Govyn's words did not end. Pen % fun % Pavilion www.biquge.info

"You say Hong Kong under British rule is more liberal and democratic? Hmph, I don't know where you feel it! ”

Govin began to introduce the current laws of Hong Kong to the audience, and he had consulted a lot of information about Hong Kong in order to write the essay "Once Upon a Time in Hong Kong", and the laws of Hong Kong were part of it.

"On April 5 and 6, 1843, Queen Victoria of Great Britain successively issued two edicts, the 'Imperial Decree' and the 'Royal Instruction', conferring absolute power almost exclusively possessed by feudal emperors to the Governor of Hong Kong, enabling him to effectively control the new colony of Hong Kong and turn Hong Kong into a base camp for British plundering interests in China. These powers of the Governor of Hong Kong cover the legislative, executive, and judicial spheres, mainly in the control of the legislative and executive bureaux, the appointment and dismissal of judges at all levels, the pardon or reduction of the sentences of criminals, and the decision on the retention of officials.

So what exactly are the 'Royal Decrees' and 'Royal Instructions'?

In a nutshell, the 'Letters of Honour' is a three-page political outline that lays out the political structure of the colony and the scope of the governor's powers. The 'Royal Instruction' is a ten-page paper divided into 38 sub-sections, which complement the content of the 'Royal Decree' in detail.

From the British point of view, such a political layout is a matter of course. The London government set up a colony in the Far East, more than 10,000 kilometers away from the mainland, and controlled hundreds of thousands of Chinese residents in the region with thousands of officials and soldiers. In doing so, however, the Governor monopolized all power in the colony and was largely free from any internal constraints. Therefore, the British government in Hong Kong is in essence a government that secretly exercises authoritarian dictatorship in the name of putting on the cloak of British democracy.

Knowing these facts, we will clearly know that the so-called 'Hong Kong has always practiced an executive-led governance model' in the newspapers these days is nonsense!

This is a weapon deliberately made by a handful of people to mislead the public. They continue to use this to encourage some ignorant citizens to be hostile to the mainland, so that the mainland government will become the target of public criticism, and then achieve their goal of creating social contradictions and destroying Hong Kong.

Then again, it is impossible for the London government not to limit the almost overflowing powers of the Governor, lest a situation in the future become a situation in which the weak branch is strong and the tail is too big to be lost. So, at the end of the 'Edict', the Government of London, in the name of the Queen, wrote a clear final sentence: 'I retain hereby the full power and authority of me, my heirs, and my heirs, and may revoke, vary or modify the Decree at any time if we feel the need.' ’

Do you know what this means?

This means that the thunder, rain and dew are all the grace of the king, and the absolute power of the governor of Hong Kong within the colony can be withdrawn by the empress without going through any procedures.

Since its promulgation, the Letters Decree and the Crown Instructions have been amended 13 times and 16 times respectively in the 141 years leading up to 1984. In other words, the 'Crown Decree' is amended every 10.8 years on average, and the 'Royal Decree' is amended every 8.8 years on average. However, history has long shown us that all the amendments did not affect the absolute power of the Governor.

With the exception of the retirement age for judges at all levels and the power of the Governor of Hong Kong to appoint and dismiss judges, most of these amendments were minor amendments, most of which were minor amendments, most of which were the most important of these amendments, most of which were that the British government never touched the structure and structure of the Hong Kong government. For this reason, the dictatorial power of the Hong Kong Governor has remained untouched for more than 100 years.

In fact, if you look back at history, you can know how cold, ruthless, and intimidating the image of the Governor of Hong Kong was during the colonial era, and you can know how great his power was and how arbitrary his actions were.

On December 19 last year, China and Britain signed and issued a joint declaration in Beijing, agreeing that Hong Kong would return to China on July 1, 1997. The main body of the joint statement is quite simple, with only eight paragraphs in total. The first paragraph is a statement by China to reclaim sovereignty over Hong Kong, and the second paragraph is a brief statement by the United Kingdom to return sovereignty over Hong Kong. The third paragraph is subdivided into 12 subsections, which is the longest, accounting for more than half of the whole text, and outlines the outline of Hong Kong's future after the return to the motherland. Paragraphs 4 to 8 are joint statements by the two countries, and each paragraph is very small.

Although the fourth paragraph is only 96 words, it deserves our attention.

I have a good memory and still remember the content of these 96 words, so I'll recite it to you here:

'4. The Government of the People's Republic of China and the Government of the United Kingdom declare that during the transitional period commencing on the date of entry into force of this Joint Declaration and ending on 30 June 1997, the Government of the United Kingdom shall be responsible for the administration of Hong Kong for the purpose of maintaining and maintaining its economic prosperity and social stability; The Government of the People's Republic of China will cooperate in this regard. ’

At first glance, this paragraph of text is serious and normal, the content is stable, and there is nothing unusual, but in fact, this text is very not simple, and the murder is implied.

This passage can be understood in this way: for the 13-year transition period, Britain will continue to be responsible for the administration of Hong Kong, and China will cooperate to maintain Hong Kong's prosperity and stability. The prescribed time limit was 13 years before 1997, which meant that if anything went wrong in Hong Kong after that, it had nothing to do with the UK. During this period, the British were only responsible for the prosperity and stability of Hong Kong, and as for other matters, including whether to change Hong Kong's political structure, it was up to the British to decide, and China not only could not say anything, but also cooperated with it in return.

