2019 Hong Kong extradition bill

Fugitive Offenders and Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Legislation (Amendment) Bill 2019
Legislative Council of Hong Kong
Long title A Bill to amend the Fugitive Offenders Ordinance so that the Ordinance applies to special surrender arrangements once they are made between Hong Kong and any other place in relation to particular circumstances not covered by surrender arrangements of a general nature; to provide that in relation to special surrender arrangements, the scope of the offences covered for a surrender from Hong Kong is limited to 37 items of offences, on the basis of their existing descriptions in the Ordinance only, that currently apply in relation to surrender arrangements of a general nature; and to provide that documents authenticated in accordance with surrender arrangements that are prescribed arrangements are deemed as duly authenticated; to amend the Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Ordinance so that the Ordinance applies to requests for assistance between Hong Kong and any other place; and to provide that a request for assistance in a criminal matter covered by bilateral arrangements for mutual legal assistance made between Hong Kong and any other place that are prescribed arrangements may only be made pursuant to the arrangements.
Considered by	Legislative Council of Hong Kong
Legislative history
Introduced by	Secretary for Security John Lee
Introduced	29 March 2019
First reading	3 April 2019
Related legislation
Fugitive Offenders Ordinance Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Ordinance
Status: Pending

The Fugitive Offenders and Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Legislation (Amendment) Bill 2019 (Chinese: 2019年逃犯及刑事事宜相互法律協助法例(修訂)條例草案) is a proposed bill regarding extradition to amend the Fugitive Offenders Ordinance (Cap. 503) in relation to special surrender arrangements and the Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Ordinance (Cap. 525) so that arrangements for mutual legal assistance can be made between Hong Kong and any place outside Hong Kong. The bill was proposed by the Hong Kong government in February 2019 to request for surrender of a Hong Kong suspect in a homicide case in Taiwan. The government proposed to establish a mechanism for transfers of fugitives not only for Taiwan, but also for Mainland China and Macau that are not covered in the existing laws.

The introduction of the bill caused the legal profession, journalist organisations, business groups and foreign governments to fear the erosion of Hong Kong's legal framework and its business climate. They were concerned about the heightened risk that Hong Kong citizens and foreign nationals passing through the city could be sent for trial to mainland China, where courts are under Chinese political control. Authorities in Taipei stated that Taiwan would not agree to extradite any suspects from Hong Kong, on grounds that Taiwanese citizens in Hong Kong would be at greater risk of being extradited to Mainland China under the proposed bill. The Hong Kong government's rush to implement the legislation to extradite also gave rise to a precedent to short-circuit procedural safeguards in the Legislative Council.

On 9 June, a record number of total 1.03 million protesters claimed by the organisers marched in the streets against the extradition bill and called for Chief Executive Carrie Lam to step down.

Background

In early 2018, 19-year-old Hong Kong resident Chan Tong-kai allegedly killed his pregnant girlfriend Poon Hiu-wing in Taiwan, proceeding to return to Hong Kong. Chan admitted to Hong Kong police that he killed Poon but the police were unable to charge him for murder or extradite him to Taiwan because no agreement is in place. Until May 2019, the two ordinances in Hong Kong, the Fugitive Offenders Ordinance and Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Ordinance, were not applicable to the requests for surrender of fugitive offenders and mutual legal assistance between Hong Kong and Taiwan. In February 2019, the government proposed changes to fugitive laws, establishing a mechanism for case-by-case transfers of fugitives by the Hong Kong Chief Executive to any jurisdiction with which the city lacks a formal extradition treaty, which it claims, to plug the "legal loophole".

Provisions

The key provisions of the bill are as follows:
In the Fugitive Offenders Ordinance (FOO) (Cap. 503):

