daily menu » rate the banner | guess the city | one on oneforums map | privacy policy | DMCA | news magazine | posting guidelines

Go Back   SkyscraperCity > Infrastructure and Mobility Forums > Railways

Railways (Inter)national commuter and freight trains



Global Announcement

As a general reminder, please respect others and respect copyrights. Go here to familiarize yourself with our posting policy.


Reply

 
Thread Tools
Old December 29th, 2017, 09:41 AM   #1201
hkskyline
Hong Kong
 
hkskyline's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 86,844
Likes (Received): 18129

Hong Kong’s legal community can challenge Beijing’s approval of joint checkpoint plan, ex-Bar Association head says
Paul Shieh warns, however, that this may lead to another central government interpretation of the Basic Law
December 29, 2017
South China Morning Post Excerpt

Hong Kong lawyers and judges could challenge the controversial decision by China’s top legislative body to approve a joint checkpoint plan in the city for a cross-border rail link, a former Bar Association chairman said on Friday.

But Paul Shieh Wing-tai also conceded that such a legal battle could end up with the National People’s Congress Standing Committee issuing a “shocking” interpretation of the Basic Law, the city’s mini-constitution.

On Wednesday, state officials did not rely on any particular article in the Basic Law to formally approve the plan, which would allow national laws to be enforced on Hong Kong soil in part of the West Kowloon terminus for the Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong high-speed rail link.

The NPCSC sent shock waves through the city with its decision. The terminus is expected to open in the third quarter of next year.

Under Article 18 of the Basic Law, mainland legislation, barring some exceptions, shall not be applied to Hong Kong. But Beijing officials argued that they would be enforced only in a designated zone in the terminus and not to the whole of the city.

The officials and pro-Beijing politicians also said the decision was “unchallengeable” as the NPCSC was the “permanent body of the highest organ of state power”.

Speaking on a radio programme on Thursday, Shieh disagreed with pro-Beijing views on the matter. He said while the Basic Law set out the mechanism for the NPCSC to interpret or amend its articles, it did not mention the role of the latter’s “decisions”.

“A decision made by the NPCSC lacks constitutional status in Hong Kong,” he said.

Shieh added that while the approval of the plan could be respected by the people, “the court could disagree with it”.

“The court will not say that we are afraid just because the decision was made by the NPCSC,” he said.

However, Shieh said a judicial review could not be sought against the move by the NPCSC at this point. A legal challenge can only happen after a local decision on the issue has been made by the city’s Legislative Council or the chief executive.

Shieh also said he believed a judicial review could trigger an interpretation of the Basic Law by Beijing.

“The NPCSC has said its decision did not rely on any particular article … so [the impact] of the interpretation could be more shocking,” he said.

Speaking separately on the same programme, University of Hong Kong law professor Albert Chen Hung-yee, a member of the NPCSC’s Basic Law Committee, said the committee “had reflected the views of Hong Kong’s legal sector to the central government”.

Chen said he originally supported the plan by Hong Kong’s justice minister to seek Beijing’s endorsement on the joint checkpoint arrangement under Article 20 of the Basic Law, which states that the city “may enjoy other powers granted to it” by Beijing.

“But scholars and officials … insisted that the co-location plan did not contravene Article 18,” he said, referring to the clause that protects the city from national laws.
__________________
Hong Kong Photo Gallery - Click Here for the Hong Kong Galleries

World Photo Gallery - | St. Petersburg, Russia | Pyongyang | Tokyo | Istanbul | Dubai | Shanghai | Mumbai | Bangkok | Sydney

New York, London, Prague, Iceland, Rocky Mountains, Angkor Wat, Sri Lanka, Poland, Myanmar, and much more!
hkskyline no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old January 2nd, 2018, 05:16 AM   #1202
hkskyline
Hong Kong
 
hkskyline's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 86,844
Likes (Received): 18129

Human rights lawyer ‘shocked’ by Hong Kong leader’s dismissal of legal community’s concerns on joint checkpoint plan
Candidate for Bar Council’s chairmanship urges a focus on issues, not opponents’ character
January 2, 2018
South China Morning Post Excerpt

Prominent human rights lawyer Philip Dykes says he is “shocked and disappointed” by the Hong Kong leader’s dismissal of concerns raised by the local legal community over a contentious joint checkpoint plan for the city’s cross-border rail link, saying she should address the issue instead of attacking her opponents’ character.

