Featured

Hong Kong national security law helps ensure long-term stability of “one country, two systems”

Published

5 years ago

July 3, 2020

John Okeke

On June 30, the Standing Committee of the 13th National People’s Congress (NPC) passed the Law of the People’s Republic of China on Safeguarding National Security in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (HKSAR) and adopted a decision to list the law in Annex III to the HKSAR Basic Law.

As a major move of the central government to manage Hong Kong affairs since its return to the motherland in 1997, the law will fully and faithfully implement the principle of “one country, two systems” and the HKSAR Basic Law, help safeguard national sovereignty, security and development interests, maintain Hong Kong’s lasting prosperity and stability, and ensure the long-term stability of “one country, two systems”. It bears both practical and historical significance.

The practice of “one country, two systems” has achieved a universally recognized success in Hong Kong since its return to the motherland. However, it has also encountered new circumstances and problems.

Especially since the disturbance related to the now-withdrawn ordinance amendments concerning the transfer of fugitives in the HKSAR last June, the “anti-China” forces in Hong Kong have publicly supported “Hong Kong’s independence,” “self-determination” and “referendum” and engaged in activities to undermine the national unity and separate Hong Kong from China.

Meanwhile, some foreign and external forces blatantly interfered in Hong Kong affairs, supporting and protecting the “anti-China” forces in Hong Kong and using Hong Kong to damage the national security of China.

The Chinese people, including the Hong Kong compatriots, have realized more than ever that the long-term absence of a national security law in Hong Kong has plunged the special administrative region into the gravest situation since its return to the motherland and that the collusion of “anti-China” forces inside and outside Hong Kong has greatly hindered the long-term stability of the “one country, two systems” principle.

The principle of “one country, two systems” was proposed to achieve and maintain national unity, while safeguarding national security is at the core of the principle.

Enacting the law on safeguarding national security in the HKSAR based on the authorization of the NPC, the Standing Committee of the NPC aims to improve institutional mechanisms related to the implementation of the Constitution, the HKSAR Basic Law, and the NPC Decision on Establishing and Improving the Legal System and Enforcement Mechanisms for the HKSAR to Safeguard National Security under new circumstances. It will work to plug the legal loopholes, make up for the lack of relevant mechanisms and deal with shortcomings of the HKSAR in safeguarding national security. Besides, it will also prompt the HKSAR to fulfill its constitutional and major responsibilities to safeguard national security, make systematic and comprehensive regulation in legal system and implementation mechanism at both national and the HKSAR levels, and properly handle the docking, compatibility, and complementarity between the law on safeguarding national security in the HKSAR and relevant national and HKSAR laws.

These efforts are made to fully and faithfully implement the principle of “one country, two systems” and make sure the principle is not distorted in practice and keeps advancing in the right direction.

The legislation on national security is a legislative power of every sovereign state, be it unitary or federal.

The law on safeguarding national security in the HKSAR, which has 66 articles in six chapters, is a comprehensive law that covers the contents in substantive law, procedural law and organic law.

It clearly stipulates the duties and government bodies of the HKSAR for safeguarding national security; the four categories of offences – secession, subversion, terrorist activities, and collusion with a foreign country or external elements to endanger national security – and their corresponding penalties; jurisdiction, applicable law and procedure; office of the central government for safeguarding national security in the HKSAR; and other contents.

The legislation thus establishes a legal system and enforcement mechanism for the HKSAR to safeguard national security.

It not only plugs the legal loopholes of Hong Kong in protecting national security, but effectively restrains the “anti-China” forces in Hong Kong, thus preventing and controlling the risks in national security and consolidating the foundation of “one country, two systems”.

Only when the basis of “one country” is guaranteed can Hong Kong embrace greater benefits of “two systems”.

It should be noted that the newly-adopted legislation only targets a few actions and activities that seriously endanger national security, such as “Hong Kong’s independence,” “black-clad violence,” and mobsters’ “mutual destruction.” It will not affect the capitalist system in the region or its high degree of autonomy and legal system.

Only with national security can Hong Kong guarantee its social stability, lay the foundations for solving development problems, and effectively protect the life and property safety, rights and freedom of the Hong Kong residents. National security will also enable the HKSAR government and society to concentrate on solving the deep-seated contradictions and problems related to the economy and people’s livelihood.

In a word, “one country, two systems” could only be put into better practice when national security is well protected.

The year 2020 marks the 30th anniversary of the promulgation of the HKSAR Basic Law. As a legal and

…

Share on Facebook

Business

Tax Reform Bills: The Verdict of Nigerians

Published

1 week ago

March 6, 2025

The Gleamer

Ismaila Ahmad Abdullahi Ph.D

The public hearings conducted recently by the two Chambers of the National Assembly have elicited positive responses from a broad spectrum of Nigerians, cutting across regional interest groups, government agencies, civil society groups, concerned individuals, the academia, and Labour Unions, among diverse others. Contrary to a few dissensions hitherto expressed in the media, almost all the stakeholders who spoke during the week-long sessions were unanimous in their declaration that the hallowed Chambers should pass the tax reform bills after a clean-up of the grey areas.