1. To differentiate case-based surrender arrangements (to be defined as "special surrender arrangements" in the proposal) from general long-term surrender arrangements;
2. To stipulate that special surrender arrangements will be applicable to Hong Kong and any place outside Hong Kong, and they will only be considered if there are no applicable long-term surrender arrangements;
3. To specify that special surrender arrangements will cover 37 of the 46 items of offences based on their existing description in Schedule 1 of the FOO, and the offences are punishable with imprisonment for more than three years (later adjusted to seven years) and triable on indictment in Hong Kong. A total of nine items of offences will not be dealt with under the special surrender arrangements;
4. To specify that the procedures in the FOO will apply in relation to special surrender arrangements (except that an alternative mechanism for activating the surrender procedures by a certificate issued by the Chief Executive is provided), which may be subject to further limitations on the circumstances in which the person may be surrendered as specified in the arrangements;
5. To provide that a certificate issued by or under the authority of the Chief Executive is conclusive evidence of there being special surrender arrangements, such that the certificate will serve as a basis to activate the surrender procedures. Such activation does not mean that the fugitive will definitely be surrendered as the request must go through all statutory procedures, including the issuance of an authority to proceed by the Chief Executive, the committal hearing by the court and the eventual making of the surrender order by the Chief Executive. Other procedural safeguards, such as application for habeas corpus, application for discharge in case of delay, and judicial review of the Chief Executive's decision, as provided under the FOO will remain unchanged;

And in the Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Ordinance (MLAO) (Cap. 525):

1. To lift the geographical restriction on the scope of application of the Ordinance; and
2. To provide that case-based co-operation premised on the undertaking of reciprocity will be superseded by the long-term MLA arrangements once the latter have been made and become effective.

Concerns

Opposition expressed fears about the legislation that the city would open itself up to the long arm of mainland Chinese law and that people from Hong Kong could fall victim to a different legal system. It therefore urged the government to establish an extradition arrangement with Taiwan only.

Business community

The business community also raised concerns over the mainland's court system. The Liberal Party and the Business and Professionals Alliance for Hong Kong, the two pro-business parties, suggested 15 economic crimes being exempted from the 46 offences covered by the extradition proposal. The American Chamber of Commerce in Hong Kong (AmCham) criticised that mainland's "criminal process is plagued by deep flaws, including lack of an independent judiciary, arbitrary detention, lack of fair public trial, lack of access to legal representation and poor prison conditions". The government responded to business chambers' concerns by exempting nine of the economic crimes originally targeted. Only offences punishable by at least three years in prison would trigger the transfer of a fugitive, up from the previously stated one year.

On 1 April, Hong Kong billionaire tycoon Joseph Lau, former chair of the Chinese Estates Holdings who was convicted of bribery and money laundering in a land deal in Macau in 2014, applied for a judicial review over the bill in court. Lau's lawyers asked the court to make a declaration that the surrender of Lau to Macau would contravene the Hong Kong Bill of Rights. Lau made an abrupt U-turn and dropped a legal challenge on 29 May, saying that he "loves his country and Hong Kong" and that he now supported the legislation.

Legal sector

The Hong Kong Bar Association released a statement expressing its reservation over the bill, saying that the restriction against any surrender arrangements with mainland China was not a "loophole", but existed in light of the fundamentally different criminal justice system operating in the Mainland, and concerns over the Mainland's track record on the protection of fundamental rights. The association also questioned the accountability of the Chief Executive as the only arbiter of whether a special arrangement was to be concluded with a requesting jurisdiction without the scrutiny of the Legislative Council or without expanding the role of the courts in vetting extradition requests. Twelve current and former chairs of the Bar Association warned that the government's "oft-repeated assertion that the judges will be gatekeepers is misleading" as "the proposed new legislation does not give the Court power to review such matters and the Court would be in no such position to do so."

Three senior judges and twelve leading commercial and criminal lawyers called the bill "one of the starkest challenges to Hong Kong's legal system" in a Reuters report. They feared it would "put [the courts] on a collision course with Beijing" as the limited scope of extradition hearings would leave them little room to manoeuvre. They worry that if they tried to stop high-profile suspects from being sent across the border, they would be exposed to criticism and political pressure from Beijing. The judges and lawyers said that under Hong Kong's British-based common law system, extraditions are based on the presumption of a fair trial and humane punishment in the receiving country—a presumption they say China's Communist Party-controlled legal system has not earned.

Human rights groups

Three human rights groups, the Amnesty International, Hong Kong Human Rights Monitor, and Human Rights Watch opposed the bill, warning the extradition proposal could be used as a tool to intimidate critics of the Hong Kong or Chinese governments, peaceful activists, human rights defenders and could further expose those extradited to risks of torture or ill-treatment. In a joint statement issued alongside other journalists unions and independent media outlets, the Hong Kong Journalists Association said the amendment would "not only threaten the safety of journalists but also have a chilling effect on the freedom of expression in Hong Kong."

