To the point
Chief Executive Carrie Lam Cheng Yuetngor’s lashing out at some members of the legal sector on Sunday over the issue of colocation of the checkpoint facilities for the Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Rail Link came somewhat as a surprise. This is because Lam has been striving to bring harmony to a deeply divided society ever since her inauguration half a year ago.
Her criticism over the Hong Kong Bar Association’s statement on the National People’s Congress Standing Committee’s decision relating to the joint-checkpoint arrangement was definitely not because of a change in policy on her part, but because of what she views as the excessiveness of some radical elements in the legal sector in their response to the decision of the supreme organ of State power.
The NPCSC’s approval of the proposal on the co-location arrangement by the special administrative region government was the second step of the “three-step process” for authorization of the implementation of the arrangement. As many have pointed out, it is unrealistic to require authorities to find a relevant article in the Basic Law to support the co-location arrangement as there was no such concept when the constitutional document was drafted more than three decades ago. Yet, as the NPC is the country’s supreme legislative body, it has the power to enact, amend and interpret national laws, including the Basic Law. Its decision on the co-location arrangement therefore provides a solid legal basis for implementation of the final step of the process, namely local legislation by Hong Kong’s Legislative Council.
As such, how can we call a decision made by the country’s top legislature through due process as “rule by man” and “lacking legal basis”, as the Bar Association has claimed?
The Bar Association’s statement has sent shockwaves through not only the legal sector but the entire society as the remarks were full of provocative wording, not the kind of language usually employed by barristers who have always valued their professionalism. No matter whether or not the sudden issuance of the radical statement has something to do with the association’s upcoming election later this month, as some have already pointed out, the legal sector should focus on its key role as defender of the rule of law and not as a pawn in the opposition camp’s political strategy.
We must not underestimate the damage radical elements of the legal sector could render to the rule of law in Hong Kong and to “one country, two systems”. Their distortion of the intent of the bill for Article 23 legislation on national security in 2003 led to the abortion of the process; national security is still not sufficiently protected by law in the SAR to this day. As many of those who helped kill the national security law back then are still active in the legal sector, we should not be surprised by the CE’s concerns.