just to refresh your memory,
[55:34 - 55:54] the international dimension refers to the Zionist definition of being.
It's got its own international dimension to it, a basic one. The constitutional
dimension refers to the basic law as a defective constitution of Hong Kong.
[55:54 - 56:16] It's not the constitution of China, but at least as far as Hong Kong is
concerned, it's regarded as a deconstitution. That is, it is not enforceable in Hong
Kong. The PRC constitution is not enforceable in Hong Kong.
[56:17 - 56:40] That said, the PRC constitution is the constitution of the country,
China. All right? So this question asks you about the domestic dimension, and
we've discussed this already. The basic law is a Chinese law. It's a national law
enacted by the NPC, applying to all parts of China, not just Hong Kong.
[56:41 - 57:03] Now, a relevant Chinese constitution article that you might want to
refer to is Article 62. It says the NPC can enact and amend basic laws concerning
criminal offenses, civil affairs, state organs, and other matters. Another one that
complements this
[57:03 - 57:28] is Article 31 of the PRC constitution, which allows for the creation of
special administrative regions and for laws, basic laws, prescribed by the NPCSC to
be used to govern these special administrative regions. So Article 62 and Article 31
I'd recommend you read.
[57:31 - 57:56] Think of it as a China dimension. The importance of this dimension is
that it sets boundaries for both Hong Kong and for China. Branches of the Chinese
state are only permitted to exercise authority over Hong Kong if it were something
outside of Hong Kong's autonomy.
[57:56 - 58:17] If it's something that falls within Hong Kong's autonomy, then sorry
about that. So Article 22.1 is an actual constitution. So when compared to the
previous two questions, I think this is better. No questions about that.
[58:18 - 58:42] So it will be Section 8 questions. They're all of equal weight.
Honestly, some of them are easy. I can't always think of difficult questions. I'm only
you. I can only design so many questions. So this is a relatively simple question.
[58:42 - 59:04] If you don't know what this question is asking you to do, then really,
you need to work hard. Question 4. Explain the process of dissolving legible. If you
don't know that legible can be dissolved,
[59:05 - 59:32] then you need to revisit our lecture on separation of powers. How
the significance of legible by dissolving legible is very specific, narrow
circumstances. This question asks you about those specific, narrow circumstances.
[59:33 - 59:53] Legible has never been dissolved in the history of Hong Kong. This
question is asking you whether you know how and when to do it. Hint. It's
something that's done by the executive, specifically the chief executive. It takes 7 or
8 minutes,
[59:54 - 01:00:19] and then you're dismissed. Another hint. Chapter 4 of the Basic
Law
[01:00:19 - 01:06:09] is on the political structure of Hong Kong. Chapter 4 is then
further divided into sections. One of those sections is entitled Achieving Legible.
There, you'll find it. Let's reconvene.
[01:06:12 - 01:06:36] Now, I'll give you a brief hint. That this power to dissolve
legible really belongs to this person, or in this case, the chief executive. That's a
means of checks and balances between Hong Kong and Hong Kong. This is, of
course, in relation to the executive.
[01:06:37 - 01:07:02] So your discussion would be, of course, to identify this
individual as a person. Now, the chief executive is not something that you as a
member can decide whether or not he's good. The chief executive is a creation of
the Basic Law.
[01:07:03 - 01:07:27] So the chief executive's powers are limited. Only as it grows,
the individual grows, likely. Now, a common starting point for where we want to
discuss the powers of the chief executive which list 13 specific powers
[01:07:27 - 01:07:48] of the chief executive. Now, just to demonstrate to you what I
mean. I hope you can all see this. To lead the government, responsible for
implementation of Basic Law,
[01:07:49 - 01:08:10] sign bills passed by a legible member, at the end of the
legislative process, the bill needs to be signed by chief executive before it becomes
law. Decide on government policies and to issue executive orders. Nominate and to
report to central people's government or a form of principal officials. Appoint or
remove judges.
[01:08:10 - 01:08:32] Appoint or remove holders of public office. Implement
directives issued by CBG. Conduct, on behalf of the government of Hong Kong,
external affairs, and other affairs as authorized by central authorities. Approve the
introduction of punishments regarding the appraisal of the legislation. Decide
whether government officials are personally in charge and they should testify in the
name of the legible.
