Hong Kong and Macao in transition (II): Exploring the new political order

The first part of the article focused on democratization and the main issues at stake between China, Britain, Portugal, Hong Kong and Macao as the responsibility for the two colonies reverts to the mainland. It was argued that their separate history and their respective metropolitan traditions will weigh heavily on the prospects for any phased transition to democracy. Of more immediate importance, however, is the current balance of forces within the region which affects them both, particularly their relationships with a China undergoing vast social and economic changes with profound implications for their own future political development. In this second part of the article there is more concern with current and future problems affecting the practice of democracy in Hong Kong and Macao, particularly the ways in which the new Basic Laws might operate in practice after 1997.     

Hong Kong and Macao in transition (I): Debating democracy

Hong Kong returns to Chinese sovereignty on 1 July 1997 and Portugal terminates its administration of Macao, handing over to China, on 20 December 1999.’ The unprecedented circumstances when two European colonies are decolonized, not into independence but the embrace of the last effective communist state in the world, have raised considerable anxieties about the future of democracy there and the rights and freedoms of their inhabitants. Unlike other colonies, the acquisition and administration of Hong Kong or Macao was accomplished without any significant coercion of the local population. In recent years both have enjoyed a high degree of personal liberties, while also achieving high levels of economic development. However, neither has experienced any measure of democracy defined in terms of representation of the people in government or the accountability of the state apparatus. Consequently an examination and explanation of the extent of democracy that will be established there after their reversion to China should help illuminate the debate about the relevance of democracy to rights and freedoms and to economic development.     

Alternatives to imprisonment in Kenya

Conclusion In spite of the wide variety of sentencing options available in Kenya, the courts overwhelmingly choose to sanction by imprisonment. Even default on the payment of a fine can lead to a prison term where extramural penal employment would at the very least be more economical and more beneficial to the community. In my view, the main purpose of penal policy is to provide an opportunity for the offender to reintegrate himself or herself into society and to rectify the damage both to the victim and to society caused by the crime. Imprisonment frustrates these objectives and should be reserved for habitual serious offenders and for grave offenses that do not readily lend themselves to alternative sanctions. Even in such cases, however, compensation can be ordered in addition to a prison term.Settlement, restitution, and similar approaches should become routine for all minor offenses. Putting primary reliance on alternative sanctions should produce considerable savings in costs and in manpower, alleviating some of the pressure now experienced by an overburdened criminal justice system. To derive the greatest benefit from alternative sanctions, we need also to review and integrate indigenous traditions of community-based dispute resolution into the statutory structure.This is a revised version of a paper presented at a sentencing workshop organized by the Society for the Reform of Criminal Law, the Legal Resources Foundation, and the Law Development Commission, Victoria Falls, Zimbabwe, September 1–5, 1993.I am grateful to Professor Daniel Van Ness, Legal Advisor on Criminal Justice to the Government of Malta; and to Madeleine Sann, Director of Publication,Criminal Law Forum, for their suggestions.M.S., Vikram University (Ujjain, India) 1968; LL.B., Vikram University 1975; LL.M., University of London 1976.