Comments by "Yerris" (@yerri5567) on "Hong Kong, Beijing condemn UK withdrawal of judges from city’s top court over security law concern" video.

Can someone please tell me why HK has foreign nationals in their judicial systems? The handover was in 1997. It shouldve have been HKer judging their courts. Not foreigners...
159
@superrunnerx1 "Because they don't have anyone capable. Lol it's obvious" Im pretty sure theres plenty of law graduates in HK. A little marketing can get many applying to be judges...
7
@Cosmo1093 " independent of Beijing's opaque legal system that nobody really trusts" HKers judging their own courts is already independent of BJs. And if its mere "endorsements" only, then I dont see why the Chinese and HK government are condemning those actions.
5
@Valencetheshireman927 I can understand keeping the independent judicial practice. And to guarantee that British are "allowed" to be in that role (if they wish to). But CA, AU, NZ? They got nothing to do with HK. And if they choose to resign, then so be it. Why the condemnation? It should be HK judges ruling HK people anyways. As long as the law it followed, I dont see why foreigners are needed in another countrys judicial system. Can you imagine if Chinese nationals were appointed to be judges in US/UK courts? There would be outrage.
5
@Valencetheshireman927 "Part of the Hong Kong handover agreement" Theres a part that says there must be foreign nationals in HK juridical system? Can I ask which part?
4
@GoToMan The British didnt give "democracy" to HK. If that was the case they wouldve given them democracy from the very start, not ruling with with an iron fist for 150+ years with a governor they couldnt even vote for. The British "gave" democracy to HK when HK was no longer under their control any more. What a "smart" move. In any case, this thread is not about democracy, its about foreign judges. The only relevant thing you posted above was in respect to foreign judges was "Chinese and foreign nationals previously working in the public and police services in the government departments of Hong Kong may remain in employment. British and other foreign nationals may also be employed to serve as advisers or hold certain public posts in government departments". Nothing else youve mentioned above included anything about foreign nationals except that line. Please keep things relevant and succinct. But yes I got it now, thanks
4
@Valencetheshireman927 So basically they dont think HK is capable of handling corruption? So they need to "keep an eye" on them? I really want to read this agreement. Do source it if you can. Thanks! Also, It was a constitutional duty for HK to enforce their own national security law under Article 23. Its been half way through (23 of the 50 years), and HK still failed to produce any results. So it wasnt BJ that "betrayed" the agreement. It was HK themselves.
3
@GoToMan The British didnt give HK "democracy". And in the agreement it never said HK is to remain "democratic" for "at least 100 years". You made that up yourself. Its "previous capitalist system and way of life shall remain unchanged for 50 years". And I dont recall anywhere in the agreement did it specify anything about foreign judges. If there is, please source the specific article for me to read. Thanks
3
@twopercentflat4766 "high autonomy? Not when the state can completely overrule and implement whatever they want on HK" HK had ONE (constitutional) job, to implement their very own national security laws. Almost 25 years and still no result. Theyre literally inviting the "higher power" to do their job for them. "Freedom of speech? Try talk about succession" Succession is enshrined in the law as illegal. Every country has their freedom of speech and the limits that go about it. Even in the US, you cant say whatever you want and get away with it unscathed. There are consequences to ones actions.
1