香港大律師公會主席
於二零一五年法律年度開啟典禮演辭 (中文譯本)
終審法院首席法官、律政司司長、律師會會長、各位司法人員、法律界同業、來自海外的嘉賓和法律專業團體的領袖、女士們、先生們：
1. 英國其中一位最偉大的公務員，漢弗萊·阿普爾比爵士 (Sir Humphrey Appleby) 曾經對他的晚輩伯納·伍利 (Bernard Woolley) 說過：
"演辭不是為現場觀眾寫的。發表演說只不過是把一篇新聞稿發放給各大傳媒必經的例行公事1。"
2. 除了是一篇很長的新聞稿外，這演說亦是我作為大律師公會主席兩屆任期期滿時的驪歌。
3. 香港考試及評核局於2014年11月發表的報告指出，很多中學生對法治概念理解錯誤，以為「法治」的意思只是執行和遵守法律，報告建議學生必須加強認識
「法治」。很多一向對法治問題鮮有發聲的人士，也突然興致勃勃地對「法治」這課題侃侃而談。此時此刻，獨立的大律師公會實有必要對這課題作出持平的論述， 以正視聽。
4. 去年九月五日，我在新西蘭舉行的「世界大律師大會」以「訟辯者在捍衛人權和法治所擔當的角色」為題發表演以下演說：
“「法治」沒有全球同意的定義。很多國家都聲稱奉行法治，但事實上他們沿用的並不是我們所理解的「法治」概念。充其量只是「以法管治」或者一種十分粗淺原始的「法治」，以法律規範個人的行為，令人們遵守當權者訂立的法規。
這種對法治的看法，好像很動聽。
中國 – 香港的主權國 – 奉行的那一種「法治」並不是我們一直理解和應用的「法治」概念。她這樣做有自己的原因，我在此不會加諸評價或說三道四。但是不知是否這個原因，香港的官員
在他們的公開發言裡出現一種趨勢，就是特別強調法治概念裏面「守法」這一個元素。大家聽來可能會覺得十分滑稽，香港政府近年沾染了一種語言習慣，在解釋它 所做的所有事情時，都以「依法」作為開場白，例如：立法會選舉「依法」舉行、警方「依法」拘捕疑犯、政府「依法」施政、政策「依法」制定和落實。開口也
「依法」，閉口也「依法」，這也「依法」，那也「依法」，甚麼也「依法」。
對外行人或思想單純的人來說，這些說法聽來好像對「法治」這個概念必恭必敬，尊重「法治」便要遵守法律和依法做事。但諷刺地，我個人和大律師公會卻覺得這種說法或會適得其反，誤導了公眾有關「法治」的意義。
首先，在坐各位【意指出席世界大律師大會的各國嘉賓】都理解「法治」不僅是只懂盲目地「守法」–「法 治」概念更包括：- 尊重獨立的司法機構、法律條文必對人權作出保障、執法者行使法律賦予的酌情權時必須尊重個人的權利和自由。這些例子都說明「法治」概念遠遠超出單純「守
法」。事實上，過份強調民眾必須「守法」(而對其他元素避重就輕或隻字不提)，往往是極權政府的特徵：- 熱衷於利用法律作為整治民眾的工具，而不是用法律約束自己管治的方式。
其次，很多時候公眾或傳媒評論或批評一些政府政策或行政舉措，焦點明明是政策舉措在政治上的優劣利弊，所要求的是政府在政治政策層面的回應，根本不是批評
政府違法或超越法律賦予的權力，依照法律訂下的權限行事，是對任何政府的最低要求。官方只懂不斷重覆「依法辦事」這答案，有低貶法律、混淆視聽、「牛頭不 對馬嘴」之嫌。不停以「我們依法辦事」回應，尤其會令人誤以為社會上的一些現象，都是法律規定的必然產物(但其實並非如此)，「法律」成了代罪羔羊或借
口。”
5. 「法治」這名詞往往令人想起一些公認自由和文明的政權，帶有正面的含義。隨意亂用「法治」一詞，往往會不慎為一些「以法管治」(Rule
by Law)或「人治」(Rule
by Man)的政權錯誤鍍金，給它們加上名不符實的道德冠冕。
6. 尤其是在一些沒有真正獨立的司法機構，法律被任意執行的體制，法院跟政府「合作」，以確保法律按政府喜歡的方法詮釋，用來打壓一些令當權者不悅的人或組
織。這往往被包裝為「法治」(Rule of Law)，但說穿了其實就是「我以『法』來『治』你」(Rule