Taiwan response

Although Taiwan authorities attempted to negotiate directly with the Hong Kong government to work out a special arrangement, the Hong Kong government did not respond. Taipei also stated it would not enter into any extradition agreement with Hong Kong that defined Taiwan as part of the People's Republic of China. It opposed the proposed bill on grounds that Taiwanese citizens would be at greater risk of being extradited to Mainland China. "Without the removal of threats to the personal safety of [Taiwan] nationals going to or living in Hong Kong caused by being extradited to mainland China, we will not agree to the case-by-case transfer proposed by the Hong Kong authorities," said Chiu Chui-cheng, deputy minister of Taiwan's Mainland Affairs Council. He also described the Taipei homicide case as an "excuse" and questioned whether Hong Kong government's legislation was "politically motivated". He added that Taiwanese people feared ending up like Lee Ming-che, a democracy activist who disappeared on a trip to the Chinese mainland and was later jailed for "subverting state power".

April 28 demonstration

Thousands of protesters marched on the street against the proposed extradition law on 28 April 2019

Bookseller Lam Wing-kee, who claimed he was kidnapped by Chinese agents in Shenzhen in 2015, left Hong Kong for Taiwan on 27 April, fearing proposed extradition law would mean he could be sent to mainland China.

On 28 April, an estimated 130,000 protesters joined the march against proposed extradition law. The turnout was the largest since an estimated 510,000 joined the annual July 1 protest in 2014. A day after the protest, Chief Executive Carrie Lam was adamant that the bill would be enacted and said the Legislative Councillors had to pass new extradition laws before their summer break, even though the man at the heart of a case used to justify the urgency of new legislation Chan Tong-kai had been jailed for 29 months shortly before. Chan received a prison sentence of 29 months on 29 April. However, since he had already been detained for 13 months since his arrest in Hong Kong, his sentence would end in August 2020. Secretary for Security John Lee claimed that Chan could be released by October at the earliest since good behaviour in prison can result in a one-third reduction of a prisoner's sentence, and he would then be free to leave the city.

Carrie Lam dismissed the assertion that the mainland was intentionally excluded from the extradition laws ahead of the handover of Hong Kong in 1997 as "trash talk". She denied that there were fears over the mainland's legal system after the handover, or that China had agreed to the exclusion. However, her claim was refuted by last colonial governor of Hong Kong Chris Patten and then Chief Secretary Anson Chan. "Both Hong Kong and China knew very well that there had to be a firewall between our different legal systems," said Patten. Patten also warned that the extradition law would be the "worst thing" to happen in Hong Kong since the 1997 handover, saying that it would remove the firewall between Hong Kong and mainland China. Malcolm Rifkind, former British Foreign Secretary who oversaw the final stages of the handover, also denied that the lack of extradition arrangements between Hong Kong and the Mainland was "a loophole". He stated that "negotiators from both China and the UK made a conscious decision to create a clear divide between the two systems so that the rule of law remains robust", and that "lawyers and politicians from across the political spectrum in Hong Kong have proposed multiple other viable solutions which will ensure that Chan faces justice".

Legislative Council row

Members of two rival camps pushed and shoved each other in the Bills Committee meeting on 11 May 2019

The pro-democracy camp which stringently opposed the law, deployed filibustering tactics by stalling the first two meetings of the Bills Committee, even preventing the election of a committee chairman. In response, the House Committee with pro-Beijing majority removed Democratic Party's James To, the most senior member, from his position of presiding member, and replaced him with Abraham Shek of the Business and Professionals Alliance for Hong Kong (BPA), the third most senior member, by bypassing the second most senior member Leung Yiu-chung, a pro-democrat. To claimed that the move was illegitimate, adding that the secretariat had abused its power in issuing the circular without having any formal discussion. The pro-democrats insisted on going ahead with a 6 May meeting as planned which was rescheduled by Shek with only 20 members present. To and Civic Party's Dennis Kwok were elected chair and vice chair of the committee.