Speaking to the Post on Monday, Dykes also said it was regrettable the Bar Association’s long-awaited statement on the proposal – which would see mainland laws being enforced in part of the rail terminal at West Kowloon – had come late. The matter partly inspired him to run this month for the chairmanship of the Bar Council, the group’s governing body. Dykes held the post more than a decade ago.

The hit-back came after Carrie Lam Cheng Yuet-ngor on Sunday accused lawyers questioning the arrangement’s legality of harbouring an “elitist mentality or double standards” by regarding the city’s legal system as superior to that of the mainland’s.

Dykes called Lam’s response to the matter “disappointing” and said it was meant to divert attention away from the issues and instead focus on “the nature of the person who maintains an opposite view”.

He likened the top city official’s argument to the Latin legal term argumentum ad hominem, which means one has concentrated not on the issue but on the personality of the person holding an opposing view.

“Arguments, particularly legal arguments, stand on merits, not on attacking the character of your opponents or the person you perceive to be your opponent.

“It is important to say that the Bar Association, like myself, is not opposing Carrie Lam or [any] individuals. They just want ... a clear explanation on why the co-location arrangement is lawful.”

The six-person list led by Dykes to run for the Bar Council earlier issued a statement challenging the legality of the joint checkpoint plan, which was officially endorsed by the National People’s Congress Standing Committee (NPCSC) last week. The six argued the arrangement violated Article 18 of the Basic Law, which stipulates no mainland laws should be enforced in Hong Kong unless they are listed in Annexe III of the mini-constitution.

The stance by Dykes’ team was echoed days later by the association, which said it was “appalled” by the NPCSC decision. The professional body’s latest comment contrasted sharply with its three-paragraph statement released in October.
__________________
Hong Kong Photo Gallery - Click Here for the Hong Kong Galleries

World Photo Gallery - | St. Petersburg, Russia | Pyongyang | Tokyo | Istanbul | Dubai | Shanghai | Mumbai | Bangkok | Sydney

New York, London, Prague, Iceland, Rocky Mountains, Angkor Wat, Sri Lanka, Poland, Myanmar, and much more!
hkskyline no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 3rd, 2018, 05:40 AM   #1203
hkskyline
Hong Kong
 
hkskyline's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 86,844
Likes (Received): 18129

Martin Lee says no part of Hong Kong can be exempted from Basic Law
2 Jan 2018
The Standard Excerpt

A former member of the Basic Law drafting committee said today Article 18 applies to the entire city and the decision to set up a joint immigration checkpoint at West Kowloon has "clearly breached" this, RTHK reported.

In an interview with the public broadcaster, Martin Lee Chu-ming, the veteran democrat, said the article – which states that national laws shall not be applied here – is effective to the entire Hong Kong Special Administrative Region and no part can be exempted from this.

Lee said during the drafting of the laws, Lu Ping, the then director of the Hong Kong and Macau Affairs Office, had suggested that some national laws should apply in the SAR.

"I jumped. I said 'It can't be. It cannot be because we have already agreed so far in the articles of Basic Law and in the Joint Declaration under China's basic policy of Hong Kong that Hong Kong's system of law will continue and the mainland laws shall not apply to Hong Kong at all'," Lee said.

Lee said then he asked Lu to list out national laws, like those linked to national flag, and they were listed in Annex III.

"Any law applicable to mainland China which is not contained in Schedule III, has no effect in Hong Kong. That was the agreement spelt out in Article 18 of the Basic Law," he said.

"You cannot allow any area within the Hong Kong SAR to be an exception because the protection promised to Hong Kong people is everywhere within the SAR administrative region," he said.

He also told the public broadcaster that he can't understand what Chief Executive Carrie Lam Cheng Yuet-ngor meant with her criticism that local lawyers are adopting an "elitist" attitude in this issue.
__________________
Hong Kong Photo Gallery - Click Here for the Hong Kong Galleries

World Photo Gallery - | St. Petersburg, Russia | Pyongyang | Tokyo | Istanbul | Dubai | Shanghai | Mumbai | Bangkok | Sydney

New York, London, Prague, Iceland, Rocky Mountains, Angkor Wat, Sri Lanka, Poland, Myanmar, and much more!
hkskyline no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 5th, 2018, 07:18 PM   #1204
hkskyline
Hong Kong
 
hkskyline's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 86,844
Likes (Received): 18129

Jan 4, 2018
Hong Kong Economic Journal Excerpt
Co-location: There is no legal solution, only political solution

We’re now seeing for the first time in Hong Kong a clash of two vastly different legal systems. If not handled delicately, a constitutional crisis could erupt that rocks the very foundation of one country, two systems. Such a clash of legal systems was inevitable sooner or later. One country, two systems is almost like fitting a square peg into a round hole – a free society within a communist state. The system worked well in its infancy when China wanted to show the world its hands-off approach towards Hong Kong and to use it as a model for unity with Taiwan. A jittery Hong Kong embraced it as the only way to preserve its way of life after reunification.

