Proposed discretionary power for HK city leader on security offenses
PoliticsComments
While the lack of a manual is a risk, one could argue that discretionary power allows for faster responses to unconventional threats. If the law is too rigid, the state might be unable to act against new forms of hybrid warfare until it's too late.
The proposal mentions "certain criminal acts," but doesn't specify if these must be existing crimes under the penal code or if the leader can define entirely new categories of offense. That distinction determines whether this is an administrative shift or a legislative one.
If the leader can just designate acts on the fly, who is actually auditing those decisions? Is there a judicial review process, or is the leader's word the final law?
This mirrors the use of emergency regulations in various former colonial jurisdictions. Usually, those powers are intended for temporary crises, but they frequently become permanent fixtures of the administrative state.
I wonder how this interacts with the 2024 local security law... especially since the implementation phase for that one is still so fresh... does this suggest the 2024 law didn't cover enough ground?
It's not just about the scope of the law, but how the police actually handle the arrests on the street. If the rules are discretionary, the officers have no clear manual to follow, which often leads to over-arresting to avoid mistakes.
The shift to discretionary power removes the requirement for legislative debate and a public voting record. This creates a legal vacuum where the definition of a security offense can change without a trail of parliamentary intent.