File #2576: "2019_Book_CritiqueOfHongKongNativism.pdf"
Testo
1|Contents|5
1|Part I: Origin and Development of Hong Kong Nativism|10
2|Chapter 1: Where Is Hong Kong Nativism Going?|11
3|1.1 Restless “Hong Kong Nativism”|11
3|1.2 A Separatism that Boarders on Extremism|13
3|1.3 What Is the Real “Hong Kong Sense of Nativeness”|15
3|References|16
2|Chapter 2: A Historical Narration and Restoration of “Hong Kong Nativism”|17
3|2.1 The Historical Origin of Hong Kong Nativism|18
4|2.1.1 Colonial Immigrants: Nativism Without Native Land|18
4|2.1.2 Search for Identity and the Awakening of Hong Kong Nativism|19
4|2.1.3 Social Movements in the 1970s and the Formation of Nativism|21
3|2.2 The Transformation of Hong Kong Nativism and the Formation of “Hong Kong Independence”|23
4|2.2.1 Historical Situation Before and After the “Handover”|23
4|2.2.2 The Degradation of Hong Kong Nativism and the Formation of “Hong Kong Independence” Ideological Trend|24
4|2.2.3 From “Nativism” to “Separatism”: Reasons Why “Hong Kong Nativism” Turned into “Hong Kong Independence”|27
3|2.3 Restoration and Reconstruction: From “Separatism Consciousness” to “Native Consciousness”|29
4|2.3.1 Hong Kong Nativism: A Concept that Belongs to Local Consciousness|29
4|2.3.2 From “Separatist” to “Native”: A Restoration of Hong Kong Nativism|31
3|2.4 Conclusion|32
3|References|33
2|Chapter 3: A Psychosocial Perspective into the Radical Nativism in Hong Kong|35
3|3.1 Mirage and Reality of the Colonial Autonomous Movement|36
3|3.2 Fabrication and Fear of “Hong Kong Chauvinism”|38
3|3.3 The Snare and Shackles of Postcolonialism|40
3|3.4 The Grievance and Wrath of Populism|43
3|3.5 Conclusion|47
3|References|47
1|Part II: Legal Critique of Hong Kong Nativism: A Comparison with Taiwan|50
2|Chapter 4: Democratic Independence: Taiwan’s Story and Hong Kong’s Future|51
3|4.1 Deconstruction of “Chinese Legal System”: The “Democratic Independence” Story of Taiwan|51
4|4.1.1 Undemocratic Chinese Legal System|52
4|4.1.2 The Democratic Construction of “Taiwan Independence”|53
3|4.2 The “Hong Kong Image” of Taiwan’s Story: Hong Kong’s Appeal for “Democratic Independence”|55
4|4.2.1 “Democratization”: The Beginning of “Hong Kong Independence” Ideology|55
4|4.2.2 “Democratic Independence of Hong Kong”: A Highly Similar Construction|57
3|4.3 Impasse and Countermeasure of Hong Kong “Democratic Independence”|60
4|4.3.1 Follow-Up Story of Taiwan “Democratic Independence” and Possible Consequences of Hong Kong “Democratic Independence”|60
4|4.3.2 How Could Hong Kong Avoid the Mire of “Democratic Independence”|62
3|4.4 Conclusion|64
3|References|64
2|Chapter 5: From “Taiwan Independence” to “Hong Kong Independence”: How Hong Kong Followed the Steps of Taiwan on the Road of Separatism|66
3|5.1 Major Theories of “Taiwan Independence”|67
4|5.1.1 “Unresolved Status of Taiwan”: Logic Start of “Taiwan Independence”|67
4|5.1.2 “Formosan Nation”: Political Premise of “Taiwan Independence”|69
4|5.1.3 “Self-Determination by Taiwan Residents”: Legal Basis of “Taiwan Independence”|70
4|5.1.4 “Democratic Independence”: Moral Justification of “Taiwan Independence”|71
3|5.2 Major Theories of “Hong Kong Independence”|72
4|5.2.1 “Hong Kong City-State”: Realistic Foundation of “Hong Kong Independence”|73
4|5.2.2 “Hong Kong Nation”: Political Premise of “Hong Kong Independence”|74