Its architect, the late Deng Xiaoping, had envisaged the promised fifty years of no change would buy enough time for the mainland to become prosperous like Hong Kong so one country, two systems would give way to true reunification. But China didn’t need fifty years to modernize. Its economy is now second only to that of the US after just twenty years of reunification. That has given it the global clout Deng never imagined when he crafted one country, two systems.

But as China became more confident of its global status and Hong Kong’s yearning for greater democracy grew, the two sides began viewing one country, two systems through very different eyes. Hong Kong people see the Basic Law, our mini-constitution, as a buffer against mainland meddling. Many had expected that aside from opening up economically, the mainland would do so politically too during the fifty years of no change, making it more like Hong Kong.

I don’t know if that was Deng’s intent but as we all know, it hasn’t happened. If anything, Hong Kong people now see China under President Xi Jinping as having become more authoritarian. The central government, however views the Basic Law not as a buffer against its communist rule but as a child of China’s constitution. It didn’t press this point with either words or actions in the past, worried that doing so would unsettle both Hong Kong people and the international community.

But China has started using its new self-confidence under Xi to assert its sovereignty over Hong Kong in ways it never did before to counter rising hostility towards the motherland, especially among young people, many of whom are now even advocating independence. It no longer cares as much as before about how the international community views its behavior towards Hong Kong.

That became evident when the National People’s Congress Standing Committee interpreted the Basic Law in a way that left local courts no choice but to disqualify six opposition legislators for improper oath-taking. Prior to that, it had no qualms about offering a take-it-or-leave-it political reform framework that the opposition rejected as fake universal suffrage which screened out chief executive candidates Beijing didn’t like.

Now, the NPCSC has made another controversial decision, this time without even an interpretation of the Basic Law, that joint-immigration control at the West Kowloon express railway terminus complies with Hong Kong’s mini-constitution even though Article 18 states mainland laws cannot be applied here. How can a decision alone give legal status to something that is otherwise in violation of the Basic Law? Mainland officials insist the NPCSC decision is legally sound because we must view it through the mainland’s constitution, not Hong Kong’s common law system.

It is this reasoning that has pushed Hong Kong into treacherous legal waters. What reigns supreme in Hong Kong? The mainland constitution or Hong Kong’s common law system? Mainland officials, of course, insist China’s constitution is the final authority but most Hong Kong legal experts, including the Bar Association, have likened the NPCSC action to rule by man.

How will Hong Kong navigate itself out of the treacherous legal waters it now finds itself? No one knows but we must face the reality the near-complete HK$84 billion express railway is scheduled to open late this year. Hong Kong and Guangdong have already signed an agreement for the railway to operate. The NPCSC has already decided that stationing mainland officials at the terminus to enforce mainland law complies with the Basic Law.

The final step will come soon when the Legislative Council votes on joint immigration. It’s a foregone conclusion the proposed law will pass now that the establishment camp has a controlling vote following the disqualification of six opposition legislators. A judicial review is almost certain, sucking local courts into a political firestorm.

Local judges are in a no-win situation. There are strong legal arguments that the NPCSC decision to allow joint immigration was not made under any article of the Basic Law and actually violates Article 18. But a legal argument can also be made that such a decision is constitutionally sound under Hong Kong law because the NPCSC is the final authority over China’s constitution and the Basic Law flows from the mainland constitution.

If local courts make a ruling using our common law system, joint immigration could well be declared unconstitutional. That would be a slap in the face of Beijing. The NPCSC would have to counter with a Basic Law interpretation, which nobody wants, not even Beijing. If the local courts rule even NPCSC decisions have legal effect in Hong Kong, many people would lose faith in not only the Basic Law but also one country, two systems.