by Law)。所謂「依法辦事」，說穿了就是「依我們的意旨辦事」(Rule
by Man)。
7. 可幸的是，香港奉行的不是這種體制，但永恆的警惕是自由的代價。
8. 我接著要說的是國務院於2014年6月發表的白皮書。很多爭議都圍繞著「法官」是否應該被視作「治港者」。有人將問題歸咎於翻譯。但是，白皮書有關部份的
真正問題，其實與翻譯無關。在我們的制度下，法院獨立的行使司法職能。當權者根本不應把任何定義不清的政治要求加諸於他們身上，例如要「愛國」，「維護國 家發展利益」云云。
9. 當然，我們的法官不會感到任何壓力。但白皮書就香港制度下法官的角色對香港市民及全世界發出了錯誤訊息，也顯示了思維上的鴻溝。在所有奉行我們理解的「法
治」概念的體制裡，政府根本不會家長式地對法官下旨和指指點點，要求他們負擔政治任務。這種心態，也許在內地被視作等閒，但在香港卻並不恰當。
10. 另一個因白皮書引起的不良後果便是它可能讓香港境外的有心人趁機大造文章，詆毀香港的司法制度。我們獨立的終審法院在剛果共和國一案(FG
Hemisphere case)有關國家豁免的一個正常判決竟然被人錯誤定性，用來打擊香港作為國際爭議解決中心的地位。白皮書內有關法院部份的不恰當內容更可能被人作為話
柄，污衊和中傷香港的司法機構。
11. 但事實勝於雄辯，根據2014-2015年世界經濟論壇全球競爭力報告，香港在司法獨立方面於全球144個地區之中排名第5，於亞洲名列榜首。我們的終審 法院不僅在仲裁和商業法方面，也在其他範疇－例如公法和刑事法-得到主要普通法法域的支持。我們有一個真正獨立的司法機構，對案件作出裁決，就算判決結果 在政治上不受歡迎，也無畏無懼。我有信心香港法院處理案件的態度，不會因白皮書改變一絲一毫。
12. 談到司法獨立，近來有一個趨勢：法官判政府敗訴時，即會被奉為「英雄」，但一旦判支持民主理念的人敗訴，便會有人質疑「法治是否已淪亡」。大家當然也可對
法官的判詞從法理角度批評。但不應單純因為法官判支持民主的人士敗訴，便污衊法院助紂為虐或者是向壓力屈服，開始「三權合作」，這種絶對是雙重標準，輸打 贏要的心態。此等言論缺乏理據的程度，和某些建制人士認為香港法院判政府敗訴就是「反對政府」或者和政府「對着幹」的評論相比，簡直不相伯仲，難分軒輊。
司法獨立的意思是指法院判案時不受雙方的政治取態影響，司法獨立的意思不是指某些人士永遠都是對的。
13. 2014年8月31日，全國人民代表大會常務委員會頒布了關於香港特別行政區2017行政長官產生辦法和2016立法會選舉辦法之決定。大律師公會對於決 定的諸多不合理限制，立場早在決定頒布之前已清楚表達。現在讓我針對性地撮述大律師公會於2014年4月28日提交之意見書中第55至69段的內容：-
(1). 提名委員會的大部份成員，應按照一套能確保全體選民均能有最高參與度的規則選舉產生。如果社會上某些界別基於其「功能」而在提委會內得到不符比例的比重，在提委會是否「有廣泛代表性」這方面會備受質疑和爭議。
(2). 假若一候選人必須得到超過半數提名委員會成員支持方可獲得提名，這不可能確保選民享有對於候選人有自由和真正選擇。這「少數服從多數」的要求相比2012年特別行政區第四任行政長官之選舉辦法，更屬倒退。
(3). 提名委員會必須確保供選民選擇的候選人，無論在數目還是在政見上，都具多元性。為候選人數目設置「二至四名」2的數字上限，難令人信服。
14. 全國人大常委會之決定引發了「雨傘運動」。公民抗命這概念極具爭議性。它涉及違法行為，但歷史上有很多公民抗命導致社會或政治改變的例子。公民抗命是
「對」或「錯」不可能籠統地用三言兩語一概而論。但就算運動的發起人也接受，公民抗命這概念的合理性取決於數個約制有關行為的條件，尤其是：公民抗命不應 輕言使用，必須用非暴力手法，和願意接受懲罰。法官賀輔明勳爵也指出抗爭者的行為不應造成過份的傷害或不便。大律師公會必須補充，尊重他人的權利及尊重獨
