On September 1, Carrie Lam made public that the executive, legislative and judiciary powers are bestowed by the Central Government, not independent, not to mention separation. To this end, there have been, there are and there will be no three independent powers at all. The next day, James Spigelman, a judge on the Court of Final Appeal of Hong Kong, stepped down two years ahead of schedule. He told Australia’s national broadcaster that he had quit for reasons related to the content of the National Security Law, but there was no further explanation from him. To carry through her Hong Kong women’s style – I can ditch you, you can’t ditch me, Carrie Lam and her regime gazetted that Spigelman’s appointment “was rescinded”. It was rectified later on: Since Spigelman had resigned, his appointment “was rescinded” . The rhetoric does not vanish the fact that the breakup is out of the way and not on good terms.

My friend forwarded to me the abovementioned big news with a footnote: Boiling frog is just local gossip that does not stand any scientific verification, which got me caught by absolute nonsense. Half a minute later, I grasped it. The premise is that a frog is put in tepid water which is then brought to a boil slowly, it will not perceive the danger and will be cooked to death. Over the 23 years since the Handover, Hong Kong people had been more and more accustomed to Beijing’s interference, and apathetic to the disappearing freedom until one day they awakened to the fact that the Hong Kong National Security Law had been forced through; Hong Kong had assimilated into China; the frog had been ready for being dished up.

Ostensibly, the gossip of boiling frog, indeed a portrayal of those Hong Kong people reaping the rewards of their efforts made in the past decades, makes sense. However, American zoologists verified in 2002 that long before the water comes to the boil, the frog has jumped out because of an animal instinct called “thermoregulation mechanism”. How is the resignation of an overseas judge of the Court of Final Appeal related to my friend’s belief that a frog cannot be boiled to death?

Everyone should remember that right after the Handover, the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress(NPC) had interpreted Article 24 in 1998 for the right of abode in Hong Kong in defiance of the provision of the Basic Law without the Court of Final Appeal submitting a proposal to the NPC. Back then, some “guardians of the Law” in Beijing reprimanded Andrew Li Kwok Nang, the first Chief Justice of Hong Kong presiding over the Court of Final Appeal, for being a kid who did not know any better. Suddenly having detected an increase in water temperature, judges on the Court of Final Appeal had considered collective resignation as a protest against it. Nonetheless, in view of the fact that such an upheaval following the Handover would impact on the whole SAR government, they put the interests of the whole above everything else, dropping the notion of collective resignation in the end. Yet, once the precedent was established, succeeding cases came one after another like a trotting horse lamp. No separation of powers is simply an alternative way to interpret the Basic Law more thoroughly.

As “thermoregulation mechanism” is a life instinct, even ordinary people will struggle for survival after detecting a rise in water temperature, to say nothing of the wise men on the Court of Final Appeal. As early as Tung Chee Hwa assuming office, The Washington Post dubbed Hong Kong “a city of protest”. The fact is Hong Kong people took to the streets on July 1, 1997. 2003 even saw 500 thousand people demonstrate against the legislation of Article 23 without toppling a single trash bin, in which Hong Kong people widened the world’s horizons with their quality as civilians. The anti-national education movement, the umbrella movement and the anti-extradition bill amendment movement over the past ten years are all testimonies to the fallacy of boiling frog: Hong Kong people were born with the " thermoregulation mechanism" instinct and are on full alert.

Hong Kong people, used to living freely, have never been acceptant to an increase in the water temperature. Instead, they have been saying no in their own way to the ever soaring water temperature for decades. Over the past 23 years, though all the protests seemed like courting defeat by fighting against overwhelming odds, in light of the sympathy and support for Hong Kong people from all around the world – the British, regardless of parties and factions, coming out in favor of throwing a lifeline to Hong Kong people and Australia promising Hong Kong people to be accommodating to their residency in the country, struggling for survival in the hot water did not run to waste.

The response from Lam’s regime to Spigelman’s resignation claimed that the other 13 overseas judges not following him to quit proved the judiciary independence and so on.

Admittedly, after Spigelman resigned, Justice Robert French, another judge from Australia, declared his stand: He respects Chief Justice Geoffrey Ma and the other three permanent judges, firmly believing that they would do their work on the mission to preserve judicial independence, so remaining in office to support their endeavor. Spigelman’s unprecedented undertaking has something to do with his life experience – his parents were survivors from Nazi concentration camps. When World War II ended, he was born in Poland. He then emigrated to Australia when he was 3, proactively taking part in student movements in his college years, especially commiserating with the indigenous ethnic minorities in the country. Like Murakami Haruki, a famous Japanese writer, Spigelman has chosen to stand on the side of the eggs, the weak, instead of the high wall, the despotism. His resignation might come from a noble thought, instead of showing his true goal in life by declaring his stand on the constitutional setup.

French’s support is, however, proffered on a premise: The judicature is still independent; the judges can deliver their best and strive for the best. With the directive on the three powers working together but doing different things, it is needless to say whether the judicature is still independent. The Basic Law is the cornerstone of judiciary independence. Since 1998, the Law has conspicuously been getting out of shape. The wise men on the Court of Final Appeal, who attach paramount importance to the big picture and endure all insults in order to deliver the best, are respectable. Nevertheless, with the skin gone, to what can the hair attach itself? With the Basic Law ripped asunder, how can judiciary be independent? The water is coming to the boil. Not only has Spigelman’s resignation shown a noble thought, but also given a warning. For how much longer do the wise men on the Court of Final Appeal want to bury their heads in the sand?

Click here for Chinese version

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

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