[01:08:33 - 01:08:54] Pardon persons convicted of criminal offences. Handle
petitions. Now, we just looked at all 13 of them. Where is the dissolving legible
part? It's not here. Well, yes, it's not here. Because you need to read on. Not all the
powers conferred on the chief executive
[01:08:54 - 01:09:15] are contained in the article. The one that I'm testing you with
this question is Article 15. I hope all of you can read the screen because this is an
important article. Oftentimes, you need to demonstrate
[01:09:15 - 01:09:36] the dynamics, the power dynamics between the chief
executive and legible. Whilst this article has never been triggered before, it is
always used to illustrate the dynamics, the power dynamics. Article 15. If the chief
executive of Hong Kong
[01:09:36 - 01:09:57] refuses to sign a bill passed by legible the second time, sign a
bill passed the second time by legible, or legible refuses to pass a budget or any
other important bill introduced by the government, and if consensus still cannot be
reached after consultations,
[01:09:58 - 01:10:21] the chief executive may dissolve Article 15. So, two situations
are envisaged by Article 15. If legible refuses to pass a budget or any other
important bill,
[01:10:22 - 01:10:44] for example, if we were to legislate according to the values of
Article 15, that would be an important bill. I would agree. Or, legible twice passes a
law that the chief executive
[01:10:44 - 01:11:07] of Hong Kong needs to sign before it becomes legal. If the
chief executive really doesn't want to sign it, and if legible passes it again, the chief
executive still doesn't want to sign it, that is another opportunity for the chief
executive to dissolve Article 15. So, this question doesn't really ask you that much,
[01:11:07 - 01:11:33] other than to tell me these two circumstances under which
the chief executive may dissolve Article 15. This is the basic point that you should
be making. Better students will of course remember that the C can only do this once
per term.
[01:11:34 - 01:11:54] Once in each five-year term course. Once. This power has
never been used before. It's really academic. We're discussing things that have
never happened before, but who knows.
[01:11:58 - 01:12:20] This would seem to... This would give us the... This gives off
the thought that the chief executive seems to be all-powerful. I mean, yeah, why
not dissolve Article 15? But if this power is very unique. In fact, not a lot of state
leaders
[01:12:20 - 01:12:41] have this power to dissolve legislation. Not a lot of state
leaders have this power. So the chief executive is given unprecedented powers. Not
even the governor has this power to dissolve legislation. The governor of Hong
Kong. But this power is not left unchecked. It's a double-edged sword.
[01:12:42 - 01:13:04] If the chief executive decides to use this power to dissolve
LegCo, well, LegCo can come back at him. Article 52. Chief executive must resign
under any of the following circumstances. Now, I want to take you to 2 and 3.
[01:13:05 - 01:13:27] When, after LegCo is dissolved, because he or she twice
refuses to sign a bill passed by it, which is one of those circumstances under which
LegCo will be dissolved, new LegCo again passes by a two-thirds majority of all the
members of the original bill in dispute. But he or she still refuses. So you've
dissolved LegCo
[01:13:27 - 01:13:49] because you refused to sign on it two times. Now, we have
new LegCo. This new LegCo again passes the bill. You still refuse to sign on it. Then
get out. You can't dissolve LegCo anymore. You must sign on it. If you don't want to
sign on it, you resign. Okay? So this is a way
[01:13:49 - 01:14:10] of keeping that power under check. 3 as well. This is the other
circumstance. When, after LegCo is dissolved, because it refuses to pass a budget
or any other important bill, new LegCo still refuses to pass the original bill in
dispute. Then you need to resign
[01:14:10 - 01:14:30] as chief executive. So you've got a new LegCo. This new LegCo
still refuses to pass your budget or still refuses to pass a very important bill. Then
you need to resign. So there's a risk invoking that power under Article 15. You
dissolve LegCo,
[01:14:31 - 01:14:52] you face a possibility or risk of having to resign if one of these
eventualities is to be lost under Article 15. So bad-ass students will gain into Note
52 to get their notes topped up for this question.
[01:14:52 - 01:15:14] But the basic, basic answer would be no. So I repeat what I've
stated in last year's analysis. Power of chief executive,
[01:15:15 - 01:15:36] you find that mainly from Article 48, but Article 48 is not
LegCo's power to dissolve LegCo. You need to look beyond that to Article 15, which
allows the chief executive to dissolve LegCo under two very specific circumstances.