立司法機構所發出的命令，也是對公民抗命的限制。
15. 雖然總體來說，運動大致和平有序，但隨着時間過去，一些人的實際言行確實在多方面超出了可接受的限制。但遺憾地，很多具影響力的名人卻試圖扭曲甚至否定這
些限制，甚至對一些哲學著作進行創意演譯以支持這等言論。例如有些人聲稱不服從民事法庭所頒的命令不算損害法治；有些人辯稱「法治」這概念只是用以約束當 權者，又說公民做的任何事都不可能對法治有負面影響，又有橫額寫上「禁制令，怕你有味」的字眼。一些終審法院非常任法官在訪問或研討會作出的一些一般性的
概括論述，被斷章取義，奉若神明地錯誤演譯為他們支持和稱許運動中實際出現的言行。有人對運動過火的部份手法作出公允的批評，便被人不分好歹不分敵友地妖 魔化，定性為「背棄民主」，又或者被貶義地比喻作村上春樹筆下的「高牆」。任何人如果不去毫無保留和義無反顧地支持運動參加者的所有言行，隨時會人指控為
提倡「以法治人」這個打壓人民的概念。此等熱血激情的言論，還在社交媒體賺了好些「讚」或「十卜」(網上語言，即“support”，支持)。
16. 古語有云「過猶不及」。這些言論過於極端。法治精神其中一個要素是法律面前人人平等。誠然，政府對人民擁有公權力，而權力容易令人腐化和被濫用，所以在有
關法治的討論很自然會強調對政府公權力的約束。但絶不可因此就把事情顛倒，辯稱法治概念只約束政府，但「公民」就算做甚麼事也永不會對法治精神造成負面影 響。例如，公然鼓吹違反法院禁令肯定對法治有負面影響，因此等行為直接與獨立的法院對抗，而我們正正是靠獨立的法院幫助我們維持和捍衛法治。
17. 吾道不孤
- 包致金法官在2014年11月23日一個電視台訪問中說過以下一番話：
“很難想像「不服從法庭的命令」為何不會影響法治。雖然這樣做未必會令法治蕩然無存，但確實會影響...有時在某些地方，法律十分嚴苛邪惡，令到反對政權的人要違反及反抗這些惡法......但在香港這個地方，我不認為有這種情況。”
18. 前終審法院首席法官李國能先生在2014年11月17日接受媒體訪問時則更加直接和具針對性：
“[佔領者]採取的行動不能凌駕法治。這個佔領行動的規模，加上已持續了一段時間，並且法院頒布的禁制令未有受到尊重，這些行動對我們的法治有負面的影響，削弱我們的法治。3”
李先生德高望重，桃李滿門，他的門生很多都成了知名大律師，法官和政治人物。他的真知灼見，並非只從一般抽象角度論述，而是針對本地事態每天的發展作出，
對公衆了解事情尤其有幫助。他強調了「公民」也不能凌駕法治，也言簡意賅地指出就算是公民抗命也必須尊重別人的權利，不能造成過度的不便，並且必須尊重法 庭的命令。崇高的目的和過火的手法其實是可以分開考慮的兩件事。
19. 很多人都問，「大律師公會幫誰?」大律師公會並不對任何一方效忠。我們不但獨立於建制，也獨立於政黨，無論政黨的領導多麼顯赫，輩份多高，我們也無須聽 命。我們的獨立性，令我們為法治發言時，意見更加持平寶貴。有些人一直以來有一個美麗的誤會，以為我們是某些政黨的「後備球員」，在他們有需要時隨意呼召
出來以「法治角度」為他們的政治行為護航。這種想法大錯特錯。建制一方有錯我們固然會勇於指出，對頭頂有政治光環的人士我們也會「是其是，非其非」。其實 批評後者比起批評前者需要更大的道德勇氣。我可以肯定，就算我剛才斬釘截鐵地對法治人治，司法獨立，白皮書和人大決定的立場說得多麼清楚，總會有人因為我
們沒有說一些他們想我們說的話(或者是沒有用他們喜愛的方式說出)或者因為我們斗膽批評他們而高調地感到不滿。到底我們是盲目支持這一方，還是那一方，抑
或只是站在是法治的一方，大家自有公論。
20. 很多人指出問題的源頭是8月31日的全國人大常委會決定，也有人指責警方濫用暴力(例如大律師公會譴責的928催淚彈事件)，振振有詞說“他們有錯在先， 他們更加破壞法治”。然而，兩件錯事加起來不會變成一件好事或對的事，也不應「以牙還牙，以眼還眼」，「你做初一，我做十五」。別人就算做了苛刻、不對、
