| Fugitive Offenders and Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Legislation (Amendment) Bill 2019 | |
|---|---|
| Legislative Council of Hong Kong | |
| |
| Considered by | Legislative Council of Hong Kong |
| Legislative history | |
| Introduced by | Secretary for SecurityJohn Lee |
| Introduced | 29 March 2019 (2019-03-29) |
| First reading | 3 April 2019 (2019-04-03) |
| Amends | |
| Fugitive Offenders Ordinance Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Ordinance | |
| Status: Withdrawn | |
| 2019–2020 Hong Kong protests |
|---|
 |
Fatalities |
TheFugitive Offenders and Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Legislation (Amendment) Bill 2019 (Chinese:2019年逃犯及刑事事宜相互法律協助法例（修訂）條例草案) was a proposed bill regardingextradition to amend the Fugitive Offenders Ordinance (Cap. 503) in relation to special surrender arrangements and the Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Ordinance (Cap. 525) so that arrangements for mutual legal assistance can be made betweenHong Kong and any place outside Hong Kong.[2] The bill was proposed by theHong Kong government in February 2019 to establish a mechanism for transfers of fugitives not only forTaiwan, but also forMainland China andMacau, which are currently excluded in the existing laws.[3]
The introduction of the bill caused widespread criticism domestically and abroad from the legal profession, journalist organisations, business groups, and foreign governments fearing the erosion of Hong Kong's legal system and its built-in safeguards, as well as damage to Hong Kong's business climate. Largely, this fear is attributed to China's newfound ability through this bill to arrest voices of political dissent in Hong Kong. There have beenmultiple protests against the bill in Hong Kong and other cities abroad. On 9 June, protesters estimated to number from hundreds of thousands to more than a million marched in the streets and called forChief ExecutiveCarrie Lam to step down.[4][5] On 15 June, Lam announced she would 'suspend' the proposed bill.[6] Ongoing protests called for a complete withdrawal of the bill and subsequently the implementation ofuniversal suffrage, which is promised in theBasic Law. On 4 September, after 13 weeks of protests, Lam officially promised to withdraw the bill upon the resumption of the legislative session from its summer recess.[7][8] On 23 October,Secretary for SecurityJohn Lee announced the government's formal withdrawal of the bill.[9][10]
In early 2018, 19-year-old Hong Kong resident Chan Tong-kai murdered his pregnant girlfriendPoon Hiu-wing in Taiwan, then returned to Hong Kong. Chan admitted to Hong Kong police that he killed Poon, but the police were unable to charge him for murder or extradite him to Taiwan because no agreement is in place.[11] The two ordinances in Hong Kong, the Fugitive Offenders Ordinance and Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Ordinance, were not applicable to the requests for surrender of fugitive offenders and mutual legal assistance between Hong Kong and Taiwan.[11][12] The pro-Beijing flagship partyDemocratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong (DAB) chairwomanStarry Lee and legislatorHolden Chow pushed for a change to the extradition law in 2019 using the murder case as rationale.[13] In February 2019, the government proposed changes to fugitive laws, establishing a mechanism for case-by-case transfers of fugitives by theHong Kong Chief Executive to any jurisdiction with which the city lacks a formal extradition treaty, which it claimed would close the "legal loophole".[14]Chen Zhimin,Zhang Xiaoming, andHan Zheng of the PRC publicly supported the change and stated that 300 fugitives were living in Hong Kong.[13] Beijing's involvement in the proposed bill caused great concerns in Hong Kong.[15]
The key provisions of the bill, as originally tabled, are as follows:
In the Fugitive Offenders Ordinance (FOO) (Cap. 503):[16]
And in the Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Ordinance (MLAO) (Cap. 525):[16]
Opposition expressed fears that the city would open itself up to the long arm of mainland Chinese law, putting people from Hong Kong at risk of falling victim to a different legal system. It therefore urged the government to establish an extradition arrangement with Taiwan only, and tosunset the arrangement immediately after the surrender of Chan Tong-kai.[14][17]
