Mr Lai, I wish you a “Merry Christmas”, and would seize as much pleasure as you could amidst suffering and pain. As far as the criminal charge and the evidence put forward by the prosecuting party are concerned, the bail conditions are excessively undue. While any convict is entitled to freedom of speech, why is a person remanded on bail totally stripped of freedom of expression and communication? As to the HKD10 million paid as bail, though it sounds outrageous, according to reports, the amount paid by Meng Wanzhou is USD10 million, 7.8 times of yours. A dangerous person in shackles and cuffs, do you have some “regrets” about your price not climbing high up to the international standard? The prosecuting party asserted they would reference Article 35 of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance for appealing to the Court of Final Appeal as soon as possible, which is just what we hope for. If the court accepts and hears the case, there will be a precedent set for those protesters denied bail and taken in custody by the High Court to go by. That is worth being kept an eye on by Apple Daily’s journalists!

Anyhow, it’s good to get bailed as your family members were in deep distress, though you took it calmly. Notwithstanding the bitterness, spending a festive with the beloved is joyful.

Honestly, a lot of people had not been sanguine about your being remanded on bail. With the present abominable situation, there is only fear of rather than faith in the standard of judgement and way of thinking of the “judges designated” to try cases relating to the National Security Law. That said, in spite of the harsh bail conditions handed down by the court, I still have the wishful thinking that the court is struggling to keep the principles of common law from being crushed downright under the omnipresent and immense political pressure. You were just one step away from being denied bail by the judge. If it had happened, those being in pursuit of appealing to the Court of Final Appeal in hot haste were the ones held in detention!

The final ruling on the Emergency Regulations Ordinance made by the Court of Final Appeal the other day has disappointed and saddened me, not only because the adjudication made by the Court of Final Appeal that the government wins the lawsuit acknowledges the government entitled to the unrestrained power of legislation, but also because we had high hopes for the judges of the court of paramountcy capitalizing on this opportunity to safeguard the constitutional system, and reestablish the restrictions that should be enforced on the power of the executive organs under separation of three powers that check and balance one another. The court verdict, which accepts through and through the viewpoints put across by the police to what has happened over more than half of the past year as the foundation and orientation, is diametrically opposed to the statement made by the court that court verdicts would not take political stands into consideration. On the day the ruling was made, it was already said that what the police said does not tally with the facts. The orientation adopted by the Court of Final Appeal has simply added fuel to the resolution made by the citizens not to put their faith in the rule of law. But in fact, perusing the verdict, one will find that the court, by means of its elucidation of the terms of the Emergency Regulations Ordinance, has narrowed down the power that can be exercised by the Chief Executive-in-Council via that Ordinance, recognizing the power of the Legislative Council to rescind regulations drawn up by the Chief Executive, and in theory to revoke the entire Emergency Regulations Ordinance. But why didn’t it declare aboveboard such terms that clash with the Basic Law nullified? With regard to this, the verdict by the Court of First Instance of the High Court is more respectable. To evade the important and dwell on the trivial does not help resolve any political pressure indeed. The Court of Final Appeal refuses to observe the decree of the Central Government, declining to make any disgusting remarks such as an “executive-led” government, the Chief Executive ordained by the Central Government enjoying an overriding status and the judicature supposed to cooperate. It is believed that the Central Government will not be satisfied with this court verdict. As long as the court does not come to terms unreservedly and openly with what the Central Government wants, the decision to keep on cracking down on it will not alter. There is too much to say, and a sensible explanation of it is too difficult to deliver. In short, being disappointed, we should not forget there are still judicial officials persevering at safeguarding their beliefs in the rule of law. Our persistence is where our dignity and hopes lie.

(Margaret Ng Ngoi-yee is a barrister, writer and columnist in Hong Kong. She was a member of the Legislative Council of Hong Kong from 1995-1997; 1998-2012.)

Click here for Chinese version

We invite you to join the conversation by submitting columns to our opinion section: [email protected]

Apple Daily reserves the right to refuse, abridge, alter or edit guest opinion columns for accuracy, length, clarity, and style, and the right to withdraw and withhold columns based on the discretion of our editorial page editors.

The opinions of the writers do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the editorial board.

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

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