或未能令人信服的舉措，但也不代表過份的反抗行為就能因此被合理化。話雖如此，若認為不斷重覆地把運動官方定性為「違法運動」就可以把全國人大常委會決定 的缺憾和人們的不滿置諸腦後，則未免自欺欺人。歸根究底，必須各方都具備開明的態度和政治智慧，才有希望解決我們面對的困局。
21. 雨傘運動創造了很多「男神4」，但法律的世界是沒有「男神」的。女神卻有一個，她就是蒙上雙眼，手持代表公義的天秤的泰美斯(Themis)。一年多前的某個下午，在高等法院附近，一名來自內地的遊客問我泰美斯雕像在那裡，我為她引路步行往舊最高法院(後成為前立法會)大 樓，女神就佇立在大樓頂端。沿途經過紅磚建成的終審法院大樓，我順便企圖向她介紹，但她興趣不大，並對我說：「我只想看那蒙眼的女神。」她告訴我她是一名內地律師。
22. 這位遊客可能只是一心拍照，然後把照片上載於「微博」和朋友分享。但是在我理想化的心靈裏，我傾向於認為這標誌著內地同業–尤其是年青的一羣–對我們法治 概念的嚮往。我們不應低估他們對平等及公義這些普世價值的熱切追求，更不應低估我們固有的法治優勢，不要只和內地法律學生，律師和法官談論一些白紙黑字的
技術性法律法規條文或者業務合作，更應把我們眼中的「法治」這一塊金錢買不到的瑰寶對他們介紹和啟蒙。也許有一天，這名女律師不用再跑來香港尋找泰美斯女 神
– 原因不是因為像一些「末日論者」所說的法治在港衰亡，所以再找不到，而是因為平等公義等的法治精神有朝一日終於可以在神州大地植根，遍地開花，觸手可及。
23. 現在向各位說「恭喜發財」未免太早，臨別秋波，我在此祝願各位身體健康、好運連連。最後，天祐大家、天祐香港。
香港大律師公會主席
石永泰資深大律師
石永泰資深大律師
註：
1 英國電視劇集"遵命！大臣"(Yes Minister)內，A question of loyalty一集之對白
2 人大決定結果訂下二至三名的限制
3 以廣東話進行
4 意思是年青人偶像
2 人大決定結果訂下二至三名的限制
3 以廣東話進行
4 意思是年青人偶像
大律師公會主席石永泰
英文講辭全文
SPEECH OF THE CHAIRMAN OF THE HONG KONG
BAR ASSOCIATION AT THE OPENING OF THE LEGAL YEAR 2015
Chief Justice, Secretary for Justice,
President of the Law Society, Members of the Judiciary, Members of the
Legal Professions, Distinguished Overseas Guests, Ladies and Gentlemen,
One of the greatest British civil servants,
Sir Humphrey Appleby, once said to his mentee, Bernard Woolley:-
“Speeches are not written for the audience to
which they are delivered. Delivering the speech is merely the formality
that has to be gone through in order to get the press release into the
newspapers.1”
Apart from being a very long press release,
this speech is also my last speech as Chairman of the Bar, my
swansong after two terms of office.