Attempts to hold meetings on 11 May descended into unprecedented chaos as the rival factions pushed and shoved each other along the packed hallway for the control of holding meeting in the same room. A number of legislators fell to the ground, including Gary Fan who fell from a table before he was sent to hospital. On 14 May, the meeting with two rival presiding chairmen descended into chaos again. Subsequently, pro-Beijing presiding chairman Abraham Shek announced that he could not hold a meeting and had asked the House Committee for guidance. On 20 May, Secretary for Security John Lee announced that the government would resume the second reading of the bill in a full Legislative Council meeting on 12 June, bypassing the usual Bills Committee. After a five-hour meeting on 24 May, the House Committee of the Legislative Council dominated by the pro-Beijing camp passed a motion in support of the government's move to resume the second reading of the bill at a full council meeting on 12 June.

International escalation

Beijing weighs in

The Beijing authorities weighed in when Director of the Hong Kong and Macau Affairs Office Zhang Xiaoming met a delegation led by Executive Councillor Ronny Tong in Beijing on 15 May in which Zhang showed support of the extradition law. At the same time, a delegation led by former pro-democrat legislator Martin Lee met with U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo who later released statement that he "expressed concern" that the bill could threaten the city's rule of law. On 17 May, Director of the Liaison Office Wang Zhimin met more than 250 Beijing loyalists in Hong Kong in a two-hour closed-door meeting. Vice Premier Han Zheng and chairman of the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference Wang Yang also spoke in favour of the extradition bill—becoming the highest-ranking Chinese state officials to give their public endorsement. Chief Executive Carrie Lam defended Beijing's involvement, saying that mainland officials offered their views only after the bill controversy was "escalated" by foreign powers, which seized an opportunity to attack the mainland's legal system and human rights record. It was escalated to the level of "One Country, Two Systems" and the constitutionality concerning the Basic Law.

Foreign pressure

On 24 May, Chief Secretary Matthew Cheung held a special meeting involving 100 officials including principal officials, permanent secretaries and their deputies ostensibly to "bring them up to speed on the justification for the extradition law". Meanwhile, 11 European Union representatives met with Carrie Lam and then issued a démarche to formally protest against the bill. Also on 24 May, eight commissioners from the U.S. Congressional-Executive Commission on China (CECC), Marco Rubio, Tom Cotton, Steve Daines from the U.S. Senate, as well as James McGovern, Ben McAdams, Christopher Smith, Thomas Suozzi and Brian Mast from the U.S. House of Representatives wrote to Chief Executive Carrie Lam asking that the bill be "withdrawn from consideration", stating that "the proposed legislation would irreparably damage Hong Kong's cherished autonomy and protections for human rights by allowing the Chinese government to request extradition of business persons, journalists, rights advocates, and political activists residing in Hong Kong." The commissioners added that the bill could "negatively impact the unique relationship between the U.S. and Hong Kong"—referring to the longstanding U.S. policy of giving the city preferential treatment over mainland China based on the United States–Hong Kong Policy Act.

The UK-based Hong Kong Watch also issued a petition on 29 May signed by 15 parliamentarians from various countries against the extradition bill. Signatories included Member of the House of Lords David Alton, Liberal Democrat Chief Whip of the House of Commons and Alistair Carmichael, Leader of the Alliance 90/The Greens in the Bundestag Katrin Göring-Eckardt, Deputy Shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs in the Canadian Parliament Garnett Genuis, Member of the Parliament of Malaysia and Chairman of the ASEAN Parliamentarians for Human Rights Charles Santiago, Member of the European Parliament from Austria Josef Weidenholzer, seven U.S. Senators and one U.S. Representative.

The American Chamber of Commerce in Hong Kong (AmCham) issued a statement on 30 May, questioning the government's decision to push the bill through. "Hong Kong is not ready to see this bill passed, and we do not see why it should be rushed through when the loophole it seeks to address has existed for 20 years," the statement read. AmCham also sent Chief Secretary Matthew Cheung eight questions related to the bill following Cheung meeting with the foreign chambers of commerce on the previous day, including pressing the government on how it planned to address concerns from foreign diplomats in Hong Kong, and how it would ensure that the requesting jurisdictions could guarantee a fair trial. "Why would Hong Kong want to risk its reputation for the rule of law to gain this new reputation of 'combating crimes' with the city's relatively low crime rate?" the chamber asked.

On 30 May, a joint statement was issued by British Foreign Secretary Jeremy Hunt and Canadian Minister of Foreign Affairs Chrystia Freeland to urge Hong Kong to ensure the new law was in-keeping with the city's autonomy. "We are concerned about the potential effect of these proposals on the large number of UK and Canadian citizens in Hong Kong, on business confidence and on Hong Kong's international reputation. Furthermore, we believe that there is a risk that the proposals could impact negatively on the rights and freedoms set down in the Sino-British Joint Declaration," the statement said.

