Suspend versus withdraw: How is the passage of Hong Kong extradition bill different from aborted Article 23 legislation in 2003?
- Both pieces of legislation aroused massive opposition from the public but the extradition law amendments are technically far from dead
- Carrie Lam has vowed to stay in the job and not meet the same fate as former chief executive Tung Chee-wah, who resigned in 2005
The Hong Kong government’s decision to suspend the highly unpopular extradition bill has prompted comparisons with the aborted national security Article 23 legislation in 2003 but analysts said there were critical differences between the two.
Experts on parliamentary procedures said that with a suspension, the extradition bill is technically still alive and could in theory be reintroduced by way of a straightforward notice from the government to the Legislative Council president.
It remains on the books as part of the government’s legislative agenda but its shelf life will be in sync with the current term of the Legislative Council which ends in July 2020.
Here is a look at where the two bills are similar and where they are different:
What was the public backlash to each bill?
In the extradition bill, the government argued it needed to plug legal loopholes as it lacked extradition arrangements with many countries and the bill was supposed to allow for ad hoc arrangements to transfer fugitives to jurisdictions with which it lacked a mechanism, including mainland China. Critics at home and abroad have said this would expose people in Hong Kong to being sent across the border to face political persecution or be subject to unfair trials.