Source:
https://scmp.com/comment/letters/article/3002540/today-extradition-tomorrow-social-credit-score-why-hong-kong-cant Letters
Today China extradition law, tomorrow a social credit score – why Hong Kong must stand up for its freedoms
- Don’t be surprised that Hongkongers aren’t in a hurry to reach an agreement with the mainland, where the rights of the detained are far less secure
- Liberalisation of the Chinese state’s control on its citizens is a fantasy
The American Chamber of Commerce has objected to an extradition agreement between Hong Kong and mainland China, citing the mainland’s “lack of an independent judiciary, arbitrary detention, lack of fair public trial, lack of access to legal representation and poor prison conditions”. Photo: Shutterstock
Regina Ip, in her letter to the editor on March 14 (“Why white-collar crime should not be excluded from Hong Kong’s extradition law with mainland China”) seemed surprised that some powerful business interests in government are resisting the call for an extradition agreement between Hong Kong and mainland China, because these interests maintain such an agreement would damage Hong Kong’s reputation as a “safe and secure haven for international business”.
On the mainland, we now know that even foreigners can face summary arrest and detention in “black” jails, without due process or access to lawyers or even family.
Indeed, in Hong Kong we should be aware that we can be “spirited away” by mainland security goons at the pleasure of mainland officials – as happened to a Hong Kong bookseller taken to the mainland from Hong Kong. Businesspeople and indeed anyone should be concerned with extradition to a country which World Justice Project’s Rule of Law Index for 2017-2018 ranked 75th out of 113 jurisdictions (Hong Kong was 16th).
As 2047 approaches, some people believe that the harmonisation of two systems into one system beforehand is inevitable, as it is ultimately unavoidable. Perhaps these same people believe that the Chinese government will improve its dismal record on human rights (such as the Xinjiang internment camps) and enshrine the power of an independent judiciary in its constitution.
To hold such a view is naive.
With the development of ever more sophisticated AI surveillance technology and China’s active programme to give all its citizens (and possibly others) a “social credit score”, liberalisation of the Chinese state’s control on its citizens is a fantasy.
The danger is that by acquiescing now on challenges to the Basic Law, Hong Kong will be sucked up into the apparatus of a totalitarian state before even having a chance to try and preserve some of the freedoms that most Hong Kong people would agree are worth defending.
Catherine LaJeunesse, Sai Kung