The business community also raised concerns over the mainland's court system. TheLiberal Party and theBusiness and Professionals Alliance for Hong Kong (BPA), the two pro-business parties, suggested 15 economic crimes being exempted from the 46 offences covered by the extradition proposal.[18] TheAmerican Chamber of Commerce in Hong Kong (AmCham) pointed out that the mainland's "criminal process is plagued by deep flaws, including lack of anindependent judiciary, arbitrary detention, lack of fair public trial, lack of access to legal representation and poor prison conditions".[19] The government responded to business chambers' concerns by exempting nine of the economic crimes originally targeted. Only offences punishable by at least three years in prison would trigger the transfer of a fugitive, up from the previously stated one year.[20] Nonetheless, these amendments failed to assuage the business community's concerns. According to theCBC, "[What the] rich business people fear is that the extradition law would destroy the freedoms people and businesses in the territory have grown to expect". Due to the vast power that politicians and officials exert over the mainland legal system, "businesses that want contracts in China to be respected typically include a provision that allows for any disputes to be resolved under Hong Kong law", thereby making Hong Kong a safe and stable haven formultinational corporations. The proposed extradition law would jeopardise Hong Kong's status, with some companies already considering relocation to Singapore.[21][22] However, the pro-business parties in the Legislative Council later agreed to support the government bill. The situation was similar to the 2017 Chief Executive Election, in which the business sectors were requested to support Carrie Lam under the pressure from the Beijing's Authority.[23]
On 1 April, Hong Kong billionaire tycoonJoseph Lau, former chair of theChinese Estates Holdings who was convicted of bribery andmoney laundering in a land deal inMacau in 2014, applied for ajudicial review over the bill in court. Lau's lawyers asked the court to make a declaration that the surrender of Lau to Macau would contravene theHong Kong Bill of Rights.[24] Lau made an abrupt U-turn and dropped his legal challenge on 29 May, saying that he "loves his country and Hong Kong" and that he now supported the legislation.[25]
TheHong Kong Bar Association released a statement expressing its reservations over the bill, saying that the restriction against any surrender arrangements with mainland China was not a "loophole", but existed in light of the fundamentally different criminal justice system operating in the Mainland, and concerns over the Mainland's track record on the protection of fundamental rights. The association also questioned the accountability of the Chief Executive as the only arbiter of whether a special arrangement was to be concluded with a requesting jurisdiction without the scrutiny of the Legislative Council or without expanding the role of the courts in vetting extradition requests.[26] Twelve current and former chairs of the Bar Association warned that the government's "oft-repeated assertion that the judges will be gatekeepers is misleading", as "the proposed new legislation does not give the Court power to review such matters and the Court would be in no such position to do so."[27]
Three senior judges and twelve leading commercial and criminal lawyers called the bill "one of the starkest challenges to Hong Kong's legal system" in aReuters report. They feared it would "put [the courts] on a collision course with Beijing", as the limited scope of extradition hearings would leave them little room to manoeuvre. They were concerned that if they tried to stop high-profile suspects from being sent across the border, they would be exposed to criticism and political pressure from Beijing. The judges and lawyers said that under Hong Kong's British-basedcommon law system, extraditions are based on the presumption of a fair trial and humane punishment in the receiving country—a presumption they say China'sCommunist Party-controlled legal system has not earned.[27]
On 5 June 2019, theLaw Society of Hong Kong released an 11-page review of the proposed Cap. 503 (FOO) amendments. It questioned the lack of additional requirements onproof-of-evidencein favour of extradition and the non-admissibility of additional evidenceagainst extradition. It argued that the HK government should not rush to propose the current legislation, and that a comprehensive review of the current extradition system and research on the cross-jurisdiction transfer of fugitives should be done prior to the proposal of such laws. The Law Society recommended a proposal to specifically cover the current Taiwan murder case to be made if the government wanted to transfer the suspect soon. In addition, some members of the Law Society question the necessity of such an amendment in the absence of any major problems with extradition to mainland China or Taiwan sinceHong Kong's return to China in 1997.[28]
On another perspective,Grenville Cross, Vice-chairman (Senate) of theInternational Association of Prosecutors, and previousDirector of Public Prosecutions in Hong Kong, has opined that although it is important to respect the rights of suspects, the debate has downplayed the issue of responsibilities of Hong Kong to other jurisdictions in the global combat of crime.[29][better source needed]
