關於 conflict of laws ，我們在網路上蒐集到這些相關的討論、資訊與評價

「美國長久以來是難民重新安置的領袖，為全世界受迫害的人們點亮希望的燈塔，促進受到衝突影響的區域的穩定，並推動國際合作以應對全球難民危機。美國聯邦政府透過『美國難民接納計畫』，與全美各地的私部門夥伴及美國公民攜手合作，展現我們國家的寬容及核心價值，同時美國也受益於這些難民對我們國家的諸多貢獻。」— 美國總統拜登行政命令：難民重新安置重建及強化計畫暨氣候變遷對移民影響計畫。行政命令全文請參考：https://bit.ly/3rp3JIB

“The long tradition of the United States as a leader in refugee resettlement provides a beacon of hope for persecuted people around the world, promotes stability in regions experiencing conflict, and facilitates international collaboration to address the global refugee crisis. Through the United States Refugee Admissions Program (USRAP), the Federal Government, cooperating with private partners and American citizens in communities across the country, demonstrates the generosity and core values of our Nation, while benefitting from the many contributions that refugees make to our country.” President Biden’s Executive Order on Rebuilding and Enhancing Programs to Resettle Refugees and Planning for the Impact of Climate Change on Migration. Read the full text here: https://bit.ly/3rp3JIB

Don’t get overawed (Lee Yee)

On the day that the National Security Law was passed by the National People’s Congress, I got a message of a friend from afar: “Are you secure?” I answered without even giving it a thought: ”No one is secure in a secure country.”

When maximal authority of a country is realized, individual rights are so minimal that no one is secure. Even in China where the plebs would answer with a big NO, are people in power secure? Was Liu Shaoqi, the late Chairman of the People’s Republic of China persecuted to death during the Cultural Revolution, secure? In the past 70 years, have most of the people in power of different levels been secure in view of the miseries they have encountered? Was and is Jiang Zemin, the former General Secretary of the Chinese Communist Party(CCP), secure? Is Xi Jinping secure?

The befalling of the National Security Law is likened to “the second handover of Hong Kong”. An online article points out “the difference between the first and second handover” is that “the people who resent the CCP in 2020 is countless times more than those in 1997, and in terms of reputation, conduct and calibre, the people who espouse the second handover in 2020 are not even comparable to those who espouse the first handover in 1997”. Another says that “Hong Kongers belonging to no country before handover used to live in peace and work with contentment”, and asks “where their homes are when they belong to a nation”? In China, even the movers and shakers evacuate their relatives by fair means or foul from their country to a strange place they call home in the West.

The Articles of the Hong Kong version of National Security Law was not announced until it took effect, so that Carrie Lam was unable to utter a word about the details of it on the day of implementation of the Law. Legislation as such is preposterous. The full text of it is awash with equivocal meanings of unfinished wordings, which is so jaw-dropping that even a layman would ask: What kind of legal document is that? Zhao Sile, a journalist from China, said online: “The Law is typically from China because the laws of China have always been ambiguous and ill-defined”. She continued, “How are they enforced? Arbitrary and flexible provisions are made by different administrative departments which then inflate in power unceasingly.”

Regarding the abovementioned, it is almost pointless to delve into every Article of it for clarifying under what circumstances does one offend and not offend the Law, and where the grey areas are. Take those dubbed the “four ringleaders of Hong Kong independence” and “gang of four that jeopardizes Hong Kong” by Chinese media as an example. While they are known to be opposed to Hong Kong independence and even anti-localist, and did not advocate the protest last year, China deems them to be guilty of all of the above by dismissing the actuality. Subsequently, some budding political groups disbanded in no time. However, if the CCP decides to recriminate, on no account can they escape. That being said, it is possible that China will sit on the issue of Hong Kong independence provisionally in an attempt to dilute the sanctions against it from overseas. With the arbitrariness and flexibility of laws of China and its enforcement, no one is secure, nor one is doomed to committing a crime. Falling into a trap is simply akin to running into a car accident.

