Recently, the Liaison Office of the Central People’s Government (LOCPG) reportedly instructed pro-CCP members in Hong Kong to eradicate the so-called three “mountains” in Hong Kong, i.e. to wipe out dissident voices in the judiciary, education and social welfare sectors. Regretfully I would have to call it an understatement. For example, all professional and hardworking reporters and news media, no matter where they come from, as well as freedom of press in Hong Kong, are now under siege, after Hong Kong police suddenly amended the definition of “media representatives” under the Police General Orders (PGO), allowing only those media having registered in the GNMIS system of the government, obviously excluding pro-democracy or anti-CCP media, to physically enter into the restricted zone between police and protestors. However, this is not the worst news within the previous week. Clouds heralding a storm of unprecedented ferocity crushing Hong Kong residual judicial independence would be.

In the past few weeks, CCP-owned newspapers in Hong Kong such as Ta Kung Pao and Wen Wei Po, as well as CCP members or supporters, have already launched the first wave of shameless criticism against Hong Kong judges and the judicial system in general. They fundamentally disliked certain judges who had acquitted, or sentenced leniently, some defendants who participated in the protests for freedom and autonomy in Hong Kong. They afterward jumped to the following conclusions: all judge wigs should be torn down; the entire judiciary of Hong Kong should be revamped and “reformed” in an all-out manner; and a sentencing committee should be established to replace independent sentencing decisions of judges. In any modern and free country respecting judicial independence, such comments by CCP must be seen as absurd and uncivilized. But this is exactly what Hong Kong people are facing right now. In face of this unprecedented challenge, the Chief Justice of the Court of Final Appeal of Hong Kong, Justice Geoffrey Ma Tao-li, finally broke his silence.

Justice Ma, who will retire in a few months, issued a 14-page press release. Probably this can be one of his last solemn announcements which he contributes to Hong Kong society before his retirement. Justice Ma avoided using the term “separation of powers” which had been lately denied by the Chief Executive of the Hong Kong colonial suppressive government. He instead emphasized that judicial institutions should not be politicized, as courts are expected to adjudicate legal disputes according to law, and are not supposed to adjudicate political arguments or advocate political views. He recapped what the Basic Law says about judicial independence and mentioned that everyone is equal before the law and nobody may override the law. He further mentioned that, as fair trial and presumption of innocence are the key cornerstones of criminal justice, any bail hearing should hold the prosecution, not the defendant, accountable to bear the burden of proof as to why detention instead of bail would be necessary. He also made a blunt remark that Article 42 of the new national security law on Hong Kong can be an exception. Although he did not elaborate this point further, it can be seen as his subtle and implied disagreement with such an awkward exception. Justice Ma reiterated that sentencing is to be exclusively and independently decided by judges, rather than by any form of the sentencing committee formed by non-jurists. In my view, his concern is well-grounded given CCP’s notorious totalitarian practice having the Commission of Politics and Law, also known as the sword (dao-ba-zi) of Xi Jinping, to oversee police, prosecution and courts and to ensure that CCP presides over all. In other words, if such an idea of the sentencing committee is put into practice, its consequences will certainly be devastating and irreversible, making Hong Kong completely identical to Shenzhen.

In the shock of Justice Ma’s reactions, CCP-owned newspapers in Hong Kong including Ta Kung Pao and Wen Wei Po quickly launched the second wave of propaganda against Hong Kong judiciary and Justice Ma. This time, they played a dirty trick by calling upon and quoting views of a certain gang of Hong Kong jurists or ex-jurists to voice out against Justice Ma. Justice Henry Denis Litton, as a former permanent judge of the Court of Final Appeal of Hong Kong, made the following comments: public interest shall prevail over individual freedom; Beijing has the final say on legal interpretation; and Hong Kong courts shall be inferior to the People’s Congress of China. Ian Grenville Cross, as former Director of Public Prosecutions, said that Justice Ma’s ideas are not new, while more “realistic”, meaning harsher, bail requirements should be implemented. CCP-owned newspapers quoted these opinions and then came up with a bold heading: “Big Man Ma, You Are Curbing Reform!” This type of Orwellian slogan is actually a typical form of communist propaganda in order to confuse truths and lies. CCP-owned newspapers went on further and “reported” unilateral views of quite a number of pro-CCP lawyers and other ex-jurists who had warned readers not to be cheated or misled by Justice Ma. They went on even further to criticize at least four other judges, each on a named basis, who were alleged as being too lenient on defendants who had participated in the protests last year.

In my view, such a series of attacks has one common key objective, i.e. to uproot the judicial independence, tradition and professionalism of Hong Kong and to convert Hong Kong into another ordinary city of China as soon as practicable. Overall, the current situation should not be regarded as the demise of the common law system inducing its replacement by the civil law system. Actually, China does not adopt at all civil law systems, but “Xi is the law” system or “CCP is the law” system. Instead, it should be seen as a quick and nasty surgery to take away powers from the Hong Kong judiciary and to reformat it into a CCP-led judiciary. Whether/How the Hong Kong judiciary would react, and whether/how the international world would react, will be the next two coming episodes which deserve careful attention.

(Sang Pu, political commentator and host of talk shows(including RFA), qualified lawyer in Hong Kong, Taiwan and New York State, graduate of the University of Virginia with a degree of Master of Laws, writer of topics about Hong Kong, China, Taiwan and international politics and economy in Apple Daily and other media starting from 2007.)

---------------------------------

Apple Daily’s all-new English Edition is now available on the mobile app: bit.ly/2yMMfQE

To download the latest version,

iOS: bit.ly/AD_iOS

Android: bit.ly/AD_android

Or search Appledaily in App Store or Google Play