On 4 March 2019Justice Centre Hong Kong provided public comments outlining their concerns with the extradition proposals to theSecurity Bureau,[30] preempting the Hong Kong business chambers taking an interest.[31] Subsequently,Amnesty International,Hong Kong Human Rights Monitor, andHuman Rights Watch declared their opposition to the bill, warning the extradition proposal could be used as a tool to intimidate critics of the Hong Kong or Chinese governments, peaceful activists, and human rights defenders, as well as further exposing those who are extradited to risks of torture or ill-treatment. Along with other journalists unions and independent media outlets, theHong Kong Journalists Association reported that the amendment would "not only threaten the safety of journalists but also have a chilling effect on the freedom of expression in Hong Kong."[32] Speaking on behalf of theInternational Rehabilitation Council for Torture Victims, on 3 July 2019 the executive director ofJustice Centre Hong Kong delivered a statement at the 21st meeting of theUnited Nations Human Rights Council in Geneva raising the bill and the disproportionate use of force being used against theresulting protests.[33]
Although Taiwan authorities had attempted to negotiate directly with the Hong Kong government to work out a special arrangement, the Hong Kong government did not respond. Taipei also stated it would not enter into any extradition agreement with Hong Kong that defined Taiwan as part of the People's Republic of China. It opposed the proposed bill on grounds that Taiwanese citizens would be at greater risk of being extradited to Mainland China.[34] "Without the removal of threats to the personal safety of [Taiwan] nationals going to or living in Hong Kong caused by being extradited to mainland China, we will not agree to the case-by-case transfer proposed by the Hong Kong authorities," saidChiu Chui-cheng, deputy minister of Taiwan'sMainland Affairs Council. He also described the Taipei homicide case as an "excuse" and questioned whether the Hong Kong government's legislation was "politically motivated". He added that Taiwanese people feared to end up likeLee Ming-che, a democracy activist who disappeared on a trip to the Chinese mainland and was later jailed for "subverting state power".[11]
Hong Kong had been a British colony until it was officially handed over to China in 1997. Since then, the city is operating under "one country, two systems".[35] Lam denied that the mainland was intentionally excluded from the extradition laws ahead of the 1997 handover over fears about the mainland's opaque and politically controlled legal system, or that China had agreed to the exclusion. However, the last colonialgovernor of Hong KongChris Patten and thenChief SecretaryAnson Chan asserted that Hong Kong and China knew very well that there had to be a firewall between the different legal systems.[36] Patten also warned that the extradition law would be the "worst thing" to happen in Hong Kong since the 1997 handover.[37]Malcolm Rifkind, formerBritish Foreign Secretary who oversaw the final stages of the handover, also denied that the lack of extradition arrangements between Hong Kong and the Mainland was "a loophole". He stated that "negotiators from both China and the UK made a conscious decision to create a clear divide between the two systems so that the rule of law remains robust", and that "lawyers and politicians from across the political spectrum in Hong Kong have proposed multiple other viable solutions which will ensure that Chan faces justice".[38]
More than 167,000 students, alumni and teachers from all public universities and hundreds of secondary schools in Hong Kong, includingSt. Francis' Canossian College which Carrie Lam attended, also launchedonline petitions against the extradition bill in a snowballing campaign.[39]St. Mary's Canossian College andWah Yan College, Kowloon, whichSecretary for JusticeTeresa Cheng and Secretary for Security John Lee attended, respectively, also joined the campaign. Even the alumni, students, and teachers atSt. Stephen's College, which the victim in the Taiwan homicide case Poon Hiu-wing attended, petitioned against the extradition bill.[40]High Court judge Patrick Li Hon-leung's signature was spotted on a petition signed by nearly 3,000 fellowUniversity of Hong Kong alumni. Li was reprimanded byChief JusticeGeoffrey Ma for expressing a personal opinion on a political issue, and particularly on a legal issue that might come before the courts.[41]