Looking at the National Security Law, Hong Kongers, who are accustomed to living under the rule of law, will naturally get frightened and anxiety-ridden, and try to wash their hands of sensitive issues. They think they will stay secure by stopping short of slogans with content of “secession of state” or disbanding a political group. In reality, if the CCP wants to get you in trouble, it does not have to leverage the National Security Law. Manipulated by the CCP, the SAR government can do and will do whatever stipulated by the National Security Law. Is the Law retroactive? Wasn’t the disqualification sentence for Leung Chunghang and Yau Waiching, former Legislative Council members, retroactive? And the judge that brought in the verdict based on retroactivity was Andrew Cheung Kuinung, the next Chief Justice of the Court of Final Appeal to-be. Does it make sense to contemplate upon the situation differently before and after the enactment of the National Security Law?

Now that the CCP can do whatever it wants. Is the enactment of the National Security Law an unnecessary move? As Chinese officials said, the Law, like a sword dangling above Hong Kongers, is to get them overawed and frightened.

Scared? Surely. Yet, one should have been scared much earlier on. If one had been scared, one would have arranged for fleeing from Hong Kong. Those who choose to stay should not let fear take control of them.

I have always remembered what British writer Salman Rushdie wrote after September 11 attacks in 2001: “Amid the conflict between liberty and security, we should always opt to stand with liberty without remorse even though we make a wrong choice. How do we beat terrorism? Don’t get overawed and don’t let fear take control of you even though you are scared.”

The late U.S. President Franklin Roosevelt said, “The only thing we have to fear is fear itself.” If we let fear take control of us, we give up liberty.

【英國外相聲明】

“a clear and serious breach of the Joint Declaration”

“in direct conflict with Article 23 of China’s own Basic Law for Hong Kong”

“directly threaten the freedoms and rights protected by the Joint Declaration”

“violates paragraphs 3(3) and (5) of the Joint Declaration, and directly threatens the rights contained in the United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights which under the Joint Declaration are to be protected in Hong Kong”

“clearly risks undermining the independence of Hong Kong’s judiciary, again which is protected by paragraph 3(3) of the Joint Declaration”

“directly intruding on the responsibility of the Hong Kong authorities to maintain public order, again directly in breach of paragraph 3(11) of the Joint Declaration”

“broken its promise to the people of Hong Kong under its own laws”

“breached its international obligations to the United Kingdom under the Joint Declaration”

全文 👉🏻 https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/foreign-secretary-statement-on-national-security-legislation-in-hong-kong

一般人都會覺得婆媳關係非常「微妙」，其實除左老爺奶奶同新抱，女婿同外父外母亦有機會深藏「暗湧」…反正姻親／親家就係個非常具爭議嘅課題。但原來呢個情況並非華人社會獨有！

芬蘭人口研究所及圖爾庫大學整合咗1200個受訪者嘅數據，發現未生小朋友嘅人，整體同自己父母嘅衝突會多過同另一半嘅父母。但係，有小朋友嘅夫妻比起無仔女嘅伴侶，同老爺奶奶嘅衝突次數就會頻密啲，最顯著嘅係婆媳關係呢個板塊，而起因通常都同照顧個孫有關。

研究員解釋咁係因為小朋友出世後，姻親就會當對方「自己人」咁看待，部份人會更直接咁發表意見，唔再避忌，於是有機會促成更多糾紛，呢種就叫「kinship penalty」。但係世事無絕對，亦有部份人會因為「自己人」呢個感覺，令雙方更親密、更願意互相幫助，稱為「kinship premium」。

也許，婆媳姻親之間係penalty定premium，在乎雙方願唔願意體諒對方～

資料來源

Danielsbacka, M., Tanskanen, A. O., & Rotkirch, A. (2017). The “Kinship Penalty”: Parenthood and In-Law Conflict in Contemporary Finland. Evolutionary Psychological Science. doi:10.1007/s40806-017-0114-8

Suomen Akatemia (Academy of Finland). (2017, August 4). Parents have more conflicts with their in-laws than do childless couples. ScienceDaily.