政一B 邱科翰 (2)

姓名 : 邱科翰

班級 : 政一B

學號 : 07114248

[標題] Hong Kong rejects visa for FT editor Victor Mallet, BBC, 6/10/18

[內文] (節選)

Hong Kong has refused to renew a work visa for the Asia news editor of the Financial Times, sparking concerns from the UK government.

Victor Mallet is also vice-president of the city's Foreign Correspondents' Club (FCC), which upset local and Chinese authorities by hosting a separatist speaker in August.

Hong Kong did not explain its visa decision.

China is highly sensitive about the territory's sovereignty.

The former British colony was handed back in 1997 on condition it would retain "a high degree of autonomy, except in foreign and defence affairs" for 50 years.

Mr Mallet was acting president at the FCC when the event featuring young independence activist Andy Chan was held.

China's ministry of foreign affairs urged the club to cancel it and Hong Kong's top official, Carrie Lam, criticised the talk as "regrettable and inappropriate".

Pro-Beijing groups rallied outside the FCC, calling for the organisation to "get out of Hong Kong".

However, the club defended its decision and the talk went ahead.

"This is the first time we have encountered this situation in Hong Kong. We have not been given a reason for the rejection," the news organisation said in a statement.

The FCC said: "Hong Kong rightly prides itself on its reputation as a place where the rule of law applies and where freedom of speech is protected by law. In the absence of any reasonable explanation, the FCC calls on the Hong Kong authorities to rescind their decision."

"Press freedom is a core value that Hong Kong treasures so much that the government of Hong Kong leased the Club [the FFC] at a token rent the building on Ice House Street in Central," he wrote.

Last month, Hong Kong banned the Hong Kong National Party (HKNP), saying that it posed a threat to national security.

It was the first time that the territory has banned a political party since Hong Kong was returned to China from the UK.

……

[相關憲法條文]

憲法第十條 : 人民有居住及遷徙之自由。

憲法第十一條 : 人民有言論、講學、著作及出版之自由。

憲法第十四條 : 人民有集會及結社之自由。

憲法第二十二條 : 凡人民之其他自由及權利，不妨害社會秩序公共利益者，均受憲法之保障。

憲法第二十三條 : 以上各條列舉之自由權利，除為防止妨礙他人自由、避免緊急危難、維持社會秩序，或增進公共利益所必要者外，不得以法律限制之。

憲法增修條文第五條 : 政黨之目的或其行為，危害中華民國之存在或自由民主之憲政秩序者為違憲。

{相關法條}

政黨法第二十六條 : 政黨有憲法增修條文第五條第五項之情事應予解散者，由主管機關檢具相關事證，聲請司法院憲法法庭審理之。

刑法第一百條 : 意圖破壞國體，竊據國土，或以非法之方法變更國憲，顛覆政府，而以強暴或脅迫著手實行者，處七年以上有期徒刑；首謀者，處無期徒刑。

預備犯前項之罪者，處六月以上五年以下有期徒刑。

……

心得評論：

This news brought various issues into the spotlight. The right to free speech was the most obvious. Under Taiwan’s constitution, citizens could enjoy freedom of speech, freedom of academic studies and teachings, freedom of writing and of publishing. In a similar scenario, hosting disputable talks wouldn’t be enough of a reason to deny a citizens’ visa. This brings the freedom of movement into light. In Taiwan, we enjoy the freedom to move, travel, and reside as long as it’s legal. And unless proven by evidence, the state could not restrict nor deny entry and re-entry of its citizens. The same applies for foreigners as well. Another point would be the right to gather and form an assembly. Not only could we do that, Taiwanese citizens also enjoy the right to form organisations or associations of various kinds - that includes political parties. Hong Kong might have banned the HKNP, but here in Taiwan, authorities must have evidence to prove one party guilty of trying to topple the state. Otherwise, the party can’t be disbanded. The term “toppling the state” is restricted to “actually using force”, so if no action is taken, the authority couldn’t ban a party simply by its ideology. All of these aforementioned rights were protected unless the state deemed its protection violates one of the four circumstances listed in the constitution. Even unlisted rights were protected, too. 

So, what would happen if this situation took place here? Well first, the state could not take revenge on foreign personnel just because the subject were hosting talks. This violates the right to free speech. Second, the denial of visa without reason violates the right to free movement. Third, banning political parties or asking a group to call off its activities violates the right to gather and form an assembly and the right to form organisations and associations. Even in the case of the said party, it requires evidence that the party is actually using forceful means to topple the state could the judicial review system disband it legally. 

China promised Hong Kong fifty years of “high degree autonomy”, yet it is easy to see how much Beijing interferes in its internal policy. No wonder many joked that Hong Kong is already living in 2047. The lack of a de jure constitution meant that human rights protection were fragile in this SAR of China.