According to a report by the Hong Kong Examinations
and Assessment Authority published last November, many secondary
school students misunderstood the concept of “Rule of Law” as merely
meaning executing or obeying the law. The report recommended that students
should enhance their understanding of the concept. People who rarely spoke
about Rule of Law suddenly expressed many views. It is time for the
independent Bar to offer a more balanced view.
In a speech I delivered on 5th September last
year at the World Bar Conference in New Zealand entitled “The role of the
advocate in the protection of human rights and the Rule of Law” I said the
following:-
“There is no universal definition of `Rule of
Law’. Many countries or nations claim to practise the Rule of Law but in
fact what they practise is not “Rule of Law” as we understand
the concept but, at most, Rule by Law or a very rudimentary form
of Rule of Law namely that there shall be laws to regulate
the conduct of individuals and that they should obey the laws made
by the sovereign.
And that sort of view sometimes has a
superficial attraction about it.
China, the sovereign state for Hong Kong,
does not practise the type of Rule of Law as we understand it to mean. It
has its own reason for doing so, and I am not passing any judgment on
it. Maybe (or maybe not) because of this, there was an
increasing tendency on the part of the executive in Hong Kong, in its
public statements, to emphasise the “obey the law” aspect of “Rule
of Law”. Comical it may sound, the Government in Hong Kong has become
accustomed in recent years to preface almost every description of what it
does by the phrase “doing so according to law”. For example it would say
that elections to the legislature had been held according to law, police
had arrested suspects according to law, the Government governs Hong Kong
according to law, policies are formulated and implemented according to
law. Everything is done according to law.
To the untrained mind or the unsophisticated,
this may sound very respectful to the concept of the Rule of Law. After
all, to respect the Rule of Law one must obey the law and do things
according to law. However, in my view and in the view of the Hong Kong
Bar, ironically that could have the opposite effect of misleading
the public as to the meaning of the Rule of Law.
First, as we all know, Rule of Law means far
more than just blind adherence to laws - respect for an independent
judiciary, the need to ensure minimum contents of laws in terms of human
rights protection, respect for the rights and liberty of the individual
when law enforcers exercise their discretionary powers are examples
of requirements of Rule of Law which go beyond just obeying the law.
In fact it can be said that over-emphasis of the “obey the law” aspect of
“Rule of Law” is the hallmark of a regime which is keen on using the law
as a tool to constrain the governed, rather than as a means to constrain
the way it governs.
Second, such repeated notions of “doing
things according to law” demean the law and deflect attention from the
real issue. The problem arose when the public or the media comments on
or criticizes a certain Governmental policy, or executive action,
“on its merits” so to speak. No one complains about legality
of conduct; rather, political responses or justifications are
being called for. Law only provides the minimum requirement to
be fulfilled by any Government. Responses by way of”
“doing things according to the law” creates the misconception that
many phenomena in society are the inevitable consequences of
adhering to the law (when plainly they are not). Law had become
the scapegoat or excuse.”