4|5.2.3 “Self-Determination by Referendum”: Legal Basis of “Hong Kong Independence”|75
4|5.2.4 “Democratic Independence”: Moral Justification of “Hong Kong Independence”|76
3|5.3 Inheritance of “Hong Kong Independence” from “Taiwan Independence”|77
4|5.3.1 Grounds for Hong Kong and Taiwan to Draw Lessons from Each Other|78
4|5.3.2 Inheritance and Interaction Between “Hong Kong Independence” and “Taiwan Independence”|80
4|5.3.3 The Collaboration of the Two Separatist Camps and Its Consequences|81
3|5.4 Conclusion|83
3|References|83
2|Chapter 6: On the Impossibility of Hong Kong “De Jure Independence”|85
3|6.1 Types of “Hong Kong Independence” and Hong Kong “De Jure Independence”|86
3|6.2 Three Approaches to “De Jure Independence” and Their Impossibility|87
4|6.2.1 “Independence by Enactment of Constitution”: Misinterpreted “Self-Determination”|87
4|6.2.2 “Independence by Amendment of Constitution”: “Absolute Constitution” Neglected|90
4|6.2.3 “Independence by Interpretation of Constitution”: Non-applicable “Taiwan Mode”|92
3|6.3 Remedies for “Hong Kong Independence”|94
3|6.4 Conclusion|97
3|References|97
1|Part III: The Basic Law and Hong Kong Nativism|99
2|Chapter 7: Sovereignty, National Security, and Political Reform: Prevention Mechanism Against “Hong Kong Independence” Under the Hong Kong Basic Law|100
3|7.1 The Faces and Nature of “Hong Kong Independence”|101
4|7.1.1 Three Faces of “Hong Kong Independence”: Ethos, Theory, and Movement|101
4|7.1.2 The Nature of “Hong Kong Independence”: A Politicized Legal Issue|102
3|7.2 The Basic Law and Sovereignty|103
4|7.2.1 The Substance of “Hong Kong Independence”: Contest for Sovereignty|103
4|7.2.2 The Essence and Prospect of “50 Years Unchanged”|105
3|7.3 The Basic Law and National Security|106
4|7.3.1 “Article 23” Legislation: The Way to Contain “Hong Kong Independence”|106
4|7.3.2 Strategies to Pass the “Article 23” Legislation|108
3|7.4 The Basic Law and Political Reform|109
4|7.4.1 Restart Political Reform: The Way to Dissolve “Hong Kong Independence”|109
4|7.4.2 Critical Steps for Hong Kong’s Political Reform|112
3|References|114
2|Chapter 8: On Shaping and Consolidating the Basic Law Identification|116
3|8.1 Introduction: Identity Crisis Reflected by an Antics|116
3|8.2 Rise of Nativism: The Secret of Alienation|118
3|8.3 The Basic Law: A Bridge for National Identity and Local Identity|121
4|8.3.1 National Identity Dimension of the Basic Law|121
4|8.3.2 Local Identity Dimension of the Basic Law|123
4|8.3.3 Cohesion Between National Identity and Local Identity Under the Basic Law|124
3|8.4 Shaping and Strengthening the Basic Law Identification|125
3|8.5 Conclusion|129
3|References|129
2|Chapter 9: Practice and Effects of Law Scrutiny Adopted by the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal|131
3|9.1 Basis of Law Scrutiny|132
4|9.1.1 Hong Kong Bill of Rights Ordinance (Cap. 383)|132
4|9.1.2 The Basic Law and Interpretations of the NPCSC|133
4|9.1.3 Overseas Jurisprudence|135
3|9.2 Object of Law Scrutiny|136
4|9.2.1 Source of Law Stipulated in Article 8 and Article 18 of the Basic Law|136
4|9.2.2 The Legislation of the National People’s Congress and Its Standing Committee|138
3|9.3 Consequences of Law Scrutiny|140
4|9.3.1 The Consequence of Seeking Interpretation from the NPCSC|140
4|9.3.2 The Consequence of the CFA Interpreting the Basic Law by Itself|142
