Hong Kong's Judiciary Shows up in Force

Some 3,000 lawyers marched to government headquarters at Tamar today

Following the June 4 candlelight vigil that was part memorial and part peaceful protest against the Hong Kong's government to pass the extradition bill, today, some 3,000 lawyers showed up for a silent march to also protest the controversial bill.

They marched from the Court of Final Appeal to the government headquarters in Tamar, Admiralty. Aside from the large numbers of people from the judiciary, there were several notable people who came out and don't usually show up for public protests, such as former High Court deputy judge Ambrose Ho Pui-him, Joseph Tse Wah-yuen, and Nicholas Cooney.

The usual suspects were there -- Martin Lee Chu-ming, Albert Ho Chun-yan, Dennis Kwok Wing-hang, and Alan Leong Kah-kit.

The lawyers are protesting pushing through the extradition bill

Also in the march were some middle and junior level public prosecutors from the Department of Justice. Typically prosecutors of directorial grade are barred from joining events of political nature. Other marchers included legal academics and law students.

Some of the lawyers expressed concerns over the lack of an independent judiciary across the border and argued that under the proposal, local courts only had a limited role to protect the human rights of suspects to be extradited.

Ambrose Ho said there was no guarantee of fair trials on the mainland, urging the government to shelve the bill. "Authorities have a duty to gather general consensus," he said.

Several senior counsel, like former Bar Association chairman Ronny Wong and top criminal lawyer Lawrence Lok Ying-kam, said they may join the large protest of the extradition bill on Sunday afternoon.

When the lawyers arrived in Admiralty, they did not bow their heads like they did in the previous four silent marches they have held since 1997.

Civic Party lawmaker Dennis Kwok explained, "The legal sector will not bow to the government."

He added: "We call on this government to withdraw the extradition bill. This is the clear and almost unanimous belief of the legal profession."

Chris Patten warns the bill would "strike a terrible blow"

Former deputy director of public prosecutions John Reading pointed out that even though the Hong Kong government is rushing to pass the bill so that local resident Chan Tong-kai who murdered his girlfriend in Taiwan can be extradited there to face charges, Taiwan doesn't even want to request his extradition.

"Therefore, what is the rush at this stage?" he said, adding more time was needed to deliberate the bill in order to resolve the polarized views.

Also today former governor Chris Patten chimed in on the extradition bill, issuing a six-minute video message saying: "It doesn't have to happen, it shouldn't happen, and Hong Kong should carry on as a free society under the rule of law."

He said the extradition bill would "strike a terrible blow" to Hong Kong's rule of law, stability, security and its position as a great international trading hub.

However, the Hong Kong government will probably dismiss him as being an outsider interfering in the city's affairs.

Which is why it means a lot to see some 3,000 lawyers come out today to protest the extradition bill with the hopes that maybe the judiciary can talk some sense into the government... rushing it makes it even more suspect...

Nine Convictions in the Umbrella Movement

These nine were convicted for their role in the Umbrella Movement in 2014

 

The big news today was the conviction of nine pro democracy activists for their part in the Umbrella Movement that began on September 28, 2014 and lasted for 79 days. Now they could face jail terms of up to seven years.

Judge Johnny Chan Jong-herng said the founders of the Occupy movement -- Benny Tai Yiu-ting, Dr Chan Kin-man, and Reverend Chu Yiu-ming were "naive" to suggest that by encouraging people to block roads they could force the government to bow to their political demands, mainly to have universal suffrage in being able to vote for Hong Kong's chief executive.

Supporters today continued the yellow umbrella tradition

Beijing had quashed this idea and instead suggested people could vote for vetted pro-China candidates.

Judge Chan also said that while Hong Kong recognized civil disobedience, it could not be used as a defense for a criminal act -- that is causing public nuisance.

Prosecutors successfully argued that the nine caused obstructions by mobilizing people to block main thoroughfares in Admiralty, Central, parts of Causeway Bay and Mongkok.

The other six who were convicted were legislators Tanya Chan and Shiu Ka-chun, former student leaders Tommy Cheung Sau-yin and Eason Chung Yiu-wa, League of Social Democrats vice-chairman Raphael Wong Ho-ming, and former Democratic Party lawmaker Lee Wing-tat.

Tear gas in Admiralty sparked the Occupy movement

It is worth noting at this point that the last time the charge of public nuisance was applied was in 2001when Alain Robert, the French "Spiderman" climbed up the Hang Seng Bank headquarters wiht his bare hands.

He was charged with causing public nuisance and was originally sentenced to 21 days in prison, but later reduced to a suspended sentence on appeal.

Defense lawyers in this 18-day trial had argued that their clients were being prosecuted on vague charges that carried a harsher sentence than for unlawful assembly, which is a typical charge for protestors.