Thepro-democracy camp, which stringently opposed the law, deployed filibustering tactics by stalling the first two meetings of the Bills Committee and preventing the election of a committee chairman. The House Committee, with a pro-Beijing majority, removedDemocratic Party'sJames To, the most senior member, from his position of presiding member, and replaced him with the third most senior member, pro-BeijingAbraham Shek of theBusiness and Professionals Alliance for Hong Kong (BPA), thereby bypassing the second most senior memberLeung Yiu-chung, a pro-democrat. To claimed that the move was illegitimate, adding that the secretariat had abused its power in issuing the circular without having any formal discussion. The pro-democrats insisted on going ahead with a 6 May meeting as planned which was rescheduled by Shek with only 20 members present. To andCivic Party'sDennis Kwok were elected chair and vice chair of the committee.[42]
Attempts to hold meetings on 11 May descended into chaos as the rival factions pushed and shoved each other along the packed hallway for control of the meeting room. A number of legislators fell to the ground, includingGary Fan who fell from a table before he was sent to hospital.[43] On 14 May, the meeting with two rival presiding chairmen descended into chaos again. Subsequently, pro-Beijing presiding chairman Abraham Shek announced that he could not hold a meeting and asked the House Committee for guidance.[44] On 20 May, Secretary for Security John Lee announced that the government would resume the second reading of the bill in a full Legislative Council meeting on 12 June, bypassing the usual practice of scrutinising the bill in the Bills Committee.[45] After a five-hour meeting on 24 May, the House Committee of the Legislative Council dominated by the pro-Beijing camp passed a motion in support of the government's move to resume the second reading of the bill at a full council meeting on 12 June.
On 9 November, police arrested and charged six pro-democracy lawmakers (while summoning one more lawmaker) for their roles in a 11 May scuffle over the earlier proposed extradition bill. The lawmakers posted bail and were released.[46]
Democratic Party legislatorAndrew Wan moved a motion of no-confidence against Carrie Lam on 29 May on the grounds that Lam "blatantly lied" about the extradition bill and misled the public and the international community, as Lam claimed that colonial officials did not deliberately exclude China from extradition laws ahead of the 1997 Handover. It was the first no-confidence vote against her since she took the office in July 2017. Lam survived the vote with the backing of the pro-Beijing majority in the legislature. Chief Secretary Matthew Cheung defended Lam's record and dismissed the motion as "an unnecessary political gesture".[47]
Chinese central government officials weighed in when Director of theHong Kong and Macau Affairs OfficeZhang Xiaoming met a delegation led byExecutive CouncillorRonny Tong in Beijing on 15 May in which Zhang showed support of the extradition law. At the same time, a delegation led by former pro-democrat legislatorMartin Lee met with U.S. Secretary of StateMike Pompeo who later released statement that he "expressed concern" that the bill could threaten the city's rule of law. On 17 May, Director of theLiaison OfficeWang Zhimin met with more than 250 Beijing loyalists in Hong Kong in a two-hour closed-door meeting. He instructed them to fully support the Chief Executive and her administration's push to pass the bill.[48]Vice PremierHan Zheng and chairman of theChinese People's Political Consultative ConferenceWang Yang also spoke in favour of the extradition bill—becoming the highest-ranking Chinese state officials to give their public endorsement.[49] Chief Executive Carrie Lam defended Beijing's involvement, saying that mainland officials offered their views only after the bill controversy was "escalated" by foreign powers, which seized an opportunity to attack the mainland's legal system and human rights record. It was escalated to the level of "one country, two systems" and the constitutionality concerning theBasic Law.[45]
On 24 May,Chief SecretaryMatthew Cheung held a special meeting involving 100 officials including principal officials, permanent secretaries and their deputies ostensibly to "bring them up to speed on the justification for the extradition law". Meanwhile, 11European Union representatives met with Carrie Lam and then issued adémarche to formally protest against the bill.[50][51] Also on 24 May, eight commissioners from the U.S.Congressional-Executive Commission on China (CECC),Marco Rubio,Tom Cotton,Steve Daines from theU.S. Senate, as well asJames McGovern,Ben McAdams,Christopher Smith,Thomas Suozzi andBrian Mast from theU.S. House of Representatives wrote to Chief Executive Carrie Lam asking that the bill be "withdrawn from consideration", stating that "the proposed legislation would irreparably damage Hong Kong's cherished autonomy and protections for human rights by allowing the Chinese government to request extradition of business persons, journalists, rights advocates, and political activists residing in Hong Kong." The commissioners added that the bill could "negatively impact the unique relationship between the U.S. and Hong Kong"—referring to the longstanding U.S. policy of giving the city preferential treatment over mainland China based on theUnited States–Hong Kong Policy Act.[49]