3|9.4 Conclusion: Sophistication of the Basic Law|144
3|References|144
2|Chapter 10: On the Adoption of Empirical Evidence in the Interpretation of Hong Kong Basic Law|146
3|10.1 “Social Links” of the Brandeis Brief and Constitutional Laws|147
4|10.1.1 Origin of the Brandeis Brief|147
4|10.1.2 Brandeis Brief’s Intrusion in Constitutional Law Interpretation|149
3|10.2 The Application of Social Empirical Evidence by the CFA|150
4|10.2.1 Non-adoption of Social Empirical Evidence: The Chong Fung Yuen Case|151
4|10.2.2 Adoption of Social Empirical Evidence: The Ng Kung Siu Case and the Vallejos Case|152
3|10.3 The NPCSC’s Interpretation and Introduction of Social Empirical Evidence|154
4|10.3.1 Reinforce the Interpretation: Social Empirical Evidence’s Role in the Interpretation|155
4|10.3.2 Overlap Between Social Empirical Evidence and the Legislative Intent Interpretation|156
3|10.4 Conclusion|158
3|References|159
1|Appendix|161
2|Don’t Rest Violence with Hong Kong Nativism|161
3|Nativism Is No Separatism|161
3|Lawful Punishment on Rioters|162
2|The “2.8 Incident” Is Not a Hong Kong Version of “2.28 Incident”|162
2|“One Country, Two Systems” Is Still the Antidote to the Collusion of Two Separatism|165
2|“Hong Kong Independence”: An Illusion Doomed to Failure|167
3|From “Anti-colonialism” to “Pro-independence”|167
3|Ignorance of Common Sense and Hong Kong History|169
3|Populist Nativism Results in Permanent Chaos|170
2|The Interpretation: Justified, Beneficial, and Temperate|170
3|An Essential Move to Maintain “One Country, Two Systems”|170
3|Not a Strike to Hong Kong’s Judicial Independence|171
2|The New Circumstances Call for Discourse Innovation|172
3|Discourse Trap of Antagonism|173
3|A Few Ideas for Discourse Innovation|175
1|Part I: Origin and Development of Hong Kong Nativism|10
2|Chapter 1: Where Is Hong Kong Nativism Going?|11
3|1.1 Restless “Hong Kong Nativism”|11
3|1.2 A Separatism that Boarders on Extremism|13
3|1.3 What Is the Real “Hong Kong Sense of Nativeness”|15
3|References|16
2|Chapter 2: A Historical Narration and Restoration of “Hong Kong Nativism”|17
3|2.1 The Historical Origin of Hong Kong Nativism|18
4|2.1.1 Colonial Immigrants: Nativism Without Native Land|18
4|2.1.2 Search for Identity and the Awakening of Hong Kong Nativism|19
4|2.1.3 Social Movements in the 1970s and the Formation of Nativism|21
3|2.2 The Transformation of Hong Kong Nativism and the Formation of “Hong Kong Independence”|23
4|2.2.1 Historical Situation Before and After the “Handover”|23
4|2.2.2 The Degradation of Hong Kong Nativism and the Formation of “Hong Kong Independence” Ideological Trend|24
4|2.2.3 From “Nativism” to “Separatism”: Reasons Why “Hong Kong Nativism” Turned into “Hong Kong Independence”|27
3|2.3 Restoration and Reconstruction: From “Separatism Consciousness” to “Native Consciousness”|29
4|2.3.1 Hong Kong Nativism: A Concept that Belongs to Local Consciousness|29
4|2.3.2 From “Separatist” to “Native”: A Restoration of Hong Kong Nativism|31
3|2.4 Conclusion|32
3|References|33
2|Chapter 3: A Psychosocial Perspective into the Radical Nativism in Hong Kong|35
3|3.1 Mirage and Reality of the Colonial Autonomous Movement|36
3|3.2 Fabrication and Fear of “Hong Kong Chauvinism”|38
3|3.3 The Snare and Shackles of Postcolonialism|40
3|3.4 The Grievance and Wrath of Populism|43
3|3.5 Conclusion|47
3|References|47
