關於 nomination letter ，我們在網路上蒐集到這些相關的討論、資訊與評價

To DQ or To Postpone? (Lee Yee)

To DQ or To Postpone? That’s probably the ultimate question for the Liaison Office of the Central People’s Government and Carry Lam around the issue of the Legislative Council (LegCo) Election right now.

Since the waterloo of the District Council Election, the Hong Kong and Macau Affairs Office, the Liaison Office of the Central People’s Government, and the Constitutional Affairs Bureau have all been restructured. The Chinese and Hong Kong Communists are ensuring that there will not be a slip in the LegCo Election in September. Forcing the National Security Law was to use the law to screen the candidates, but they had not foreseen the international backlash and that would place China under siege from all around. Moreover, Hongkongers have not retreated despite the threats of the National Security Law, but rather, a large number of youngsters from the resistance camp ended up winning in the pro-democracy primaries.

A month ago, US Secretary of State Pompeo called the September LegCo Election in Hong Kong an important indicator of whether the Election can be held smoothly, and to observe whether China is respecting Hong Kong’s freedom. In other words, if the Carrie Lam administration uses the National Security Law as a threshold to disqualify a large number of Hongkongers’ rights to be elected, the US is bound to employ more aggressive measures against China and Hong Kong.

As a result, the Chinese and Hong Kong Communists are directing their efforts in these two days to spread the word regarding the increasing severity of the epidemic, which would increase the likelihood of the virus being spread in crowded polling stations, and therefore suggested for a postponement of the Election. The truth was told by Tam Yiu-chung, who said, “Those who moved to the Greater Bay Area will need to quarantine for 14 days when they return to Hong Kong, but they don’t have a place to stay. Indeed, we’ve seen truckloads after truckloads of “voters” coming to Hong Kong from the mainland, so what will happen now?

However, the pro-democracy primaries also attracted huge crowds, but none of the recent confirmed cases contracted the virus from being in line to vote; Singapore has a worse epidemic situation than Hong Kong, but the general election was held as usual. Therefore, whether it is to disqualify through the national security law, or to postpone with the epidemic as an excuse, the US is bound to view whether the LegCo Election gets to happen as a significant indicator of Hong Kong’s freedom. For the Chinese and Hong Kong Communists, both disqualifications and postponement would lead to a dead end.

Those who are interested in running for LegCo should not worry about whether to sign the confirmation letter or not. In the nomination form, there is already a provision: “I will uphold the Basic Law and pledge allegiance to the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region.” The additional confirmation letter added in 2016 is nothing more than a regurgitation of requiring candidates to confirm their support for Articles 1, 12, and 159 (4) of the Basic Law, which is already stated in the nomination and no need to additional confirmation. In 2016, those who signed the confirmation letter were still disqualified, and all the pan-democratic candidates who refused to sign the confirmation letter received the notice of nomination confirmation.

The National Security Law in Annex III of the Basic Law may be added to this year’s confirmation letter. Being disqualified will have nothing to do with the signing or not of the confirmation letter, but rather, whether the Returning Officer is willing to risk being disqualified (sanctioned) by the US, and whether the Chinese and Hong Kong Communists are concerned about the increased sanctions imposed by the US.

As the US election gets closer, its China policy gets tougher, and the polling of both parties benefits. The day before yesterday, Pompeo met with Nathan Law, a former standing committee member of Demosistō in exile, to discuss the Hong Kong situation under the National Security Law. Before the meeting, Pompeo said that he expected the exchange with Nathan Law to be “eye-opening”.

Pompeo also discussed the Hong Kong issue with British Prime Minister Boris Johnson. Previously, the UK canceled the extradition agreement with Hong Kong and announced that it would stop using Huawei equipment in the construction of the 5G network.

When Nathan Law met with the Shadow Foreign Minister of the Labour Party and the Minister of Asian Affairs of the ruling Conservative Party before July 1, he urged the British to use the Magnitsky Act to sanction Hong Kong’s “officials who betrayed Hong Kong, and the dirty cops”. 17 Canadian parliamentarians jointly petitioned for Prime Minister Trudeau to impose urgent sanctions on relevant Chinese and Hong Kong officials. Carrie Lam said, “I have no assets in the US and I don’t want to go to the US.” So “I’m not afraid”, but that would not be the case for the UK and Canada.

The night before last, a fire broke out in the Chinese Consulate General in Houston, which might have been caused by the burning of classified documents. The US required China to close the Consulate within 72 hours. Global Times editor-in-chief Hu Xijin called that a “crazy action” again on his Weibo account. This is yet another time, since the possible ban of Chinese Communists from entering the US, for him to use the word “crazy” on US measures against China.

“Birds born in a cage think flying is an illness.” All measures to safeguard human freedom are “crazy” if you ask the “birds born in a cage”. All “crazy” measures that have been imposed, and all the more to come, are all because of that National Security Law that flabbergasted the civilized world.

The Best Opportunity to “Laam5Caau2”* (Lee Yee)

Since the start of the Anti-ELAB movement, numerous young people, journalists, ordinary citizens have shed blood, sweat and tears on the streets; many dead bodies were discovered but “not in suspicious circumstances”; Hong Kong Police blatantly batter people, not to mention tortures in the dark room, sexual and other violent assaults. How Hongkongers fight against all this, is like David and Goliath. They put their lives at stake with a determination that screams “if we burn, you burn with us”, awaking global attention. Their demand from the international societies is for them to sanction China and Hong Kong.