But Chan rejected the charge would have a "chilling effect" on freedom of expression as the lawyers had argued.

The Occupy Movement occupied Admiralty for 79 days

Reaction to the convictions was swift. Hong Kong's former last governor Chris Patten condemned the verdict, calling the prosecution "vengeful".

"At a time when most people would have thought that the aim of the Hong Kong government should be to bring the whole community together it seems appallingly divisive to use anachronistic common-law charges in a vengeful pursuit of political events which took place in 2014," he said.

The nine are currently out on bail and mitigation hearings continue tomorrow.

It is sad but not surprising the verdict would turn out like this. Prosecutors were keen to nail the pro-democracy activists with harsh sentences so that no one will dare to try to initiate something on this scale ever again.

Nathan Law won a seat in Legco, only to be disqualified later

So much has happened and changed in Hong Kong since 2014 -- awakening people's political rights, record turnouts in legislative council elections in 2016, and then disqualifying newly elected lawmakers for altering their oaths when they were being sworn into office, and now candidates have to agree that Hong Kong is an "inalienable part" of China.

The appetite to go out on the streets again has waned considerably and now participating in protests means wearing face masks to avoid identification on police video cameras.

Passing through Admiralty on the freeway it's incredible that the place was completely shut down and the friendly camaraderie was unforgettable.

The Umbrella Movement will never happen again at this rate, and will just be a memory for many of us.

CY Leung won't Let Separatism Disappear

The Foreign Correspondents' Club is located in a heritage building in Central

The separatist group the Hong Kong National Party is getting way more publicity than it deserves, thanks to heavy handedness from the pro-Beijing side.

This time it's former chief executive Leung Chun-ying attacking the Foreign Correspondents' Club for inviting HKNP's co-founder Andy Chan Ho-tin to speak on August 14.

The FCC's poster advertising the talk

At first China's Ministry of Foreign Affairs asked that the talk be cancelled and the FCC politely said no. This is not unusual -- there have been several instances before when Beijing has asked for other talks to be cancelled because they don't like the speaker, such as former governor Chris Patten. And the FCC has said nicely that it will still go ahead with the talk and then the matter is over.

However, this time Leung has ratcheted it up several notches by demanding the FCC should give up its lease on Ice House Street in a heritage building and bid for the premises in an open market.

Chris Yeung Kin-hing, the chairman of the Hong Kong Journalists Association said: "Leung is essentially asking the FCC to cancel the talk by Chan and stop inviting similar guests in future, or else the lease might not be renewed or even be taken back earlier. That's blatant political pressure."

CY Leung is taking a very harsh stand on the controversy

The International Federation of Journalists (IFJ) echoed Yeung's statement, describing Leung's remarks as an attempt to "muzzle and publicly threaten an organization that strongly defends the media's role to hear from all areas of society and politics".

"The IFJ strongly urges Leung to retract the open letter and the threats made on the FCC over the right to occupy its current premises," said Jane Worthington, acting director of the IFJ in Asia Pacific.

Yeung also pointed out the FCC's lease was renewed under Leung's term as chief executive, which was last July.

Another former chief executive, Tung Chee-hwa, also waded into the fray, saying the proposal to ban the HKNP was "reasonable and rational", as an advocacy of independence is not allowed. 

Tun Chee-hwa says the HKNP should be banned

Current Chief Executive Carrie Lam Cheng Yuet-ngor has said inviting Chan to speak was "regrettable and inappropriate". Sounds more like a school master reprimanding its wayward students with a light rap on the knuckles.

Chan's talk is entitled "Hong Kong Nationalism: A Politically Incorrect Guide to Hong Kong Under Chinese Rule".

The FCC is still going ahead with the talk as scheduled as it should -- we're supposed to have freedom of speech here. Instead Leung and the pro-Beijing faction are going at it completely the wrong way.

He is giving Chan way more exposure in the media than he really should, and trying to lump in the FCC with him for giving the young man a platform to speak.

What a bizarre (but very mainland Chinese) way to get your point across. With that in mind, who's side are you on?

Xi Urges Harmony in Hong Kong

Chinese President Xi Jinping gives a toast to Hong Kong on 20th anniversary

Carrie Lam Cheng Yuet-ngor was sworn in as the Chief Executive of Hong Kong and she promised to work hard to bring harmony to the city.

It's a tall order to say the least, but we'll see what effort she makes.

During his speech, Chinese President Xi Jinping reiterated that the "one country, two systems" governing formula for Hong Kong had been a success, and Beijing would continue to implement it without it "being bent or distorted".

Really... but we feel it's been "bent" and "distorted"... maybe from his point of view it isn't.