1|Part II: Legal Critique of Hong Kong Nativism: A Comparison with Taiwan|50
2|Chapter 4: Democratic Independence: Taiwan’s Story and Hong Kong’s Future|51
3|4.1 Deconstruction of “Chinese Legal System”: The “Democratic Independence” Story of Taiwan|51
4|4.1.1 Undemocratic Chinese Legal System|52
4|4.1.2 The Democratic Construction of “Taiwan Independence”|53
3|4.2 The “Hong Kong Image” of Taiwan’s Story: Hong Kong’s Appeal for “Democratic Independence”|55
4|4.2.1 “Democratization”: The Beginning of “Hong Kong Independence” Ideology|55
4|4.2.2 “Democratic Independence of Hong Kong”: A Highly Similar Construction|57
3|4.3 Impasse and Countermeasure of Hong Kong “Democratic Independence”|60
4|4.3.1 Follow-Up Story of Taiwan “Democratic Independence” and Possible Consequences of Hong Kong “Democratic Independence”|60
4|4.3.2 How Could Hong Kong Avoid the Mire of “Democratic Independence”|62
3|4.4 Conclusion|64
3|References|64
2|Chapter 5: From “Taiwan Independence” to “Hong Kong Independence”: How Hong Kong Followed the Steps of Taiwan on the Road of Separatism|66
3|5.1 Major Theories of “Taiwan Independence”|67
4|5.1.1 “Unresolved Status of Taiwan”: Logic Start of “Taiwan Independence”|67
4|5.1.2 “Formosan Nation”: Political Premise of “Taiwan Independence”|69
4|5.1.3 “Self-Determination by Taiwan Residents”: Legal Basis of “Taiwan Independence”|70
4|5.1.4 “Democratic Independence”: Moral Justification of “Taiwan Independence”|71
3|5.2 Major Theories of “Hong Kong Independence”|72
4|5.2.1 “Hong Kong City-State”: Realistic Foundation of “Hong Kong Independence”|73
4|5.2.2 “Hong Kong Nation”: Political Premise of “Hong Kong Independence”|74
4|5.2.3 “Self-Determination by Referendum”: Legal Basis of “Hong Kong Independence”|75
4|5.2.4 “Democratic Independence”: Moral Justification of “Hong Kong Independence”|76
3|5.3 Inheritance of “Hong Kong Independence” from “Taiwan Independence”|77
4|5.3.1 Grounds for Hong Kong and Taiwan to Draw Lessons from Each Other|78
4|5.3.2 Inheritance and Interaction Between “Hong Kong Independence” and “Taiwan Independence”|80
4|5.3.3 The Collaboration of the Two Separatist Camps and Its Consequences|81
3|5.4 Conclusion|83
3|References|83
2|Chapter 6: On the Impossibility of Hong Kong “De Jure Independence”|85
3|6.1 Types of “Hong Kong Independence” and Hong Kong “De Jure Independence”|86
3|6.2 Three Approaches to “De Jure Independence” and Their Impossibility|87
4|6.2.1 “Independence by Enactment of Constitution”: Misinterpreted “Self-Determination”|87
4|6.2.2 “Independence by Amendment of Constitution”: “Absolute Constitution” Neglected|90
4|6.2.3 “Independence by Interpretation of Constitution”: Non-applicable “Taiwan Mode”|92
3|6.3 Remedies for “Hong Kong Independence”|94
3|6.4 Conclusion|97
3|References|97
1|Part III: The Basic Law and Hong Kong Nativism|99
2|Chapter 7: Sovereignty, National Security, and Political Reform: Prevention Mechanism Against “Hong Kong Independence” Under the Hong Kong Basic Law|100
3|7.1 The Faces and Nature of “Hong Kong Independence”|101
4|7.1.1 Three Faces of “Hong Kong Independence”: Ethos, Theory, and Movement|101
4|7.1.2 The Nature of “Hong Kong Independence”: A Politicized Legal Issue|102
3|7.2 The Basic Law and Sovereignty|103
4|7.2.1 The Substance of “Hong Kong Independence”: Contest for Sovereignty|103
4|7.2.2 The Essence and Prospect of “50 Years Unchanged”|105
3|7.3 The Basic Law and National Security|106