Online petitions

More than 23,000 students, alumni and teachers from all public universities and one in seven secondary schools in Hong Kong, including St. Francis' Canossian College which Carrie Lam attended, also launched online petitions against the extradition bill in a snowballing campaign. St. Mary's Canossian College and Wah Yan College, Kowloon, which Secretary for Justice Teresa Cheng and Secretary for Security John Lee attended, respectively, also joined the campaign. Even the alumni, students and teachers at St. Stephen's College, which the victim in the Taiwan homicide case Poon Hiu-wing attended from Form 1 to Form 3, were unconvinced as they accused the government of using her case as a pretext to force the bill's passage. High Court judge Patrick Li Hon-leung's signature was spotted on a petition signed by nearly 3,000 fellow University of Hong Kong alumni. A spokeswoman for the judiciary said Chief Justice Geoffrey Ma had reminded judges they should refrain from expressing their personal opinions on political issues, and particularly on legal issues that might come before the courts.

No-confidence vote

Democratic Party legislator Andrew Wan moved a motion of no-confidence against Carrie Lam on 29 May on the grounds that Lam "blatantly lied" about the extradition bill and misled the public and the international community, as Lam claimed that colonial officials did not deliberately exclude China from extradition laws ahead of the 1997 Handover. It was the first no-confidence vote against her since she took the office in July 2017. Lam survived the vote with the backing of the pro-Beijing majority in the legislature. Chief Secretary Matthew Cheung defended Lam's record to and dismissed the motion as "an unnecessary political gesture".

May 30 amendments

On 30 May, Secretary for Security John Lee rolled out six new measures to limit the scope of extraditable crimes and raise the bar to those punishable by the sentence of three years to seven years or above—a key demand from the Hong Kong General Chamber of Commerce (HKGCC). Only requests from top judicial bodies of a requesting jurisdiction, namely the Supreme People's Procuratorate and Supreme People's Court in Mainland China, may be considered. Lee's announcement came hours after a group of 39 pro-Beijing legislators called for the bill to be amended. Their two demands—raising the threshold on extraditable crimes and allowing only extradition requests from the mainland's top authority—were both accepted by the government.

The government promulgated on 30 May the provision of "additional safeguards" in the following three aspects:

1. limiting the application of special surrender arrangements to the most serious offences only by raising the threshold requirement for applicable offences from imprisonment for more than three years to seven years or above;
2. including safeguards that are in line with common human rights protection in the activation of special surrender arrangements, such as presumption of innocence, open trial, legal representation, right to cross-examine witnesses, no coerced confession, right to appeal, etc.; and the requesting party must guarantee that the effective limitation period of the relevant offence has not lapsed; and
3. enhancing protection for the interests of surrendered persons, such as processing only requests from the central authority (as opposed to the local authority) of a place, following up with the Mainland the arrangements for helping sentenced persons to serve their sentence in Hong Kong, negotiating appropriate means and arrangements for post-surrender visits, etc.

Hong Kong's five major business chambers—the Hong Kong General Chamber of Commerce (HKGCC), the Chinese General Chamber of Commerce, the Chinese Manufacturers' Association of Hong Kong, the Federation of Hong Kong Industries, and the Hong Kong Chinese Importers' and Exporters' Association quickly welcomed the concessions, but legal scholars and pro-democrats opposing the bill argued there was still no guarantee of human rights and fair treatment for fugitives sent across the border. John Lee dismissed calls to embed those safeguards in the proposed bill, claiming the current proposal would offer greater flexibility, adding he was confident mainland authorities would stay true to their promises, even without protection clauses in the bill.

Thousands of lawyers marched in black against the extradition bill on 6 June 2019

The Law Society of Hong Kong urged the government not to rush the legislation but should stop to conduct extensive consultation before it goes any further. The Bar Association said in response to the concessions that the additional safeguards provided by the government was "riddled with uncertainties ...[and that it] offers scarcely any reliable assurances." In a rare protest, more than 3,000 Hong Kong lawyers, representing around one quarter of the city's lawyers, march against the bill. Wearing black, they marched from the Court of Final Appeal to the Central Government Offices on 6 June. The march was organised by Dennis Kwok, Legislative Councillor for the Legal constituency. While lawyers expressed grave reservations about the openness and fairness of the justice system in China, limited access to a lawyer, and the prevalence of torture, Secretary for Security John Lee said the legal sector did not really understand the bill. A senior barrister complained that government's inability or unwillingness to listen was polarising, adding that it was "so stupid, so arrogant."

