国产热热热精品,亚洲视频久久】日韩,三级婷婷在线久久,99人妻精品视频,精品九热人人肉肉在线,AV东京热一区二区,91po在线视频观看,久久激情宗合,青青草黄色手机视频

Global EditionASIA 中文雙語Fran?ais
HongKong Comment(1)

Co-location plan legally sound

Updated: 2017-07-27 06:53
Share
Share - WeChat

Few doubt that a co-location arrangement is necessary for the Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Rail Link (XRL) to achieve its full economic benefits and make the HK$84.4 billion mega infrastructure facility worth the investment. This is common sense and readily understood by almost everyone. Opponents of the proposed co-location arrangements - specifically radical members of the opposition camp - have picked their fight in a legal battlefield.

The main argument is that the plan would violate Article 18 of the Basic Law, which states "national laws shall not be applied in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region except for those listed in Annex III to this Law". But the fact is that mainland authorities would only enforce national laws within a very defined and restricted area inside the West Kowloon Terminus. This area will be called the "Mainland Port Area" (MPA); the MPA is legally regarded as outside the territorial boundary of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region by virtue of the three-step process the proposed co-location arrangement involves.

The practice of Hong Kong leasing out a portion of the terminus to mainland authorities for the purpose of setting up the MPA is constitutionally sound. The argument that setting up the MPA is tantamount to ceding Hong Kong territory to the mainland doesn't hold water, because Article 7 of the Basic Law stipulates that the land and natural resources within the SAR shall be State property.

Furthermore, Article 7 also states that the SAR government is responsible for management, use and lease of its land and natural resources. This is to say that the SAR government can lease out the spaces in question to any party, including the mainland authorities of course. What it needs to do to render the co-location arrangement plan implementable is completing the necessary local legislation. And Article 20 of the Basic Law provides the legal basis for the Legislative Council to enact such a law because it allows the National People's Congress Standing Committee (NPCSC) to confer such a power to the SAR.

Moreover, joint checkpoints are not a rare phenomenon. A similar arrangement has been effectively implemented in the Shenzhen Bay Control Point on the Shenzhen side. There, immigration and customs officers from Hong Kong have been conducting their duties according to Hong Kong laws for more than a decade. Similar arrangements have also been implemented among other jurisdictions such as those between the United States and Canada.

The crusade against co-location arrangements has been waged under the guise of upholding the law. The fact is that it has nothing to do with the law but very much with an anti-mainland sentiment - one that abhors any move to bring Hong Kong and the mainland any closer either physically or mentally. We have witnessed such a pernicious sentiment taking its toll on other cross-boundary projects and initiatives such as the Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge and national education plans.

(HK Edition 07/27/2017 page8)

Today's Top News

Editor's picks

Most Viewed

Top
BACK TO THE TOP
English
Copyright 1994 - . All rights reserved. The content (including but not limited to text, photo, multimedia information, etc) published in this site belongs to China Daily Information Co (CDIC). Without written authorization from CDIC, such content shall not be republished or used in any form. Note: Browsers with 1024*768 or higher resolution are suggested for this site.
License for publishing multimedia online 0108263

Registration Number: 130349
FOLLOW US
文成县| 健康| 万载县| 台中县| 南皮县| 阳泉市| 汽车| 疏勒县| 庆城县| 吴堡县| 堆龙德庆县| 许昌市| 长泰县| 珲春市| 馆陶县| 轮台县| 小金县| 寻乌县| 浮山县| 合作市| 凭祥市| 吴江市| 麟游县| 新乡县| 四子王旗| 五家渠市| 沐川县| 灵璧县| 永宁县| 临沂市| 定西市| 龙南县| 洛川县| 崇明县| 儋州市| 内丘县| 黄山市| 双柏县| 延吉市| 徐闻县| 临夏县|