Advertisement
Opinion | Why invoking Hong Kong’s oppressive, outdated Emergency Regulations Ordinance won’t stop the protest violence
- Existing laws already give the government broad powers to ban assemblies, introduce curfews, and protect the airport and MTR stations
- Invoking draconian emergency powers to push through a controversial anti-mask law or ban social media is likely to contravene Hong Kong’s Bill of Rights and only deepen the mistrust of authority
Reading Time:4 minutes
Why you can trust SCMP
The unrest in Hong Kong over the now-withdrawn extradition bill has continued for over three months. Some commentators have said that if the chaos does not end soon, the government should consider invoking the Emergency Regulations Ordinance.
Advertisement
The ordinance, enacted in 1922 to empower the governor during times of emergency or public danger, essentially allows the chief executive to make any regulation she considers in the public interest, without going through the Legislative Council. These regulations remain valid until she declares otherwise.
The ordinance is an outdated, broad-brush and draconian piece of legislation. It was last invoked during the 1967 riots, when the British administration promulgated emergency regulations to allow police to enter and search premises without a warrant, and to detain suspects for up to a year without trial.
Today, exercising the ordinance may contravene Hong Kong’s Bill of Rights and Article 39 of the Basic Law, which guarantees rights and freedoms under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and therefore is likely to be challenged by judicial review.
Some argue that the government does not need to invoke full emergency powers, and that the targeted and measured use of the ordinance can solve the crisis.
First, some have suggested using the ordinance to introduce anti-mask regulations to prohibit face covering during protests, processions and assemblies, and so deter crime.
Advertisement