Carrie Lam is sworn in as the next chief executive by Xi

"New situations have arisen in the implementation of 'one country, two systems' ... but we have to understand the complicated historical root and international background behind Hong Kong's many problems," he said.

"We must not generalize on the causes, nor must we respond emotionally. It is not scary to have problems -- the key is to find solutions."

Sounds like Xi was trying to sound more conciliatory towards critics, particularly localists in showing that he was sensitive to the unique issues Hong Kong has. But the localist groups won't be buying it.

He also had some words for business leaders in that they should support Lam, unite in safeguarding social harmony to create positive vibes, care about young people who will be the leaders of tomorrow, and promote cooperation with the mainland.

The President shakes hands with Li Ka-shing

Interesting that Xi is looking to them to keep Hong Kong on the straight and narrow, but the real problem is the close relationship the government has with the tycoons, swaying everything in their favour with no foresight or interest in setting the foundation for a better future for the next generation (except their own kin).

So we'll have to see if the billionaires really take Xi's words to heart or his words are just lip service to the rest of Hong Kong.

Meanwhile former governor Chris Patten believes the Chinese government isn't following the Joint Declaration -- that is tabled at the United Nations -- that "one country, two systems" has eroded in the past two decades.

A little too late, but at least Patten is bringing it up to remind people. At least that's what the rest of us in Hong Kong believed too...

Memories of 20 Years Ago

Jiang Zemin shakes hands with Prince Charles during the handover ceremony

Twenty years ago, what were you doing?

I was in Hong Kong witnessing and being part of history.

All signs of British colonialism are removed

At the time there was apprehension, wondering what life would be like under Communist rule, and how much things would change in Hong Kong.

Everyone there at the time remembers the rain. It was torrential. We wondered if it was a sign from above that this transaction was not a good idea.

But we we through with it, watching on the big screens with Prince Charles giving a speech, the last governor Chris Patten receiving the British flag as if it was taken from the casket of a dead soldier.

And then he boarded the Royal Yacht Britannia and sailed off under a massive explosion of fireworks in Victoria Harbour.

Last governor Chris Patten receiving the British flag

The People's Liberation Army came into Hong Kong and people worried they might come charging in with tanks.

But they instead kept relatively low key though their crossing over the border was very symbolic of the change in power. The changing of the flag is one thing, seeing soldiers literally coming in is another.

The next day on July 1 there were parties everywhere which seemed odd, but what else is there to do anyway? I went to the cocktail party at The Peninsula Hong Kong and we wondered what we were celebrating.

The PLA comes across the border at midnight July 1

Foreign journalists had parachuted in and were probably hoping for death and destruction, but we don't do that in Hong Kong.

And then life went on... or so we thought...

Quote of the Day: The Battle of Language

Rita Fan chides Chris Patten for being behind the times with Hong Kong

A war of words has erupted between the pro-Beijing camp consisting of Rita Fan Hsu Lai-tai and Hong Kong Chief Executive Leung Chun-ying, and former governor Chris Patten.

The man affectionately known as "Fat Pang" says the UK has a "moral and political obligation to ensure that China respects its commitment" set out in the Sino-British Joint Declaration to "guarantee Hong Kong's way of life for 50 years after 1997".

But today Fan and Leung hit out at Patten, saying the Sino-British Joint Declaration made no provisions for universal suffrage at all, and that he should not be meddling in China's internal affairs, and adding that he was still stuck in his memories of the handover.

Excuse me -- did you say there were no provisions for universal suffrage at all? So now you're saying we have "universal suffrage" but China's version of it?

Someone who was there during negotiations of the Joint Declaration ought to tell us if this is really true or not.

Nevertheless, as said earlier, this is a war of words.

Which brings us to the quote of the day.

James R. Holmes has an article in The Diplomat out today, called "China's War on Maritime Law". The first paragraph, giving words of advice to Washington, could very well be suited to us in Hong Kong:

Never surrender to China in the battle of language, Washington. Ceding control of the words we use can be fatal to diplomacy. If you let someone define the words used in an argument how he pleases, or if you let him use terms so imprecisely that they lose all meaning, you let him establish the assumptions from which the argument proceeds. And once he sets the assumptions, he can prove whatever he wants. You will lose every time. Call it rhetorical battlespace preparation, or call it "three warfares". Whatever the name, it's a never-ending campaign for Beijing. Blunting it demands similar persistence.

Hong Kong people must define their home by their own terms. We cannot let Beijing determine it for us.

And by vetoing the electoral plan it has in store for us is the first step, because it is better than its version of "universal suffrage" which mocks the intent of voting for who we believe is the best chief executive to represent Hong Kong.