The public hearings were auspicious for all Nigerians desirous of economic growth and fiscal responsibility. They were also a watershed moment for the Federal Inland Revenue Service, which had been upbeat about the tax reforms. Indeed, the public hearings had rekindled hope in the tenets of democracy that guarantee freedom of expression and equitable space for cross-fertilisation of ideas. Without gainsaying the fact, the tax reform bills have been unarguably about the most thought-provoking issues in Nigeria today, drawing variegated perspectives and commentaries from even unlikely quarters such as the faith-based leaders, student bodies, and trade unions, which speaks much about the importance of the bills.

In the build-up to the public hearings, not many people believed that the bills would make it to the second reading, much less the public hearings. Even the Northern stakeholders who seemed unlikely to support the passage of the bills have softened their stance and have given valuable suggestions that would enrich the substance of the bills. The Arewa Consultative Forum came to the public hearings well-prepared with a printed booklet that addressed their concerns. It concluded with an advisory that the bills should be “Well planned, properly communicated, strategically implemented and ample dialogue and political consensus allowed for the reforms to be accepted.”

The concerns of ACF ranged from the composition of the proposed Nigeria Revenue Service Board as contained in Part 111, Section 7 of the bill, the unlimited Presidential power to exempt/wave tax payment as proposed in Section 75(1) of the bill, the family income or inheritance tax as contained in Part 1, Section 4(3) of the bill, to the issues around development levy and VAT. On the development levy, the ACF stated that unless the Federal Government is considering budgetary funding for TETFUND, NASENI and NITDA, it does not see the “wisdom behind the plan to replace (them) with NELFUND”.

The position of the North was equally reinforced by the Supreme Council for Shariah in Nigeria, Northern Elders Forum, Kano State Government, Professor Auwalu Yadudu, and the FCT Imams. Like the ACF, these stakeholders lent their respective voices to the Section on the Inheritance Tax in Part 1 of the bill and the use of the term ‘ecclesiastical’, which, in their views, undermines certain religious rights and beliefs. The Kano State Government, represented by Mahmud Sagagi, affirmed that “we support tax modernisation” but cautioned that “we must ensure that this process does not come at the expense of states’ constitutional rights and economic stability”. Professor Auwalu Yadudu, a constitutional law professor, drew attention to the use of the ‘supremacy clause’ and cautioned that the repeated use of “notwithstanding” in the bills would undermine the supremacy of the Nigerian constitution if passed as such.

Other stakeholders that made contributions at the sessions included the Nigeria Liquefied Natural Gas, Fiscal Responsibility Commission, Revenue Mobilisation Allocation and Fiscal Commission, Federal Ministry of Industry, Trade and Investment, Institute of Chartered Accountants of Nigeria, Chartered Institute of Taxation of Nigeria, Nigeria Customs Service, and a host of others. While most of their concerns bordered on technical issues requiring fine-tuning, they were unanimous in their support for the bills. They aligned with the position of the Executive Chairman of the Federal Inland Revenue Service, Zacch Adedeji, Ph.D. and the Chairman of the Presidential Committee on Fiscal Policy and Tax Reforms, Mr Taiwo Oyedele, which is that the extant tax laws and fiscal regulations are obsolete necessitating reforms aimed at creating a fair and equitable tax and fiscal space to grow Nigeria’s economy.

In one of the sessions, Dr Zaach Adedeji expounded on the criss-cross of trade activities in the Free Trade Zone whereby companies misuse tax waivers as exporters to sell their goods or services in the Customs Area at an amount usually less than the price the operators in the Customs Area who pay VAT and other taxes sell theirs thereby disrupting business transactions. This way, the operators in the Free Trade Zone shortchange the government in paying their due taxes by circumventing extant regulations, which are inimical to the economy’s growth.

Overall, the presentations were forthright, foresighted, and helpful in elucidating the issues contained in the bills. According to the statistics read out at the end of the hearings at the Senate, 75 stakeholders were invited, 65 made submissions, and 61 made presentations. At the House of Representatives 53 stakeholders made presentations. By all means, this is a fair representation. Given the presentations, it is evident that the National Assembly has gathered enough materials to guide its deliberations on the bills. As we look forward to the passage of the bills, we commend the leadership of the National Assembly for their unwavering commitment to making the bills see the light of the day.

Abdullahi is the Director of the Communications and Liaison Department, FIRS.

Share on Facebook