4|7.3.1 “Article 23” Legislation: The Way to Contain “Hong Kong Independence”|106
4|7.3.2 Strategies to Pass the “Article 23” Legislation|108
3|7.4 The Basic Law and Political Reform|109
4|7.4.1 Restart Political Reform: The Way to Dissolve “Hong Kong Independence”|109
4|7.4.2 Critical Steps for Hong Kong’s Political Reform|112
3|References|114
2|Chapter 8: On Shaping and Consolidating the Basic Law Identification|116
3|8.1 Introduction: Identity Crisis Reflected by an Antics|116
3|8.2 Rise of Nativism: The Secret of Alienation|118
3|8.3 The Basic Law: A Bridge for National Identity and Local Identity|121
4|8.3.1 National Identity Dimension of the Basic Law|121
4|8.3.2 Local Identity Dimension of the Basic Law|123
4|8.3.3 Cohesion Between National Identity and Local Identity Under the Basic Law|124
3|8.4 Shaping and Strengthening the Basic Law Identification|125
3|8.5 Conclusion|129
3|References|129
2|Chapter 9: Practice and Effects of Law Scrutiny Adopted by the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal|131
3|9.1 Basis of Law Scrutiny|132
4|9.1.1 Hong Kong Bill of Rights Ordinance (Cap. 383)|132
4|9.1.2 The Basic Law and Interpretations of the NPCSC|133
4|9.1.3 Overseas Jurisprudence|135
3|9.2 Object of Law Scrutiny|136
4|9.2.1 Source of Law Stipulated in Article 8 and Article 18 of the Basic Law|136
4|9.2.2 The Legislation of the National People’s Congress and Its Standing Committee|138
3|9.3 Consequences of Law Scrutiny|140
4|9.3.1 The Consequence of Seeking Interpretation from the NPCSC|140
4|9.3.2 The Consequence of the CFA Interpreting the Basic Law by Itself|142
3|9.4 Conclusion: Sophistication of the Basic Law|144
3|References|144
2|Chapter 10: On the Adoption of Empirical Evidence in the Interpretation of Hong Kong Basic Law|146
3|10.1 “Social Links” of the Brandeis Brief and Constitutional Laws|147
4|10.1.1 Origin of the Brandeis Brief|147
4|10.1.2 Brandeis Brief’s Intrusion in Constitutional Law Interpretation|149
3|10.2 The Application of Social Empirical Evidence by the CFA|150
4|10.2.1 Non-adoption of Social Empirical Evidence: The Chong Fung Yuen Case|151
4|10.2.2 Adoption of Social Empirical Evidence: The Ng Kung Siu Case and the Vallejos Case|152
3|10.3 The NPCSC’s Interpretation and Introduction of Social Empirical Evidence|154
4|10.3.1 Reinforce the Interpretation: Social Empirical Evidence’s Role in the Interpretation|155
4|10.3.2 Overlap Between Social Empirical Evidence and the Legislative Intent Interpretation|156
3|10.4 Conclusion|158
3|References|159
1|Appendix|161
2|Don’t Rest Violence with Hong Kong Nativism|161
3|Nativism Is No Separatism|161
3|Lawful Punishment on Rioters|162
2|The “2.8 Incident” Is Not a Hong Kong Version of “2.28 Incident”|162
2|“One Country, Two Systems” Is Still the Antidote to the Collusion of Two Separatism|165
2|“Hong Kong Independence”: An Illusion Doomed to Failure|167
3|From “Anti-colonialism” to “Pro-independence”|167
3|Ignorance of Common Sense and Hong Kong History|169
3|Populist Nativism Results in Permanent Chaos|170
2|The Interpretation: Justified, Beneficial, and Temperate|170
3|An Essential Move to Maintain “One Country, Two Systems”|170
3|Not a Strike to Hong Kong’s Judicial Independence|171
2|The New Circumstances Call for Discourse Innovation|172
3|Discourse Trap of Antagonism|173
3|A Few Ideas for Discourse Innovation|175