The phrase “Rule of Law” is often associated
with well established liberal and civilized regimes. It has a positive
connotation. Indiscriminate use of the phrase “Rule of Law” could confer
undeserved moral respectability upon a “Rule by Law” or “Rule by Man”
regime.
In particular, in a system without a truly
independent judiciary and where laws are arbitrarily enforced, the
judiciary and the executive “co-operate” to ensure that laws are interpreted
in a way preferred by the executive and are used to suppress persons or
entities who do not find favour with the Government. This is often dressed
up as “Rule of Law”, but is in fact “Rule by Law”. “Do things according to
law” means “do things according to our will”.
Fortunately Hong Kong is not
such a regime, but eternal vigilance is the price of liberty.
I now address the publication of the White
Paper by the State Council in June 2014. A lot of controversies focused on
whether judges were correctly characterized as “administrators” of Hong
Kong. The matter was blamed on translation. However, the real problem
with the relevant part of the White Paper is that irrespective of
translation, judges perform judicial tasks independently.
The sovereign state should not purport to impose any ambiguous political
requirements, such as to be “patriotic” or to “safeguard the country’s
development interests”.
Of course our judges do not feel any
pressure. But the White Paper sends a wrong message to the people of Hong
Kong and the international community as to the role of the judiciary in
Hong Kong. It also shows a gap in mindset. In systems subscribing to our
concept of Rule of Law, the Government does not paternalistically issue
edicts for judges to perform political tasks. This mentality may be
commonplace on the Mainland, but is inappropriate here.
One invidious consequence of the White Paper
is that it could be capitalized upon by foreign entities to discredit the
Hong Kong legal system. Even an entirely proper decision by our
independent Court of Final Appeal, the FG Hemisphere case (also
known as the Congo case) about State Immunity has been erroneously
characterized by some in order to attack our status as an international
dispute resolution centre. The inappropriate part of the White Paper about
judges could be seized upon to cast spurious aspersions against the Hong
Kong Judiciary.
The fact is – according to the World Economic
Forum’s Global Competitiveness Report 2014–2015, Hong Kong was ranked
fifth among 144 jurisdictions worldwide and the first in Asia for judicial
independence. Our Court of Final Appeal receives support from leading
common law jurisdictions, not only in arbitration/business law but other
areas such as public law and criminal law. A truly independent
judiciary renders decisions – often politically unwelcome decisions -
without fear or favour. I have no doubt that our judges are not going to
decide cases any differently as a result of the White Paper.
Speaking of judicial independence, there is a
tendency that whenever judges rule against the Government they are hailed
as heroes, but when they rule against democracy supporters, insinuations
are expressed about the “demise” of the Rule of Law. Judgments can of
course be criticized on legal grounds, but to insinuate that judges have
become part of the machinery of oppression, or that they are succumbing to
pressure and beginning to “co-operate” with the Government, just because
they rule against democracy supporters is to apply “double standards”.
Such views are as misguided as certain views from the Establishment that
judges were “anti-Government” just because they rule against the
Administration. Judicial independence means that courts render their
decisions regardless of the political affiliation of the parties. It does
not mean some people are always right.
On 31st August 2014 the National
People’s Congress Standing Committee (NPCSC) issued its decision on the
Chief Executive election in 2017 and LegCo election in 2016. The Bar’s
position on the unreasonably restrictive features of the decision has been
clear, even before the NPCSC made its decision. Let me summarize the Bar’s
specific views in its written submissions dated 28th April 2014
at paragraphs 55 to 69:-
(1) The majority of the members of the
nomination committee should be elected or selected in a way to ensure
maximum participation by members of the electorate. If disproportionate
weight is given to functional sectors, contentious issues will arise as to
whether the committee is “broadly representative”.