Because National Security Law (NSL) was not put into the meeting agenda of the previous National People’s Congress (NPC), rumor has it that China wants to back out of the plan. A wave of comments from the Hong Kong netizens flooded the Internet saying “don’t you dare to chicken out now”, and “if you cop out now you are a wimp”. This is the continuation of the so-called “Scorched-Earth mentality” [“Laam5Caau2”]. “Laam5Caau2” is neither masochism, nor asking for trouble; it is the determination to fight till the end with the risk of death, in the hope to reborn or resurrect. Without such determination, there will be no lifeline for Hong Kong.*

As the draft NSL came out, former Chief Justice of Hong Kong, Honorable Andrew Li Kwok-nang, who had previously wished to compromise in exchange for the law being enforced in Hong Kong, published an article yesterday. He pointed out, with the Chief Executive being able to appoint judges to hear NSL-related cases, Beijing being allowed to “administer jurisdiction” in a small number of cases and those having been arrested could be extradited to the mainland, he is deeply concerned that it would completely destroyed the independence of the justice system under the Basic Law.

To his comments, Carrie Lam responded that “appointing judges” only means to appoint one among the current judges; in terms of extradition, there are similarities between Common Law and the law in Mainland China, such as “the presumption of innocence.”

We won’t forget what just happened recently. Judge Kwok Wai-kin, who was dealing with a case of assault near Lennon Wall where the meat cleaver-wielding defendant attacked three people, said the defendant had a “noble sentiment”. Chief Justice Geoffrey Ma immediately made the decision that Kwok should not handle any similar political cases in the future. We can be certain that, if Carrie Lam is to appoint a judge to deal with NSL cases, she will definitely appoint judges like Kwok.

Talking about “presumption of innocence”, an article from the China Youth Daily newspaper in January 2017 stated, the percentage of cases with “not guilty” judgment in Hong Kong courts are as high as 45%, while in China, the percentage of such judgment in 2015 was 0.084% – that is in every 10,000 defendant, only 8 of them were proven innocent. If excluding the civil cases and only counting the criminal cases, the percentage would have been close to nil, which means, as long as the person has been charged by the law enforcement, he will only be found guilty by the court.

Just from these 2 points, one wonders: when NSL is to be enforced in Hong Kong, are Hongkongers still being protected by the law?

The intention of China rushing to launch NSL before LegCo nomination is too obvious – it is hard to imagine Hong Kong Special “Atrocious” Region government NOT using the “not supporting NSL” to disqualify candidates. In the existing nomination form for LegCo Election, “I declare that I will uphold the Basic Law and pledge allegiance to the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region” is stated in the declaration. If it stops here, then a signed form would have been sufficient and a confirmation letter would not be needed.

If a confirmation letter is to be added, then the candidates might have to declare they support NSL, or more tactfully, support the National Laws in Annex III of the Basic Law. However, NSL (Hong Kong) is not a law that is being enforced countrywide, which does not meet the definition of Annex III, and therefore according to the Basic Law, it cannot be supported.

A confirmation with this detail is not one that any of the pro-democratic party members will sign, or it would deem them enemies of Hongkongers. There are no excuses as: First set my foot in LegCo so that I am in the game to fight; LegCo MUST have a voice from the opposition; let’s swallow this humiliation, it’s better than let the pro-establishment getting its way; if there is no opposition, the government will be even more presumptuous...all these reasons will only send the wrong message to the international society: that even the pro-democratic party has accepted NSL. Then, international sanctions are bound to slow down and all the blood shed by the freedom fighters since day one will be in vain.

What Hong Kong faces now is a matter of life and death. Nearly all the Western countries have voiced against NSL, with USA even emphasised that, the Hong Kong LegCo Election in September could lead to sanctions. In terms of “earth-scorching”, or “Laam5Caau2”, this is the ideal moment to reap. How can we let this pass us by? Any Hongkonger who has what it takes should apply to be a candidate regardless. The aim is to create an enormous scale of disqualifications of candidates. Who cares whether you would be elected, or drop out after being admitted. This is a chance to scream to the world whether the majority public opinion is for or against NSL.

Forget the primaries. Even if you win it, you would still have to face NSL in the election. So why not apply, then be disqualified because of opposing NSL. If you still haven’t been disqualified by then, it’s still not too late to reconsider hosting primaries.

【周年大選】三位候選中央幹事宣佈退出週年大選

三位學生會中央幹事會候選內閣皓玥成員宣佈退出二零二零年度週年大選，並停止競選宣傳活動。宣佈退選的分別為候選外務秘書孔靖琳、候選外務秘書留穎恩、及候選時事秘書呂昊峻。三人在一月二十二日晚上，各自於個人臉書發佈退選宣言。惟根據學生會選舉守則第五章第七條，「Any Candidate may withdraw his/her consent to nomination, if he/she so wishes, by a signed letter addressed to the Chairperson of the Commission within 48 hours after the closing of nomination.」，即若果候選人打算退出選舉，就必須在提名期結束後的四十八小時內以書面形式通知選委會主席；因此三位宣佈「退選」的候選人實際上只能「棄選」並暫停選舉宣傳。