Thursday 19th December 2013
Dear Reader,
The landmark Court of Final Appeal ruling on social welfare under the Basic Law has implications for the proposed Buyer's Stamp Duty and Double Stamp Duty, which both discriminate against non-permanent residents, contrary to Article 25 of the Basic Law, as we have said before. See the judgment below. Meanwhile, another HKID case:
NEW ARTICLE
SHKF's abuse of HKID numbers
Next in our series on the abuse
of HKID numbers as passwords comes stockbroker Sung Hung Kai Financial, which
uses them to "secure" e-mailed statements. (19-Dec-2013)
RECENTLY ON WEBB-SITE
Citibank's abuse of HKID
numbers
We urge another bank to cease and desist from
treating the HKID as a password. (18-Dec-2013)
Not classy
The new Dragonair First Class: Cathay Pacific Business Class passengers have
seen it all before... (17-Dec-2013)
IN OTHER NEWS
Listing Committee censures Besunyen (0926), its Chairman and Vice-chairman
SEHK, 18-Dec-2013
Kong Yunming v Director of Social Welfare
HK
Court of Final Appeal, 17-Dec-2013
A landmark case on Articles 25, 36
and 145 of the Basic Law. As Justice Bokhary notes: "It will be noticed
at once that these guarantees of equality are not confined to permanent
residents. Article 25...speaks of all
residents...". This ruling thus has implications for the proposed
Buyer's Stamp Duty and Double Stamp Duty, which both discriminate against
non-permanent residents. It adds support to our view that the proposed duties
are unconstitutional.
Pass it on!
This free newsletter goes to over 20,000 practitioners, issuers,
regulators and investors in Hong Kong's markets. If you enjoy Webb-site, then please
invite a friend to find out
what they are missing and subscribe! Visit our archives, and do your
homework before you invest.
Remember that, apart from our occasional articles, you can follow our daily updates on HK events via RSS, Twitter, or Facebook.
Copyright notice