More : http://www.ejinsight.com/20180104-co...ical-solution/
__________________
Hong Kong Photo Gallery - Click Here for the Hong Kong Galleries

World Photo Gallery - | St. Petersburg, Russia | Pyongyang | Tokyo | Istanbul | Dubai | Shanghai | Mumbai | Bangkok | Sydney

New York, London, Prague, Iceland, Rocky Mountains, Angkor Wat, Sri Lanka, Poland, Myanmar, and much more!
hkskyline no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 7th, 2018, 11:30 AM   #1205
hkskyline
Hong Kong
 
hkskyline's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 86,844
Likes (Received): 18129

Jan 2, 2018
Hong Kong Economic Journal Excerpt
HK celebrates new year with reduction in autonomy

Hong Kong begins the new year celebrating an odd victory: a voluntary reduction in its China-granted autonomy by “leasing” back to China a portion of a new railway terminal where mainland security personnel will apply mainland law, a development which on the face of it is inconsistent with the Hong Kong Basic Law, the constitutional document of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region enacted by China’s National People’s Congress in 1990.

In order to accommodate the extension of China’s high-speed rail system, the Hong Kong government proposed joint immigration and customs facilities in the West Kowloon Station so trains won’t have to stop at the border.

The idea has been controversial since it was first raised, largely because Article 18 of the Basic Law stipulates that mainland law shall not be applied in Hong Kong, except for a handful that are listed in an annex, such as the law on the national anthem and national flag.

To get around the prohibition, the Hong Kong government came up with the idea of leasing the Mainland Port Area to the mainland so that it will be regarded as “situated in the mainland”.

The West Kowloon arrangement parallels one in 2006 whereby the mainland extended Hong Kong’s borders and gave it control of what is called the Hong Kong Port Area in Shenzhen Bay, where Hong Kong law prevails, for the convenience of travelers between the two sides. There was little if any argument within Hong Kong then.

Hong Kong authorities argue that its plan doesn’t contravene the Basic Law because, instead of extending national laws to the whole of the HKSAR, it applies to only a small area. What Hong Kong’s government wanted was legal backing from China’s parliament.

That is what it got on Dec. 27. That day, the National People’s Congress Standing Committee endorsed the plan for the high-speed rail link, which will connect Hong Kong with Guangzhou and other points in China’s interior. The NPCSC said that the cooperation arrangement was consistent with the Chinese Constitution and with the Basic Law.

Supporters of the plan acknowledge that there is no provision in the Basic Law that provides for such a contingency, since at the time of its adoption no one envisaged the development of a Chinese high-speed rail system.

However, they point to other provisions in the Basic Law that they consider justify the extraordinary move, such as ones that call on the government to “provide an economic and legal environment for encouraging investments, technological progress and the development of new industries” as well as to promote “tourism, real estate, transport” and so on.

The Hong Kong Bar Association, an authoritative body that represents barristers, issued a statement saying it was “appalled by the NPCSC Co-location Decision” and calling it “the most retrograde step to date in the implementation of the Basic Law,” which “severely undermines public confidence in ‘one country, two systems’ and the rule of law in the HKSAR.”

The decision, it said, “amounts to an announcement by the NPCSC that the Co-operation Agreement complies with the Constitution and the Basic Law ‘just because the NPCSC says so’.”

As for the argument that mainland law will only be applied in the Mainland Port Area and not across Hong Kong, the Bar Association said that “such logic, if extended, is capable of authorizing the application of Mainland laws to any part of the HKSAR designated by the HKSAR Government (e.g., the High Court Building).”

The Hong Kong government points out that the idea of allowing China to lease a Mainland Port Area had originated with Hong Kong, not Beijing.

More : http://www.ejinsight.com/20180102-hk...n-in-autonomy/
__________________
Hong Kong Photo Gallery - Click Here for the Hong Kong Galleries

World Photo Gallery - | St. Petersburg, Russia | Pyongyang | Tokyo | Istanbul | Dubai | Shanghai | Mumbai | Bangkok | Sydney

New York, London, Prague, Iceland, Rocky Mountains, Angkor Wat, Sri Lanka, Poland, Myanmar, and much more!
hkskyline no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 7th, 2018, 03:25 PM   #1206
hkskyline
Hong Kong
 
hkskyline's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 86,844
Likes (Received): 18129

Sky100 at ICC, Hong Kong by jenn chan, on Flickr
__________________
Hong Kong Photo Gallery - Click Here for the Hong Kong Galleries

World Photo Gallery - | St. Petersburg, Russia | Pyongyang | Tokyo | Istanbul | Dubai | Shanghai | Mumbai | Bangkok | Sydney

New York, London, Prague, Iceland, Rocky Mountains, Angkor Wat, Sri Lanka, Poland, Myanmar, and much more!