On 7 June, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, Human Rights Monitor and more than 70 other non-governmental organisations wrote an open letter to Chief Executive Carrie Lam stating the "serious shortcomings in the proposed amendment", claiming that the safeguards would be unlikely to provide genuine and effective protection as it did not resolve the real risk of torture or other ill-treatment, including detention in poor conditions for indefinite periods, or other serious human rights violations which are prohbited under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.

June 9 march

Hundreds of thousands protesters turned up in the streets on 9 June.

In response to the proposed bill, the Civil Human Rights Front, a platform of 50 pro-democracy groups, launched a long march from Victoria Park, Causeway Bay to the Legislative Council in Admiralty on 9 June. Hundreds of thousands of protesters were drawn to the street, chanting "Scrap the evil law," "Oppose China extradition" and "Carrie Lam resign" on the day. Protesters brought Hong Kong Island to a halt from early afternoon to late at night. The MTR enacted crowd control measures by the order of the police in which the trains did not stop at Wan Chai, Causeway Bay and Tin Hau stations for hours. Protesters had to get off at Fortress Hill in order to join the protest from there. Police urged protesters to march from Victoria Park before the 3pm start-time to ease overcrowding. A large number of protesters were still leaving Victoria Park up to four hours after the start time and were still arriving at the end-point at Admiralty seven hours after the protest began. Police opened up all lanes on Hennessy Road after initially refusing to do so. Jimmy Sham, convener of the Civil Human Rights Front claimed 1.03 million people attended the march, the largest protest Hong Kong has ever seen since 1997 handover, surpassing the turnout seen at mass rallies in support of the Tiananmen protests of 1989 and July 1 march of 2003. However, the police reduced it to a more conservative estimate of 240,000 at its peak.

Hundreds of remnants of remained camped out in front of the government headquarters into the night, with more joining them in response to calls from Demosisto and pro-independence activists to surround the Legislative Council building. The Civil Human Rights Front officially called an end to the march at 10pm. However, there were still many protesters at the compound. A stand-off with police around midnight descended into chaos, with protesters throwing bottles and metal barriers at the police when the police tried to drive them away with batons and pepper spray.

At least 29 rallies were held in 12 countries with protesters taking to the streets in cities such as New York City, San Francisco, Los Angeles, Toronto, Vancouver, London, Berlin, Frankfurt, Tokyo, Sydney and Taipei. About 3,000 people attended the rally in Sydney, while a protest outside the Hong Kong Economic and Trade Office in Berlin drew nearly 200 people. As one of the biggest overseas protests, hundreds of demonstrators mostly made up of Hong Kong immigrants filled the street outside the Chinese consulate-general in Vancouver with yellow umbrellas and chants against the extradition law. More than 60 people gathered outside the White House in Washington to protest against the bill.

Carrie Lam declined to answer questions at a public appearance in Ocean Park on 9 June afternoon. At 11pm, the government issued a press statement, saying that it "acknowledge[s] and respect[s] that people have different views on a wide range of issues", but insisted the second reading debate on the bill would resume on 12 June. Following the June 10 violent clashes, Lam spoke in the next morning, admitting that the size of the rally showed there we're "clearly still concerns" over the bill but refused to withdraw the bill. She said she wished to seek balance among different voices, referring around 20 supporters from the pro-Beijing activist group Safeguard Hong Kong Alliance showing up at the government headquarters to support the bill hours before the anti-extradition law demonstration on 9 June. The group claimed over 700,000 Hong Kong people had signed an online petition supporting the bill.

See also

• 2019 in Hong Kong
• 6th Legislative Council of Hong Kong
• Causeway Bay Books disappearances
• Extradition Act 2003
• Hong Kong–Taiwan relations
• Human rights in China
• Victor Mallet visa controversy

External links

• Legislative Council Brief – Fugitive Offenders and Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Legislation (Amendment) Bill 2019