Unchanged for 50 years? Not Hong Kong's legal system
Lau Nai-keung says row over Elsie Leung's remarks a sign of ignorance
A month after rejecting a motion to discuss the remarks about our judicial system made by former justice secretary Elsie Leung Oi-sie, the Legislative Council's justice and legal affairs panel invited her and the current justice secretary, Rimsky Yuen Kwok-keung, to attend its meeting next Tuesday.
Leung has declined the invitation, fearing it might have set a dangerous precedent for turning such meetings into McCarthy-style hearings. But the continuous bombardment from our dissidents should encourage her to clarify her remarks at some point. It is nevertheless pathetic that she should have to defend her right to free speech in this supposedly open society.
This fiasco originated from some remarks she made in a closed-door talk, in which she criticised our judges for a lack of understanding about relations between the central government and the SAR, and for interpreting the Basic Law only from a common law perspective. She also noted that it was not the legal system that was enshrined in the Basic Law to remain unchanged for 50 years.
Her first remark is a fact; I would challenge any judge to declare that he is well-versed about the relations between the central government and the SAR and that he adjudicates cases using the perspective of the civil law system in the interpretation of the Basic Law. As far as I am aware, there are none, and our judges all seem rather smug about this professional ignorance and insist this is in the spirit of "two systems".
This is exactly why some people are so sensitive about her remark; it touches a raw nerve. This issue has to be brought up, but attacking Leung is not a constructive starting point for discussion. For one thing, this issue cannot be settled within the SAR and, at a certain stage, the central authorities will have to be brought into the picture, and they will not be intimidated by any institution in Hong Kong and summoned by its Legislative Council.
The charge that Leung's remarks undermine judicial independence in Hong Kong is totally unfounded. I don't blame a layman for being misled into believing this baloney, but coming from the supposedly authoritative professional bodies such as the Law Society and the Bar Association, plus retired Court of Final Appeal judges, this is inexplicable. They, of all people, should know exactly what judicial independence means. It means that when deliberating on cases, our judges are free from the interference of other branches of government.
