Advertisement
Advertisement
Hong Kong extradition bill
Get more with myNEWS
A personalised news feed of stories that matter to you
Learn more
Hongkongers march from Causeway Bay to the government headquarters in Admiralty on June 9, in protest against the proposal to amend the city’s extradition laws to allow the transfer of fugitives to mainland China. The message on the yellow umbrella calls on the people to oppose the “evil law”. Photo: Xiaomei Chen

Letters | Why Hong Kong must not rush matters on extradition deal with mainland China

  • The central government and Hong Kong should negotiate a detailed agreement that includes the necessary safeguards for individual rights
  • When dealing with matters as sensitive and important as extradition, governments need to err on the side of caution
As the senior official of the Hong Kong government responsible in the early 1990s for negotiating extradition treaties between the future Hong Kong special administrative region and various states, including the United Kingdom and United States, I have been following the current situation in Hong Kong concerning the draft extradition law with keen interest (“Why did Hongkongers join ‘million-strong’ protest march? It’s in their DNA”, June 10).

For more than a century, advanced jurisdictions have agreed to return individuals from their territory to another jurisdiction for trial or to serve the remainder of their sentences, only in accordance with the detailed terms set down in extradition treaties between the two states. Such terms include important safeguards to preserve the individual rights of the person whose return is requested and contain a comprehensive exclusion of requests based on “political” offences, among others.

There is no current agreement between the Chinese central government and the Hong Kong government concerning the extradition of people between the mainland and the SAR. In my view, the proper way for the two governments to proceed in this matter would be for them to negotiate a detailed agreement, which would include all the necessary safeguards and procedures governing the extradition of individuals from one territory to the other. This would then be followed by legislation by each party to give domestic effect to the agreement they had reached.

The governments of Hong Kong and mainland China have precedents for what should be in their agreement in the already approved extradition agreements negotiated and approved in the Sino-British Joint Liaison Group in the early 1990s (“Former Hong Kong chiefs reject Lam’s claim on mainland China extraditions”, May 12).
Finally, when dealing with matters as sensitive and important as extradition, governments need to err on the side of caution, and it is highly questionable whether Hong Kong’s current draft extradition law is the sensible course for the government to be following. It should embark on the course I have outlined above and introduce draft legislation only when it is satisfied that it has reached an acceptable agreement with the mainland.

David Michael Edwards, Singapore (law officer, international law, Hong Kong government 1990–1995)

Post