Joint Declaration Form: Fill & Download for Free

Thanks for A2A.Just curious, have you ever read a SINGLE page of the Sino-British Joint Declaration ?Did anywhere in that declaration state that people who are suspected or confirmed to have committed crimes chargeable under Hong Kong laws CANNOT be arrested if they call themselves “pro-democracy”?If you were referring to those arrested today, NONE of them are lawmakers in the current Legislative Council of Hong Kong.

There is no “if”. The structure of the current situation prevents this hypothetical situation from happening.The 1984 Sino-British Joint Declaration is like a memorandum of understanding (“1984 Joint Declaration”) when in 1984 the leaders of UK and China first reached an agreement on the core principles of the 1997 handover.Based on this 1984 Joint Declaration, from 1985 - 1990, a group of Hong Kong/British/Chinese people worked on the draft of the written constitution of Hong Kong (the “Basic Law”). The Basic Law, developed and drafted under the watchful eyes of both the UK and Chinese governments, serves the purposes of carrying out what was said in the 1984 Joint Declaration. The Basic Law was officially “adopted” by the Chinese government in about 1990 (i.e. went through the formalities of becoming a part of the law of China). The Basic Law commenced in Hong Kong upon handover to China, on 1 July 1997.Please note that the Basic Law was not written by the Chinese government. Both the UK and Chinese government had to make sure the Basic Law would correctly and adequately reflect the 1984 Joint Declaration.The Basic Law was developed by a group of (180) people in Hong Kong, the co-called community leaders, such as businessmen, various professionals, industry leaders etc, including both “pro-China” and “anti-China” people. One can imagine the numerous meetings and squabbles among this diversified group of people. In the end, everyone had to make compromises and the final draft was “approved” by Beijing in 1990. The Basic Law clearly says, among others, that any changes to the Basic Law would require China’s approval, that China has the final right of interpretation of the Basic Law (i.e. if in doubt, China has final say), that the Chief Executive candidates must be acceptable to China, etc.So the logic goes like this: everyone agreed on the 1984 Joint Declaration, and then everyone agreed on the (carefully negotiated and drafted) Basic Law to carry out the 1984 Joint Declaration, and then the Basic Law gives China a final say on its interpretation or any future amendments. All China has to do is to uphold the Basic Law (which is ultimately within its control), a written constitution that is deemed to carry out the principles in the 1984 Joint Declaration.As you can see, there is no “room” for China to breach the 1984 Joint Declaration because of the agreed role of the Basic Law. In the past 22 years China has been complying with the Basic Law and on a few occasions when the Chinese government intervened by interpreting parts of the Basic Law, it was doing so lawfully according to the said written constitution. The Chinese government learned how to play the game from the UK government, pored over the meaning of the words in the Basic Law, and has been very careful in doing things legitimately. I cannot imagine a scenario where China would have any need to “violate” the 1984 Joint Declaration, when compliance to the Basic Law is not in issue.I can understand why some people, especially the anti-China people and those too young to know the history (or too lazy to find out the contents) of the Basic Law would find China’s “final say” power in Hong Kong’s written constitution unsatisfactory. In the same way many Americans find some parts of the US constitution objectionable. However, our written constitution is our reality in the same way other countries’ constitutions are other countries’ reality.

Recently, I saw a Facebook post and in the comments, I saw a lot of Hong Kongers complaining about the six policemen being unprofessional because they pointed their guns at the hundred of protesters who tried to beat them up with metal rods. And I think these guys have a point; the Chinese government really does have a lot of things that they can learn from the Brits and the Americans. For a starter, the Chinese government should tell the HKPF to go take a look at how their American and British counterparts handle rioters.For instance, the HKPF should:-Cavalry charge the protesters like it was a crusade.-Encourage the rioters to take a several hours long sun bath. (I’ve heard that Hong Kong has a very nice weather averaging 35+ degrees Celsius in the summer. The HKPF should make the rioters take advantage of that since sunlight is very good for their health.)-Apparently, firing a tear gas grenade into a crowd that got gas masks to disperse them after several warnings is considered mishandling police equipment. Alright then. Let’s learn from the American police force; subdue the protester, take off his mask and pepper spray it right into their face at point blank-And what’s up with the lame 6 shot tiny revolver and the 1 foot rubber dildo police baton? Come on Chinese government, you need to learn from the Americans and issue real weapons to the HKPF. Like assault rifles and 3 foot wood rods.So what do the protesters want? In general, this:What do I think about these 5 points?1: I will reveal my opinions on the extradition bill another time.2: If it wasn’t a riot prior to June 12, it is definitely a riot now.3: Including those who blocked the airport for half a day, causing inconvenience for the thousands of foreign travellers? Including those who beat up a Chinese reporter and refused to grant him access to medical care for several hours? Including those who stormed LegCo and vandalized it? Including the guy who pushed away the pan-democratic representative who’s on their side, almost injuring him? Including those who threw bricks at the cops? Including those who threw Molotov cocktails into the police department building? Including those who beat up Chinese tourist simply for not being Hong Kongers or sympathetic to their cause? Including those who caused serious wounds to police officers, handicapping them for the rest of their lives?4: Sure, and why not an independent inquiry into the use of force by the protesters?5: So whenever the Hong Kong government tries to do something pro-China, the protesters would immediately take out their copies the Sino-British Joint-Declaration of 1984 and cry out for the status quo until 2047. But they have no problem asking the Chinese government to do something 100 times more radical than anything ever proposed by the HK government or the Chinese government in the last 22 years, something that’s going to throw the entire Joint Declaration right into the garbage bin. The Joint Declaration is something the Chinese government must abide by…unless we tell them not to. Makes perfect sense.So what do I think about these protesters? I think they need to learn why there is an expression in Western countries called “We do not negotiate with terrorists”. If the HK government backs down now, every time it tries to do something somewhat pro-China in the future, it will be met with violent riots, injuring police officers and innocent civilians, because hey, if it worked once, it will probably work again right? By becoming violent, the protesters have taken the city hostage and effectively forced the HK government to not accept their demands.