To put it bluntly, in the 13 years before the handover, Britain left a way back for itself to restructure Hong Kong's political structure.

On April 2 this year, the 'Imperial Decree' was revised less than five months after the joint statement was issued. For the first time in 142 years, Britain 'gifted' second-class colonial citizens to get a taste of the distribution of governing power, allowing Hong Kong citizens to participate in the election of 24 of the 57 members of the Legislative Council.

I really want to ask the British, what did you do in the 142 years before that?

Some people may say that this is because the British want to introduce democracy in Hong Kong, which is a good thing.

Is that really the case?

This time, the 'Imperial Decree' has given Hong Kong Chinese second-class citizens to participate in the election of 24 of the 57 members of the Legislative Council, which is very 'generous'. But how did this time come to be so coincidental? So much so that everyone with normal logical thinking has to wonder a little in their hearts, what is the reason why the British who have always been cunning and cunning are so kind?

Oh yes, Congressman Lee should be the voter in this election, right?

Hey, why don't you speak?

Forget it, I'll move on.

In just a few months, the Hong Kong Legislative Council, the highest parliament in Hong Kong, has completed the path that has not been possible for more than a century, and elected members have appeared. This incident reflects the fact that the introduction of democratic factors in Hong Kong is not a matter of prematurity but of willingness.

Because before 1984, Hong Kong was the British cash ban, how could it give up the slightest bit of control power. Now that the boiled duck in Hong Kong is about to fly away, of course it doesn't care anymore.

But why 24 elected MPs? Why not 28-bit or even more? You must know that 24 elected members are only less than half of the total 56 members!

In the end, Britain still hasn't let go of its rights!

The Governor of Hong Kong, the President of the Legislative Council, who holds the sword in his hand, still has the final say. Less than half of the legislators will inevitably lead to the election of the Governor of Hong Kong, who will remain the sole authority and the absolute power in his hands will not change in the slightest. After all, 13 years is not too short a period of time, and the rope around the necks of Hong Kong people can begin to lengthen, but it must be done slowly, not too quickly, otherwise how can Britain make the most of this final period?

And for the sake of Britain's own interests, it will inevitably make crazy revisions to their 'Royal Decrees' and 'Royal Instructions', and I am sure of this.

The reason is very simple, if you have a gold mine, for some unavoidable reason, he rented out the gold mine, and now your Lao Tzu has passed away, and you want to take back the gold mine and develop it yourself, but there are 13 years left in the lease, do you think this tenant will still mine gold at the same rate as before?

I don't know if anyone still remembers the "Black Saturday" that happened in Hong Kong on September 24, 1983?

On that day, the Hong Kong stock market was in turmoil, and the Hong Kong dollar depreciated sharply, which directly affected the stability of the pound, what did the British do? They directly brought Hong Kong to end the free-floating exchange rate system and formally implement the linked exchange rate system pegged to the US dollar.

Why do they do it?

What is the context in which they made such a decision?

In 1983, China and Britain began negotiations on the sovereignty of Hong Kong, and the outcome of the negotiations is known to the world, and Hong Kong's territorial sovereignty was returned to China in 1997.

The British knew that Hong Kong could not be kept, so they began to fish with all their might!

In one fell swoop, the reformed system deprived Hong Kong of its once-owned monetary sovereignty, and without monetary sovereignty, there would be no sovereignty over economic management. This means that Hong Kong cannot formulate a clear industrial development policy! Second, without monetary sovereignty, the Hong Kong dollar would not have the value to become an international reserve currency. This means that assets denominated in Hong Kong dollars do not have the ability to hedge against US dollar risk. The Hong Kong dollar has finally lost its historic opportunity to become an international reserve currency, like the Swiss franc! Again, without monetary sovereignty, there is no ability to manage inflation. Under the rigid linked exchange rate system, the continued depreciation of the US dollar will inevitably lead to persistent inflation in Hong Kong and a depression in all industries.

In any society, where the profits of capital are higher than the income of labor for a long time, this society will inevitably produce the labor crowding out effect, and this society will inevitably lose the ability to create value. In fact, Hong Kong's ability to start a business and innovate in the 60s and 70s disappeared after the British currency system was changed in 1983, and since then Hong Kong is no longer like a factory, but more like a casino!

Councilor Li, this is the Heavenly Empire in your eyes!

Councillor Li, you and those around you would rather feed the British troops in Hong Kong than allow Chinese troops to be stationed in Hong Kong at the expense of the Chinese government. You would rather have the British appoint a governor to Hong Kong than let the people of Hong Kong choose the chief executive. You would rather Hong Kong pay taxes to the British than let Hong Kong return to the mainland, which does not charge a penny of Hong Kong's tax; You still like the caning of the British, are you dogs? ”

Govin pointed to Councillor Lee and the people around him, and said with righteous indignation and joy.

The eyes of Mr. Ai Qing began to light up when he said it, and the tycoon Li, Bao tycoon, and Huo tycoon nodded again and again, not to mention the audience who usually didn't care much about Hong Kong law, and they were eye-opening and appreciative, and Ni Kuang, who was sitting in a row with Councillor Li, frowned and became angry.

……

……

This chapter is basically a mixture of some information on the Internet, and it is hereby explained.

(To be continued.) )