The Hong Kong government must listen to Beijing – why should we believe its promises on extradition?

Ronny Tong Ka-wah is reported to have said, “Public views that are not convincing are not representative”, in urging the government not to bow to pressure on the issue of amendments to the Fugitive Offenders Ordinance. Public sentiment on this issue is quite clear. The massive turnout at the protest march against these proposed amendments very clearly spelt out the sense of foreboding among the population.

What government officials and those like Mr Tong ostensibly fail to understand is that public confidence in the government has reached rock bottom, with the government reneging repeatedly on issues such as autonomy, universal suffrage and press freedom, to name but a few.

Despite public response to the consultation exercise on electoral reforms, even the most moderate of proposals were overturned by Beijing in 2014.

The proposed extradition amendments, if passed, would make it legal and pave the way for Beijing to extradite people it considers “threats” to its sovereignty, instead of having to resort to extralegal extraditions, as it does now.

Apart from arbitrary detention, torture and forced confessions, the largest loophole lies in the mainland’s corrupt and opaque criminal justice system, which lacks judicial independence and access to representation. It has repeatedly been criticised for conducting closed-door criminal trials which lack in fairness and have no transparency.

These issues do raise questions about how mainland authorities may use or misuse these proposed changes in Hong Kong’s extradition laws to further an agenda of persecution against voices of dissent.

The “yes” camp argues that these amendments are safe because the extradition requests will be overseen by Hong Kong’s courts, with final authority vested in the chief executive. The fact remains that courts and judges in Hong Kong will have no way of investigating the basis or substance of the charges brought against the accused in question.

As regards the chief executive, she is making it a norm to accede to the demands of the mainland, so her “authorisation” is inevitable and akin to a mere formality.

Recent convictions of leaders of the “umbrella movement”, disqualification of lawmakers and proposed bills on the national anthem law clearly highlight an increasing intolerance towards expressions of disagreement and a decline in the freedom of speech and independence.

By striving to pass these amendments, is the Hong Kong government easing the upholding of justice or enabling the enactment of a vindictive agenda? Is the government plugging loopholes or throwing doors wide open?

Gauri Venkitaraman, Lam Tin