(2) If a person can only be nominated with
the support of a majority of the nomination committee, it is impossible to
see how the electorate can have a free or true choice of
different candidates. The requirement is regressive when compared to the
method for selecting the Chief Executive in 2012.
(3) The nomination committee should ensure
the production of a spectrum or plurality of candidates for the voters
both in terms of number and political views. The “capping” of the number
of candidates at two to four2 does not have much credence.
The NPCSC decision led to the “Umbrella
Movement”. The concept of civil disobedience is controversial. It involves
breaking the law, but there are historical examples where civil
disobedience had brought forth political or social changes. It is not
possible to generalize in a sentence or two whether the concept is “right”
or “wrong” in the abstract. Yet, even the initiators of the Movement
accept that the concept has self-constraining features. In particular,
acts of civil disobedience must not be lightly resorted to, participants
should use non-violent means and willingly accept punishment. Lord
Hoffmann has added that participants must not cause excessive damage or
inconvenience. The Bar would add that respect for the rights of others
and for orders made by an independent judiciary are two further
constraints.
Even though by and large the Movement had
been carried out in a peaceful and orderly way, the actual conduct of
many people overstepped legitimate limits in many respects as time went
by. Regrettably, many influential figures have distorted or even denied
such limits, sometimes through creative interpretation of philosophical
writings. For example some argued that disobeying a civil judgment would not
adversely affect the Rule of Law, or that the Rule of Law is a concept
which only constrains the Government and citizens’
conduct can never adversely impact on the Rule of
Law. Some banners said, “we pay no heed to injunctions”.
General comments made by Non Permanent Judges in interviews or academic discussions were taken out of context and deified, and misinterpreted as statements of positive support/approval of what was actually said and done duringthe Movement. People who fairly criticized excessive aspects of the conduct of the Movement were indiscriminately demonized as “democracy traitors” or Haruki Murakami’s “tall wall”. Anyone who does not unreservedly support everything done during the Movement was castigated as supporting “Rule by Law”. Such passionate views attracted a number of “likes” or “support” on social media.
General comments made by Non Permanent Judges in interviews or academic discussions were taken out of context and deified, and misinterpreted as statements of positive support/approval of what was actually said and done duringthe Movement. People who fairly criticized excessive aspects of the conduct of the Movement were indiscriminately demonized as “democracy traitors” or Haruki Murakami’s “tall wall”. Anyone who does not unreservedly support everything done during the Movement was castigated as supporting “Rule by Law”. Such passionate views attracted a number of “likes” or “support” on social media.
As the saying goes, “Going too far is as bad
as not going far enough”. These views go too far. One important aspect of
the Rule of Law is that everyone is equal before the law. The
Government possesses dominant public power, and power tends to corrupt.
Understandably, discussion of Rule of Law tends to emphasize
constraint on Governmental power. But it is wrong to turn this upside-down
and argue that Rule of Law is only about constraining the
Government and that citizens’ conduct can never impact negatively
on the Rule of Law. For example, open calls for defiance of court orders
must adversely impact on the Rule of Law because they directly confront an
independent judiciary – the very institution relied upon by
the public to uphold the Rule of Law.
I am not alone. Mr Justice Bokhary said in an
interview on 23rd November 2014:-
“It is difficult to see how disobedience of a
court order would not impact the rule of law. I don’t think it will deal
rule of law a death blow, but it does impact on it …. Sometimes in some
places the law is so oppressive that anybody in opposition to the regime
would come up against the oppressive law.… But in a place like Hong Kong
I don’t think we have that kind of situation”
Mr. Andrew Li, the former Chief Justice, was
more specific and direct in an interview on 17th November
2014:-
“The means used [by participants] cannot
override the Rule of Law. The scale of the Movement, plus the fact that it
had taken place for a long time, and the fact that Court Orders had not
been respected – these had a negative impact on and had eroded the Rule of
Law.3”
These words are particularly valuable to the
public because they come from a well-respected jurist and pupil master to
many eminent lawyers, judges and politicians. He is in a unique position
to comment on the Movement – not in the abstract, but as it happened
here, day-by-day. His words succinctly encapsulated the point that
citizens are constrained by the concept of Rule of Law, the need to
respect the right of others and court orders and to avoid excessive
inconvenience in the context of civil disobedience. A line can indeed be
drawn between nobility of ends and excessiveness of means.