Kunagi, Munwon, SLASH_2 liked this post
hkskyline no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 10th, 2018, 11:31 AM   #1207
hkskyline
Hong Kong
 
hkskyline's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 86,844
Likes (Received): 18129

Hong Kong Bar Association must steer clear of politics, top lawyer warns, as poll contest heats up
Criminal lawyer Cheng Huan says team vying for control of barristers’ body in election this month has crossed a line by commenting on matters with a political tone
January 10, 2018
South China Morning Post Excerpt

Hong Kong’s leading criminal lawyer Cheng Huan has warned against any politicisation of the city’s professional body for barristers, saying the Bar Association should only weigh in on the legal aspect of politically divisive issues and not side with any causes.

Cheng is the latest legal eagle to speak out in the lead up to a heated election for the chairmanship of the association, due to take place on January 18.

His comments on Tuesday were seen as targeting the star-studded line-up led by prominent human rights lawyer Philip Dykes who will go up against an incumbent team led by chairman Paul Lam Ting-kwok for control of the body. Lam is vying for a second term.

Dykes’ six-person team, which includes legal heavyweights Professor Johannes Chan Man-mun and criminal law expert Lawrence Lok Ying-kam, have slammed the Bar under Lam’s leadership for failing to issue a timely response over the legality of a contentious joint checkpoint proposal for a high-speed rail link to mainland China. The plan would for the first time allow mainland laws to be enforced on Hong Kong soil and has raised concern in legal circles over whether it complies with the Basic Law, the city’s mini-constitution.

The Dykes team has also argued that the Bar should adopt a more progressive stance in defending the rule of law as the city would face other similar constitutional debates in the coming year.

But speaking to the Post in an exclusive and rare interview on Tuesday, Cheng, a supporter of Lam’s candidacy, said Dykes’ team had “crossed the Rubicon” by commenting on matters with a political tone rather than a legal one. He said the Bar was an “association of professionals” under the law, not a “political party”.

Cheng acknowledged that the barristers’ body had historically held a duty to uphold the rule of law and judicial independence, which he still believed was important.

But he added: “For the Bar to command continuous respect from the community, it must gain the respect of people across the political spectrum – not confined to one particular cause.”

The barrister of 42 years said it appeared that Dykes’ team had placed emphasis on the political stances taken by Beijing.

He suggested the correct approach would be to look at the matter in question and decide whether it violated the Basic Law, and specify reasons.

Hong Kong officials and lawyers have been wrestling in recent months with the so-called “co-location arrangement” for the rail checkpoint, which would see national laws implemented in a section of the train station inside Hong Kong, despite a provision of the Basic Law stating that should not happen.

Article 18 of the mini-constitution states that national laws shall not be applied to Hong Kong unless added to Annexe III.

Cheng acknowledged the barristers’ body had a duty to uphold the rule of law and judicial independence. Photo: David Wong
But the National People’s Congress Standing Committee, China’s top legislative body, last month decided the arrangement did not violate the Basic Law because mainland laws would only be implemented in part of the city.

That prompted the Bar Association to issue a stern statement saying it was “appalled” with the plan, which it said would severely undermine the rule of law.

But for Cheng, the arrangement was more of a “practical” matter.

“There is no great moral or legal principle involved in my view,” he said.

“It’s more of a question of convenience that one is able to travel as quickly and as efficiently as possible to one part of China – Hong Kong – to another part of China.”

While some said the Bar statement was too strongly worded, Cheng said he respected the body’s position as he knew it had worked hard to come up with a statement on the legal issues without crossing a line.
__________________
Hong Kong Photo Gallery - Click Here for the Hong Kong Galleries

World Photo Gallery - | St. Petersburg, Russia | Pyongyang | Tokyo | Istanbul | Dubai | Shanghai | Mumbai | Bangkok | Sydney

New York, London, Prague, Iceland, Rocky Mountains, Angkor Wat, Sri Lanka, Poland, Myanmar, and much more!
hkskyline no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 11th, 2018, 10:15 AM   #1208
hkskyline
Hong Kong
 
hkskyline's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 86,844
Likes (Received): 18129

Hong Kong Economic Journal Excerpt
Jan 9, 2018
HKBA boss says Beijing’s co-location decision a major earthquake

The National People’s Congress Standing Committee (NPCSC) does have the power to interpret the Basic Law, Hong Kong’s mini-constitution, but the rationale it used to back the co-location arrangement for the Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Rail Link was unconvincing and difficult to understand, says Hong Kong Bar Association chairman Paul Lam Ting-kwok.

