Condemned around the world so i want to be on says she gave us. A. Region that youre welcome to a conference on harlow you recently wrote an article about the controversial new security law that china is going to impose on hong kong and you said this does not to necessarily spell the death of hong kong separate systems but youre taking a huge gamble backing this law onto because beijing is not everything it can to prove that its not interested in those separate systems not interested in freedom of expression human rights or the rule of law is it. I dont think we need to come to a conclusion because china already has its own National Security law you know which is only a few pages long whats consists mainly up principles exhortations duties obligations. I think the fact that it needs it feels or pla is true and that a whole cold version reflects its understanding that hong kong to russia which is consistent with our common law system thats why painting is going ahead to an actor in special hong kong specific National Security law for us but region if you say dont jump to conclusions lets look at chinas record mass surveillance on hundreds of thousands of people from c. C. T. V. Cameras up to a 1000000 we get locked up in shin jang region many without charge or trial booksellers from hong kong disappeared doubtless all of them dealt with under the same kind of security laws that are coming to hong kong all day and none of that you say necessarily spells the death of hong kong separate system of course it does. Well you are talking about Mainland China youre not talking about hong kong in hong kong you know we have a common law system and we have the presumption of innocence anyone arrested can apply for haiti as koppers conviction on criminal offense needs very high burden of proof in fact proving beyond reasonable doubt which when all these safeguards are here theyre over we already implemented the International Covenant on civil and Political Rights through our basic law and the bill of rights in hong kong so called has a different system you shouldnt alum our system to gether what Mainland China system we have strong protection of person no data privacy so what you just said simply does not apply to hong kong where you say you have these common law safeguards how long are you going to have them for when the new law comes into into effect look in detail at how beijing uses its National Security laws on the mainland to curtail personal freedoms and snuff out dissident voices thats thats what is in store out of all of the us do you know you dont really understand the real situation in hong kong our Law Enforcement agencies are prosecution lawyers and judges are all trained in a common law system if a thing introduces a version. Including on fences which are right open not sufficiently clearly to find out people wont be able to implement it and our judges wont be able to achieve a case on those offenses so thats why i think beijing is taking advice from hong kong especially the common law lawyers as to how to delineate the specific over answers they have in mind why or why should we accept the china is going to adopt this benign attitude that you described towards hong kong where needs. Justice system on the mainland according to Amnesty International remains plagued by unfair trials torture and other ill treatment in detention why do you think youll be able to carry on with the same common law safeguards that you have at the moment you cant truthfully make that assertion because beijing hasnt said it will has it well again you are ignoring the facts that painting has respected our common law system and we have carry on with our common law system for 23 years since the relief occasion you know the stability and the predictability of a common law system is here for everybody to see what you kit kat describing is a situation in in Mainland China according to certain Human Rights Organization they do this sort of description does not apply to hong kong i must ask you how do you know that well how do you know the traditional hong kong how do you know that it doesnt know you here not all i know that i know i know because i was lazy in the has been working whereas beijing said you know that there are methods will not apply to hong kong in the basic law in the basic law it says all ecosystems previously in force will continue to apply at least up to 2 or 47 now really in the last couple of going sources from is highly regarded in the last couple of days later in the last couple of days let me finish you are interviewing being you should let me finish give me a chance to finish my answer please you know i heard the well Justice Project the well Justice Project weights our legal system number 16 well why 3 places higher than that of the american system you should respect that yes and for how long will it remain that way. At least until 2 or 47. And our courts at the highest level our courts at the highest level have nonpermanent such as highly respected jurists from the commonwealth jurisdictions these are not people who can be pushed around they will actually take a cases according to common law choice put thats in the last couple of days youve made clear that not only will beijing security law be imposed but at the same time a major pillar of the Justice System is also to be got rid of jury trials for those indicted under this new legislation you say juries might not be appropriate i think that was the term you used not appropriate why because they might not deliver the verdict that you politicians want to see. Thats. I said nothing that would undermine our existing system jury trial is only appropriate for over fences charged in our high court if the over fences are checked sentences below 7 Years Imprisonment they can go to lower courts thats effect as to whether courts well as to where the or fence or should be tried our court of final appeal has held that it should be at this decision for our prosecution people of course nowadays with so much online bullying going on you know so much boxing you know it is our effect that some jurors might be so intimidated as to as to become worried about serving as jurors in these cases that is effect a reality that i wish to point out and why shouldnt judges be intimidated either who in future judges who might be told in advance what the verdict is just like the system on the mainland thats how its going to be used in hong kong what i can tell you as legislators i am being intimidated too because there are people urging the u. S. And the u. K. To put me on sanctions list is that fair what do you say to that people threatening my freedoms and rights. Regina beijings draft law already suggests that the independence of judges will come under direct threat doesnt it article 3 of the draft decision says hong kongs legislative and judicial organs must in accordance with relevant laws effectively prevent stop and punish acts in danger and National Security thats telling the judges are to do their job isnt it so much for the independence of the judiciary being safeguarded. Being independent being an independent branch of government doesnt mean that they are not they are have lots one loyalty to the basic law or allegiance to the country or touches on picking up their office they have sworn allegiance to the country they have a duty to protect the welfare of hong kong being a part of the nation i see nothing wrong with that i wont in quatre that were threatening independence are. You hold up a copy of the basic law but the Hong Kong Bar Association which knows a thing or 2 about law has what it calls a fundamental constitutional and legal concerns about this new law they point out that article 23. 