The UK-basedHong Kong Watch also issued a petition on 29 May signed by 15 parliamentarians from various countries against the extradition bill. Signatories included Member of theHouse of LordsDavid Alton,Liberal Democrat Chief Whip of theHouse of CommonsAlistair Carmichael, Leader of theAlliance 90/The Greens in theBundestagKatrin Göring-Eckardt, Deputy Shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs in theCanadian ParliamentGarnett Genuis, Member of theParliament of Malaysia and Chairman of the ASEAN Parliamentarians for Human RightsCharles Santiago,Member of the European Parliament from AustriaJosef Weidenholzer, seven U.S. Senators and one U.S. Representative.[52]
The American Chamber of Commerce in Hong Kong (AmCham) issued a statement on 30 May, questioning the government's decision to push the bill through. AmCham also sent Matthew Cheung eight questions related to the bill following Cheung meeting with the foreign chambers of commerce on the previous day, pressing the government on how it planned to address concerns from foreign diplomats in Hong Kong, and how it would ensure that the requesting jurisdictions could guarantee a fair trial.[53]
On 30 May, a joint statement was issued by British Foreign SecretaryJeremy Hunt andCanadian Minister of Foreign AffairsChrystia Freeland to urge Hong Kong to ensure the new law was in-keeping with the city's autonomy. "We are concerned about the potential effect of these proposals on the large number of UK and Canadian citizens in Hong Kong, on business confidence and on Hong Kong's international reputation. Furthermore, we believe that there is a risk that the proposals could impact negatively on the rights and freedoms set down in theSino-British Joint Declaration".[54][55]
On 13 August,Andrew James Scheer PC MP, Leader of theConservative Party of Canada andLeader of the Official Opposition since 2017, shared the statement "As Beijing amasses troops at the Hong Kong border, now is the time for everyone committed to democracy, freedom, human rights, and the rule of law to stand with the people of Hong Kong, including the 300,000 ex-pat Canadians. Now, and in the coming days, we are all Hong Kongers:" on social media outlets.[56][non-primary source needed]
On 30 May, Secretary for Security John Lee rolled out six new measures to limit the scope of extraditable crimes and raise the bar to those punishable by the sentence of three years to seven years or above—a key demand from theHong Kong General Chamber of Commerce (HKGCC). Only requests from top judicial bodies of a requesting jurisdiction, namely theSupreme People's Procuratorate andSupreme People's Court in Mainland China, may be considered. Lee's announcement came hours after a group of 39 pro-Beijing legislators called for the bill to be amended. Their two demands—raising the threshold on extraditable crimes and allowing only extradition requests from the mainland's top authority—were both accepted by the government.[57]
The government promulgated on 30 May the provision of "additional safeguards" in the following three aspects:[58]
Hong Kong's five major business chambers—the Hong Kong General Chamber of Commerce (HKGCC), theChinese General Chamber of Commerce, theChinese Manufacturers' Association of Hong Kong, theFederation of Hong Kong Industries, and theHong Kong Chinese Importers' and Exporters' Association quickly welcomed the concessions, but legal scholars and pro-democrats opposing the bill argued there was still no guarantee of human rights and fair treatment for fugitives sent across the border.[59] John Lee dismissed calls to embed those safeguards in the proposed bill, claiming the current proposal would offer greater flexibility, adding he was confident mainland authorities would stay true to their promises, even without protection clauses in the bill.[60]
TheLaw Society of Hong Kong urged the government not to rush the legislation but should stop to conduct extensive consultation before it goes any further. The Bar Association said in response to the concessions that the additional safeguards provided by the government was "riddled with uncertainties ...[and that it] offers scarcely any reliable assurances."[61] On 6 June, some 3,000 Hong Kong lawyers, representing around one quarter of the city's lawyers, marched against the bill. Wearing black, they marched from theCourt of Final Appeal to theCentral Government Offices. While lawyers expressed grave reservations about the openness and fairness of the justice system in China, limited access to a lawyer, and the prevalence of torture, Secretary for Security John Lee said the legal sector did not really understand the bill.[62]
Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, Human Rights Monitor and more than 70 other non-governmental organisations wrote an open letter to Chief Executive Carrie Lam on 7 June stating the "serious shortcomings in the proposed amendment", claiming that the additional safeguards would still be unlikely to provide genuine and effective protection as it did not resolve the real risk of torture or other ill-treatment, including detention in poor conditions for indefinite periods, or other serious human rights violations which are prohibited under theInternational Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, theConvention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.[63]
The first protest happened on 31 March with an attendance of 12,000 pro-democracy protesters according to organisers, theCivil Human Rights Front (CHRF); police put the peak figure at 5,200.[64]
On 28 April, the movement gained stronger momentum as an estimated 130,000 protesters joined the march against the bill; Police estimated 22,800 joined at its height. The claimed turnout was the largest since an estimated 510,000 joined the annual1 July protest in 2014.[65][66][67] A day after the protest,Chief ExecutiveCarrie Lam was adamant that the bill would be enacted and said the Legislative Councillors had to pass new extradition laws before their summer break, even though the man at the heart of a case used to justify the urgency of new legislation Chan Tong-kai had been jailed for 29 months shortly before.
While reports suggested it had been the largest ever,[68] certainly the largest protest Hong Kong has seen since the1997 handover, surpassing the turnout seen at mass rallies in support of theTiananmen protests of 1989 and1 July demonstration of 2003,[69] CHRF convenorJimmy Sham said that 1.03 million people attended the march, while the police put the crowd at 270,000 at its peak.[69][70][71][72]
Hundreds of protesters camped in front of the government headquarters well into the night, with more joining them in response to calls fromDemosistō andpro-independence activists. Police formed a human chain to prevent protesters from enteringHarcourt Road, the main road next to government headquarters, whileSpecial Tactical Squad (STS) stood by for potential conflicts.[73] Although the CHRF officially had called an end to the march at 10 pm, around 100 protesters remained at theCivic Square.[74]
At 11 pm, the government issued a press statement, saying it "acknowledge[s] and respect[s] that people have different views on a wide range of issues", but insisted the second reading debate on the bill would resume on 12 June.[75] Around midnight, tensions escalated and clashes broke out between protesters and officers at the Legislative Council Complex.[70] Protesters threw bottles and metal barricades at police and pushed barricades while officers responded with pepper spray. Riot police pushed back against the crowd and secured the area, while police onHarcourt Road also pushed protesters back onto the pavements. Clashes shifted toLung Wo Road as many protesters gathered and barricaded themselves from the officers. Several hundred protesters were herded by officers towards Lung King Street inWan Chai around 2 am and then moved ontoGloucester Road.[70] By the end of the clearance, 19 protesters had been arrested.[76]
A general strike had been called for 12 June, the day of the planned resumption of the second reading of the extradition bill. The Police started stopping and searching on commuters at the exits ofAdmiralty Station the night before. Sits-in began at and aroundTamar Park in the morning, and around 8 am, a crowd rushed onto Harcourt Road and the nearby streets, blocking traffic.[77][non-primary source needed] Around 11 am, the Legislative Council Secretariat announced that the second reading debate on the extradition bill had been postponed indefinitely.[78]
In the afternoon, riot police and theSpecial Tactical Squad, who hid their identifying numbers, were deployed. They fired tear gas and shotrubber bullets andbean bag rounds at protesters on Harcourt Road. The crowd fled to Citic Tower, where the gathering had been approved by the police and was peaceful.[79] As people trickled through the jammed central revolving door and a small side door, the police fired another two tear gas canisters into the trapped crowd fuelling panic.[79]Commissioner of PoliceStephen Lo declared the clashes a "riot" and condemned the protesters' behaviour.[80]
Many videos of aggressive police action appeared online, showing tear gas canisters being fired at peaceful and unarmed protesters,first-aid volunteers,[81] and even reporters.Amnesty International published a report which concluded that the use of force by police against the largely peaceful protest was unnecessary and excessive and that police had "violated international human rights law and standards."[82]
Lo's declaration and police behaviour gave rise to new demands in later protests: to retract the characterisation of the clashes as a "riot" and to establish an independent commission of inquiry intopolice brutality.