This power is one of the ways
[01:15:36 - 01:15:57] to illustrate checks and balances of power between the
executive and the legislature. Very well illustrated in Power Dynamics Note 2.
Again, ever on the point that this is not a power call to state leaders across the
world. But this power,
[01:15:58 - 01:16:27] there are these two circumstances under which a couple of
price, and that price comes under Article 52, subparagraph 2, and subparagraph 3.
So you will get very good notes if you're able to explore most of these questions
[01:16:27 - 01:16:48] as to the naming of the basic propositions. Sometimes you
branch out to talk about cases, sometimes you don't. This is one of the cases, or
one of the questions that you don't need to talk about because it sells and there's
also no basic interpretation
[01:16:48 - 01:17:12] of these questions. So it's really straightforward. Either you
know it or you don't. Section A questions usually are used if you don't know what
questions. Right, so that's question 4. Any questions regarding question 4? You get
the idea
[01:17:12 - 01:17:32] of the types of questions that I'll be asking in section A.
Mainly straightforward questions. Right. We're still in section A. This is a little bit
more interesting
[01:17:32 - 01:17:54] if you ask me. This covers a topic which all of us here should
look at in any... That is the interpretation of this. You cannot prepare for this topic.
I kid you not. You cannot prepare
[01:17:58 - 01:18:21] for complicated topics in our lectures. So here, what power
does NBC and its standing committee have? Of course, you need to identify which
provision is relevant in 158.
[01:18:22 - 01:18:43] But if you're just naming out of the 158, it's not enough
because just telling me that says nothing about the power that the NBC and its
standing committee have. So, discuss this
[01:18:43 - 01:20:53] with your friends. Work on it on your own if you have to. And
then we'll reconvene and discuss in a matter of a few minutes. Thank you.
[01:25:29 - 01:25:53] There are a total of 158. 158. But, when you read questions,
you should also read the very beginning. This is a trick question. What power does
the NBC and its standing committee have? Who's got the power
[01:26:02 - 01:26:31] to interpret the basic? Anyway, I would say it's a trick question
[01:26:31 - 01:26:57] because the NBC as a whole congress does not have the
power to interpret the basic. Only the standing committee of the NBC has the
power. This is a trick question. The NBC is a huge
[01:26:57 - 01:27:20] congress. It's got lots of members and doesn't meet on a
regular basis. The standing committee meets on a more frequent basis. Every
couple of months. But, the NBC meets once every year. The NBC in Chinese
[01:27:20 - 01:27:41] is called the Daya. You've watched the news, right? The NBC
doesn't meet over time. It meets once every year to make deals. Every year in
Beijing. But the standing committee of the NBC meets more frequently. That's why
it's called the standing committee because they meet more
[01:27:41 - 01:28:02] and do more. They are the people who have to do the actual
work. The people who have to do the grind. That's the standing committee. It's the
standing committee who's got power to interpret the basic but not the NBC as a
popular type of enterprise. That's the first
[01:28:02 - 01:28:23] point. The second point, of course, would be to tell us about
158. The powers of the NBCSC and I'm specifically again focusing on those two
sub-paragraphs in 158 as interpreted in the summary. That's 158.1
[01:28:23 - 01:28:43] and 158.3. 158.2 simply says the NBCSC authorizes the Hong
Kong Congress to interpret the basic law when deciding cases. It's not really
nothing to do with the standing committee's power to interpret.
[01:28:44 - 01:29:04] The standing committee's power to interpret can be found in
158.1 and 158.3 and those two are different. 158.1 confers a general and an
unqualified power on the
[01:29:04 - 01:29:24] NBCSC to interpret the basic law. You were given a copy of
my diary when this was done. You should have read it. The term general and
unqualified that's kind of key in describing the power under 158.1 and that comes
[01:29:24 - 01:29:44] from the Hong Kong law. You need to discuss, you need to
venture as your authority for suggesting that this is general and unqualified. Now
what does general and unqualified mean? It means they can interpret the basic
law whenever they want, however they want, without
[01:29:44 - 01:29:59] restrictions, without anybody actually going to do
something. The old taking case that we talked about, basic law 104, that's
unqualified. There are other examples. You can give me, I mean,

You made a lot of tape! The recording was longer than 90 minutes. Become a pro
user (only €9 to try out) on www.mygoodtape.com to transcribe recordings longer
than 90 minutes.