00 agreed by joint declaration says hong kong shall enact laws on its own to prohibit treason succession subversion be having a law imposed security law imposed by beijing is not an acting laws on its own is it. Well you make a quote palling then why did the Bar Association did not support the trough National Security legislation i championed back in 2 rove to try very hard to help hong kong too and act National Security laws on our own why did they object to that and in the course of the public scrutiny i gave them many concessions now the article 23 imposes a constitutional duty on the us to prohibit certain National Security over instance but it does not preclude the p. R. C. Of origins from acting under their constitution the problem with our parcels here is that it ignores the laws of china only focuses on the basic law of hong kong which is weird it which sets out a constitution or arrangements for hong kong but the National Peoples congress is the highest of already in Mainland China and the bars so haitian have persisted in persisted in ignoring these realities so the National Peoples congress can just sweep aside the basic laws it feels like the Bar Association says it would appear that the National Peoples congress has no power to the National Security law that its proposing. On the article 23 the n. P. C. Has not swept away the powers of our our under the basic law the decision the decision of the n. P. C. The 7 point assertion in 2 of the points day urged the Hong Kong Government to get on with and acting legislation locally on our own to fulfill our constitutional obligations you know our duty under article 3 does not preclude baiting of origins from doing their own thing to protect National Security certainly every country has a right to protect its security and territorial integrity lets look at what happened back in 2003 when you were security minister and you tried and failed to push through a security law against subversion and treason the hong kong it brought the people out in the hundreds of thousands against it and you had to resign your post because why because people didnt trust this law and they didnt trust the provisions of it and they still dont do they still dont. Or well home call has undergone many crises of confidence in the past 100 years you know but our systems have remained robust you know and on a lot of people are now regretting they should have supported the version that i championed 17 years ago moreover a lot of people came out to protest not just because of the National Security law but because of the sars epidemic at that time and many who normally problems and the difference between then and now is that at that time after the then chief executive announced he would. Not go ahead with the legislation people went home peacefully but in the past year we have seen a lot of violence a lot of subversive activity a lot of terrorist activities harm done a lot of protests are extremely dangerous. As in the u. S. As in the u. S. Were talking about legal route home but we have also had we are all we also have all of smashing the windows beating up innocent bystanders holding up explosives ransacking of the Legislative Council and the holding of the trooper on the tucson preceded that a lot of Police Brutality are you ok. Not a single citizen has been mortally wounded by our police force on the other hand in the past week 3 Police Officers have died of exhaustion after of duty were totally unlike the us where the policemen kill at least 1000. 00 people every year you must be fair there no such thing as Police Brutality in Hong Kong Well lets not bring in the us you have to show me a single you know we are not talking about the us but give me one specific instance of Police Brutality you cannot just pick the words up the lights up joshua one for granted whether by setting people on fire that was one of the military saw we saw the culture on the Radio Network break you say well give you a single example we saw on video few months ago a policeman shooting a demonstrator an unarmed demonstrators directly in the stomach you must have seen it as well wasnt that Police Brutality regina ip thats not Police Brutality the policeman was trying to protect himself the from a con artist a shining at him from an armed man well an armed man can also be dangerous the the happiest several shooting incidents in the past 12 months each incident has been carefully examined by the police and they have basically been exculpated by the expert groups and gauge by our independent Police Complaints council you say that the Bar Association raises the issue of how this new law is going to be enforced by china the draft decision says that when needed relevant National Security organs of the central peoples government will set up agencies in hong kong to safeguard National Security in accordance with the new law what are we talking about here regina in beijing secret kind of thing are you are we talking about beijing secret Police Operating in hong kong as and when they want i dont think theyre talking about direct and forstmann of Law Enforcement of laws will continue to be. The responsibility of our policeman thats not what it says it is against the basic on no no no thats what what you described they did not say what it is quote they only said that some National Security agency made me set up on the need basis as an macomo macao as a National Security council you have known whats that and im an ashram are selling a house that means doesnt mean the bay window cravenly waves actually we dont know for that titos so you cant do you 2 culpable as well you should not you cant give any comforting but as you have not about this and you cannot give any unwarranted accusations. If there are no facts you are making unwarranted accusations will these agencies operate under mainland law or hong kong law or you dont know do you. No no no its in the basic law they must obey hong kong law what i said there is it is not clear yet what any new National Security agency would be responsible for it could simply be responsible for Public Education publicized here and promotion you know you cannot come to the conclusion that they are they will be enforcing hong kong law thats what they bring thats what they do when they bring in their National Security organs of the Central Police government does it it was sent to peoples government thats what they are looking for education is it you dont know that again you arent you and you have no no factual basis for making those sort of statements you are simply making our sweeping allegations based on your own assumptions and bias when theres no assumptions and bias when you look at how the National Security organs of the central peoples government operate when theyre in on the mainland and were not talking about mainland were talking about one country 2 systems lets come back to hong kong. It doesnt look as though its one country 2 systems that have really interNational Security organs have and imposing their security laws on hong kong it doesnt look like 2 systems it looks like one country one system if you do that they are an acting they are trying to enact a hong kong specific version which is consistent with our common law systems if they just wish to implement impose chinas system on us they could just apply this to us chinas National Security law but they are not doing this they are now Consulting Hong Kong experts about and in. Drafting a hong kong specific version for us to take account of our separate systems. One of the things you said recently in your article was the beijing has a tacit understanding that the new law needs to be drafted in a way thats consistent with common law norms and strikes a balance between protecting National Security and up holding personal rights and freedoms 1st point regina tacit understanding is our by definition meaningless and. Well protected understanding you know its reflected by the fact that they are not imposing the national law on hong kong they are trafficking a hong kong specific law in fact because they understand our system is different in the basic law they asked us to do it on our own but because we failed to do so in the past 23 years so a chain of origins have no option but to get on with introducing a set up laws that will protect National Security and discourage separatists activities thats what they are doing theyre not imposing National Laws on hong kong tell me they know our system is different tell their own fences that they are worried about for example succession subversion under the common law these offenses need to be very clearly spelled out and they will need expert