Many have asked, “whose side is the Bar on?”
We owe no affiliation to any side. We are independent, not only from the
Establishment but also from party political forces irrespective of their
leadership or pedigree. Our independence makes our views on Rule of Law
all the more valuable and balanced. We are not the “Reserves Team” of
political parties who have – for many years – wrongly assumed that they
could call upon the Bar to readily rally for their political acts from a
“Rule of Law angle”. We can criticize the Establishment, as well as those
with a “political halo”. Sometimes it takes more courage to criticize the
latter than the former. I am quite sure that despite what I have
unequivocally said about Rule of Law, Judicial Independence, the White
Paper and the NPCSC Decision, there are still people who would express
their discontent in a high profiled manner, simply because we have not
said everything in the way they had wanted us to say, or because we had
dared to criticize them. Do we blindly stand for one side, or the other,
or do we stand only for the Rule of Law? You’ll be the judge.
Many point to the NPCSC decision as the cause
of the problem. Some point to police misconduct (such as use of tear gas
on 28th September, which the Bar has condemned) and argued that “they are wrong first and they
are worse”. However, two wrongs do not make a right. There can be no
“tit-for-tat”.
That others have acted wrongly, harshly, or unsatisfactorily does not mean that you can thereby legitimize your own excesses. That said, it would be self-deceiving to gloss over the deficiencies of the NPCSC decision and the underlying discontent by repeating the official classification that the Movement was “unlawful”. The present conundrum can only be solved with enlightenment and political wisdom by all parties concerned.
The Umbrella Movement had created a lot of
“gods”4. There are no gods in the legal world. But there is a
goddess – the blindfolded goddess Themis, holding the scales of justice.
One afternoon about a year ago near the High Court, a Mainland tourist
asked me where the statue of Themis was. I offered to walk her to the old
Supreme Court/Legco building to show her the statue. On our way, we walked
past the red brick Court of Final Appeal building. I tried to introduce it
to her. She showed little interest and said, “I only want to see the
blindfolded goddess”. She told me she was a lawyer from the Mainland.
This could simply be a Mainland tourist
taking pictures to show her friends on Weibo5. But in my
idealistic mind, I am inclined to think that this symbolizes how our
notion of Rule of Law is coveted in the eyes of our brethrens across the
border, especially the younger ones. We should never underestimate their
yearning for the universal value of fairness and justice; we should never
underestimate our own advantage and our ability to inform and enlighten
them – students, lawyers and judges – not just about technical rules and
regulations, or practice collaboration, but about our concept of Rule of
Law, our most treasured asset which money cannot buy. Perhaps one day, the
lady lawyer need not come here to look for Themis – not because of the
“demise” of the Rule of Law in Hong Kong (as some doomsayers have kept
saying), but because the spirit of Themis could be found all over the
Mainland.
It is too early for me to say Happy Chinese
New Year to you, and so instead, before I bid my final farewell, I wish
you all good health and good luck. God bless you, and God bless Hong Kong.
Paul Shieh SC
Chairman
Hong Kong Bar Association
Chairman
Hong Kong Bar Association
Notes:
1 From the episode “A Question of Loyalty” in
the BBC series “Yes Minister”.
2 NPCSC Decision eventually stipulated “two to three”
3 Translated from Cantonese
4 Student idols
5 Mainland Chinese social media
2 NPCSC Decision eventually stipulated “two to three”
3 Translated from Cantonese
4 Student idols
5 Mainland Chinese social media