In a speech at a ceremony opening the Legal Year 2018, Lam described NPCSC’s decision to approve the border-control plan as a major earthquake in the Hong Kong legal community, the Hong Kong Economic Journal reports.

The co-location plan allows for mainland authorities to carry out their duties only in the Mainland Port Area at the West Kowloon Station in relation to immigration inspection, customs, inspection and quarantine.

The NPCSC said in its resolution late last month that the co-location agreement complied with both the Chinese Constitution and the Basic Law. There will be no contravention of Article 18 of the Basic Law, which states that national laws shall not be applied in Hong Kong, because national laws would not apply to the whole of Hong Kong soil, but just a designated area of the terminus, the Mainland Port Area, according to the resolution.

In a statement issued late last month, the HKBA said the NPCSC’s decision was based on its interpretation of the Basic Law, since no provision of Hong Kong’s mini-constitution provides the source of authority.

While agreeing that the NPCSC’s interpretation of the Basic Law is binding on Hong Kong courts, Lam pointed out that such power of final interpretation is the link between the two systems and also the source of tension, under the “one country, two systems” principle, the HKEJ reported.

This kind of tension can lead to doubts, worries and even fears, and how the NPCSC exercises its power will affect people’s view on whether Beijing is resolute to keep the Basic Law intact, Lam stressed, adding that once negative views emerge, people’s trust and confidence in the rule of law will be diminished, and this will further jeopardize social stability.

As such, Lam called on the central authorities to maintain “a high degree of sensitivity” regarding whether to, when to and how to exercise its potent power, which can easily result in an earthquake in Hong Kong society. In the case of the NPCSC decision on the co-location scheme, he said “an earthquake has occurred”.

That said, Lam believes the rule of law in the city is strong enough to withstand the aftermath of the earthquake caused by the NPCSC’s decision.
__________________
Hong Kong Photo Gallery - Click Here for the Hong Kong Galleries

World Photo Gallery - | St. Petersburg, Russia | Pyongyang | Tokyo | Istanbul | Dubai | Shanghai | Mumbai | Bangkok | Sydney

New York, London, Prague, Iceland, Rocky Mountains, Angkor Wat, Sri Lanka, Poland, Myanmar, and much more!
hkskyline no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 02:29 PM   #1209
hkskyline
Hong Kong
 
hkskyline's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 86,844
Likes (Received): 18129

Express rail fares will cost up to HK$260 from Hong Kong to Guangdong
Transport chief Frank Chan announces ticket prices – which are much higher than for existing service and more than previously estimated – after meeting railway officials in Beijing
Jan 15, 2018
South China Morning Post Excerpt

Passengers travelling on the soon-to-open high-speed rail from Hong Kong to Guangdong province will have to pay up to HK$260 (US$33) in fares, HK$50 more than for using the current through-train option and significantly higher than the previously “assumed” prices.

Speaking after meeting with China Railway Corporation officials in Beijing, Hong Kong’s Secretary for Transport and Housing Frank Chan Fan on Monday said both sides had decided on the fares for the high-speed rail, which was set to start running from the third quarter this year.

He said fares for express trains from Hong Kong’s West Kowloon station to Futian in Shenzhen city, Shenzhen North, Humen in Dongguan city, and Guangdong South would cost HK$80, HK$90, HK$210 and HK$260 respectively.

Such prices were higher than “assumed fares” the government gave earlier, which were calculated based partly on patronage forecasts.

In 2009, it was said that fares to Shenzhen would cost HK$45 to HK$49, with the figures raised to HK$53-HK$57 in 2016. Over the same period, the fare to Humen was raised from HK$131 to HK$153, and to Guangdong, from HK$180 to HK$210.