On 15 June, Carrie Lam announced that it would suspend the second reading of the bill without a set a time frame on the seeking of public views.[83] However, no apology nor resignation was forthcoming at this point.[83] The pro-democracy camp demanded a full withdrawal of the bill and said they would go ahead with the 16 June rally as planned.[84]
On the day, the route from Victoria Park in Causeway Bay to the government headquarters in Admiralty was totally taken over by the large crowd from 3 pm all the way to 11 pm. Although crowd control measures were in force, yet the large number of participants forced police to open all the six lanes of Hennessy Road, the main route; nevertheless, the masses then spilled over onto three parallel streets in Wan Chai.[85] While the police said that there were 338,000 demonstrators at its peak on the original route,[86] the Civil Human Rights Front claimed the participation of "almost 2 million plus 1 citizens", denoting the protester who committed suicide the day before.[87][88][89][90][91]
The government issued a statement at 8:30 pm where Carrie Lam apologised to Hong Kong residents and promised to "sincerely and humbly accept all criticism and to improve and serve the public."[92] A government source told to theSouth China Morning Post that the administration was making it clear that there was no timetable to relaunch the suspended bill, the legislation would die a "natural death" when the current term of the Legislative Council ended in July next year.[93] On 18 June, Carrie Lam offered an apology for mishandling the extradition bill in person, but did not meet the protesters' demands of withdrawing the bill completely or resigning.[94]
After the intense clashes on 12 June, the Legislative Council called off the general meetings on 13 and 14 June, and also postponed the general meetings on 17 and 18 June. Pro-Beijing newspaperSing Tao Daily reported that Lam went to meet with Chinese Vice Premier Han Zheng in Shenzhen on 14 June evening. Lam then had a cabinet meeting with her top officials at 10:30 pm, lasting until midnight.[95]
Students unions, representing some protesters, issued four demands: total withdrawal of the extradition bill; retraction of all references to the 12 June protest being a riot; release all arrested protesters; and accountability of police officers who used excessive force. They warned of escalated protest action if the demands were not met.[96]Hong Kong CatholicApostolic Administrator CardinalJohn Tong andHong Kong Christian Council chairman Reverend Eric So Shing-yit also issued a joint statement calling for a complete withdrawal of the extradition bill and an independent inquiry into allegations of police brutality against protesters.[96]
As the city marked the 22nd anniversary of its1997 handover, theannual pro-democracy protest march organised by civil rights groups claimed a record turnout of 550,000 while police placed the estimate around 190,000. Separately, hundreds of young protesters stormed theLegislative Council and defaced symbols associated with the People's Republic of China (PRC) and pro-Beijing elements inside the building.[97]
On 9 July, Carrie Lam said the controversial bill "is dead", but still refused to meet the protesters' demand to withdraw it.[98][99][100] The protesters continued to demand full withdrawal of the bill, among other demands regarding alleged police misconducts and universal suffrage. The confrontations between the protesters and the police had since escalated. On 21 July, the police is accused of colluding with a gang whoindiscriminately attacked passengers at Yuen Long station.[101] A poll conducted in August showed that more than 90% of supporters of the protests expressed dissatisfaction with police misconduct, and, among their five core demands, the primary demand had shifted from the withdrawal of the bill to the establishment of independent commission of inquiry.[102]
On 4 September, Carrie Lam announced that the government would officially withdraw the bill in October.[7] However, she dismissed the other four core demands from the protesters.[103]
The bill was officially withdrawn on 23 October.[9][10] Chan Tong-kai was released from prison on the same day.[104]
He referred to public UK government documents FCO 40/3774; FCO 40/3775; FCO 40/2595 that proved his assertion.
.svg)