“Compared with travelling to Guangzhou by through train, which costs HK$210, [the express rail] is attractive because of speed, level of comfort and time,” Chan said in Beijing on Monday.
__________________
Hong Kong Photo Gallery - Click Here for the Hong Kong Galleries

World Photo Gallery - | St. Petersburg, Russia | Pyongyang | Tokyo | Istanbul | Dubai | Shanghai | Mumbai | Bangkok | Sydney

New York, London, Prague, Iceland, Rocky Mountains, Angkor Wat, Sri Lanka, Poland, Myanmar, and much more!
hkskyline no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old Today, 03:52 AM   #1210
hkskyline
Hong Kong
 
hkskyline's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 86,844
Likes (Received): 18129

Joint checkpoint plan for Hong Kong’s express rail link ‘cannot be challenged’ by city, Beijing official says
Basic Law Committee vice-chairman Zhang Rongshun dubs plan an ‘act of state’ that falls under the Basic Law’s Article 19 provisions
January 13, 2018
South China Morning Post Excerpt

The decision to allow national laws to be enforced in part of Hong Kong’s cross-border express rail terminus was an “act of state” that cannot be challenged by local courts, a Beijing official said on Saturday.

Basic Law Committee vice-chairman Zhang Rongshun said the top legislative body’s endorsement of the joint checkpoint, or so-called “co-location” plan, in December was an act of state under the Basic Law’s Article 19, which stipulates that Hong Kong courts “shall have no jurisdiction over acts of state such as defence and foreign affairs”.

The comments from Zhang, who is also the vice-chairman of the National People’s Congress Standing Committee’s Legislative Affairs Commission, marked the first time Beijing had cited the effect of the NPCSC decisions on Hong Kong under Article 19.

Pan-democrats and some legal experts, including members of the Bar Association, have slammed the co-location plan for lacking a legal basis under the Basic Law. The plan will see part of the West Kowloon terminus for the rail link to Guangzhou leased to the mainland and allows national laws to be enforced there.

Speaking at a Shenzen closed-door annual meeting of semi-official mainland think tank, The Chinese Association of Hong Kong and Macau Studies, Zhang hit out at critics for politicising the issue and creating misunderstandings towards the legal status of the arrangement.

Some had claimed the decision made by the NPCSC and the Hong Kong government was made without proper grounds, and they refused to accept the special constitutional order laid down by the nation’s constitution and the Basic Law, Zhang was quoted as saying in the meeting.

Lau Siu-kai, vice-chairman of the association, who first told the Post about the effect of Article 19 earlier this month, said while such interpretations of the clause were a common understanding among mainland scholars, it was the first time that a Beijing official had to say so, probably due to fears of provoking opposition.

Zhang’s remarks contrasted those of Basic Law Committee member Maria Tam Wai-chu, who had said that the NPCSC’s decision on the co-location plan had “no direct binding power” over the city, as they were equivalent to mainland laws and not local laws.

Tam said it was instead a “looped three-step” process including local legislation that formed the legal basis for the arrangement.

Critics on Saturday were alarmed by Zhang’s remarks, arguing the acts of the central government or NPCSC should not be regarded as “acts of state”.

Democratic Party founding chairman Martin Lee Chu-ming, who sat on the committee that drafted the Basic Law, said “acts of state” was a common law concept under which the interpretation was different from acts of government.

“Hong Kong is running under a common law system, not mainland law. The Basic Law should always be viewed through the lens of common law,” he argued.

Lee added that many judicial cases were filed against the government in the city, as to demonstrate the separation of powers. Hence, acts of the central government or NPCSC were not acts of state, he said.

Civic Party chairman, Senior Counsel Alan Leong Kah-kit, said “acts of state” referred to acts between states, commonly at a stage of war.

He mocked Zhang, claiming he viewed the NPCSC as omniscient and questioned if the NPCSC could define what amounted to “acts of state” as they wished.

More : http://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/p...link-cannot-be
__________________
Hong Kong Photo Gallery - Click Here for the Hong Kong Galleries

World Photo Gallery - | St. Petersburg, Russia | Pyongyang | Tokyo | Istanbul | Dubai | Shanghai | Mumbai | Bangkok | Sydney

New York, London, Prague, Iceland, Rocky Mountains, Angkor Wat, Sri Lanka, Poland, Myanmar, and much more!
hkskyline no está en línea   Reply With Quote


Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Related topics on SkyscraperCity


All times are GMT +2. The time now is 02:12 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Feedback Buttons provided by Advanced Post Thanks / Like (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2018 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2018 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

SkyscraperCity ☆ In Urbanity We trust ☆ about us | privacy policy | DMCA policy

tech management by Sysprosium