• Thu
  • Oct 23, 2014
  • Updated: 7:23pm
Beijing White Paper 2014
NewsHong Kong

Law Society defends white paper on Hong Kong after harsh words from Bar Association

PUBLISHED : Monday, 16 June, 2014, 5:25pm
UPDATED : Tuesday, 17 June, 2014, 8:20am

The Law Society endorsed Beijing's contentious white paper on Hong Kong yesterday as a "positive" document that reiterated the special administrative region's judicial independence and high degree of autonomy.

The verdict of the society, which represents more than 7,400 solicitors, was in sharp contrast to the Bar Association's strongly worded response to the paper last Wednesday.

The association argued Beijing was mistaken in its view that judges were "administrators" like the chief executive and top officials who had a "basic political requirement" to love the country, and criticised the contention that judges should consider national security and China's interests.

The white paper, released by the State Council last week, emphasised Beijing's "comprehensive jurisdiction" over Hong Kong, and said its autonomy was subject to Beijing's authority.

Law Society president Ambrose Lam San-keung said he believed the Bar Association's criticism of the white paper arose from differing definitions of "administration".

"Broadly speaking, [the administration] includes the executive and legislative branches, as well as the judiciary," Lam said.

"If you look at the US and British administrations, it is very clear that [they follow that broad definition]," Lam said.

He believes that the Bar Association could have interpreted "administrators" narrowly to include only the executive branch.

But legal-sector lawmaker Dennis Kwok of the Civic Party said Lam was playing with words. "Lam wasn't founding his [argument] on the idea of separation of powers, but saying that the powers … have to cooperate and understand the Basic Law correctly," Kwok said.

Lam said the city's judicial independence would not be damaged by the white paper, but sidestepped the question of whether judges must consider the national interest in their rulings.

"Hong Kong is very special, and 'one country, two systems' is unprecedented, so the local and central governments have to grope for answers on many questions, and I don't have one for you," Lam told reporters.

He also accepted that swearing allegiance to Hong Kong, something already required of judges, might not satisfy Beijing's standard for patriotism. "Swearing allegiance is not some simple lip service," he said.

The Chinese Importers' and Exporters' Association and the Federation of Hong Kong Industries said yesterday businesses were not worried that the white paper would harm operations.



Related topics

For unlimited access to:

SCMP.com SCMP Tablet Edition SCMP Mobile Edition 10-year news archive



This article is now closed to comments

Actually, this White Paper is very honest and transparent. It tells exactly what is reality in HK. All of that "2 system" BS was just a form of false reality to placate the people. Legco and Exco are just fronts to pretend there is debate in carrying out Beijing's decision. After months of debate, the result is never different from what it was originally from Beijing. But, the people went too far and the installation of Zhang de Jiang as Min. of HK&M Affairs. Enough is enough. So, instead of people in Mainland being able to see HK Chinese people protesting weekly and breaking windows at government HQ, CCP has put an end to any more debates by clearly defining what the reality is. HK is part of CN. Full Stop. What 'Basic Law'?
No we do not back the paper. That is Ambrose Lam's own views and we will see to it that he does not remain for long.
Last one... zoz... :
5e) Kwok zei.: maar zeggen dat de bevoegdheden... hebben samen te werken en de basiswet goed begrijp. Lam zei : de stad rechterlijke onafhankelijkheid zou niet worden beschadigd door het Witboek. Lam zei : maar de vraag of rechters rekening met het nationale belang in hun uitspraken houden moeten omzeild.
Kwok concern the inside of the content, subject, matter of the paper, correct, that is very important! But Lam are not so concern, cause he is maybe corrupt too? Second, he say it's not my responsibly for the uitspraak? Wow, Lam, u are not good? High level man don't responsibly for his JOB? I don't know, but he knows in his heart and mind and ask by him self are u good or bad, who choose u Lam? … FREEDOM OF SPEECH... FREEDOM OF SPEECH... FREEDOM OF SPEECH...
zoz: 3e) Het Witboek, uitgebracht door de Staatsraad vorige week, onderstreept van Peking "uitgebreide bevoegdheid" over Hong Kong en zei dat haar autonomie was onderworpen aan Peking autoriteit.
There is no white paper, it's make by last week (vorige week)? And is power to Peking! Hihihi... wow, like a kids talk! Hihihi... nice to hear this, laughing now, don't be so childish, I think it's an infantile program! Grow up MAN, I am now so very tired to talk by this kids stuff!
4e) In het algemeen, [de administratie] bevat de uitvoerende en wetgevende takken, evenals de rechterlijke macht," zei Lam. ... "Als je kijkt naar de Amerikaanse en Britse overheden, het is heel duidelijk dat [zij die brede definitie volgen]," zei Lam. … Hij is van mening dat de orde van advocaten 'beheerders' beperkt tot alleen de uitvoerende macht zou kunnen hebben geïnterpreteerd.
Are this people or guy lawyer or Not? Sound they don't know what is uitvoerende en wetgevende, rechterlijke macht??? hihihi... i'm not study for, but I do know the different! Waste time, money boy to argument this ****! Hihihi... so, funny??? Freedom of speech... zoz...
zoz: 2e) De vereniging voerde aan Beijing vergiste in zijn opvatting dat rechters 'beheerders' (2a) zoals de chief executive en topambtenaren (2b) die had een "fundamentele politieke eis" waren om (2c) te houden van het land, en (2d) kritiek op de bewering dat rechters nationale veiligheid en (2e) China de belangen overwegen moeten.)))
Who is De vereniging? He (Lam) or HK citizen or CN? Next time write better in description, summary with this news, it's too difficult to see, what is here mean?
2a) chief/topamtenaren are not rechters! Second chief/top are beheerders! Rechters and Beheerders are not same job, are different functie, apart! Yes, CN has make fault again! Abuse aways!
2b) Wow, do u know what he say, "fundamentele politieke eis" … it's tell me, let's gouvernement have one talk! One rule, one power! So, it's so really communist talk, oh my God, are they forget, that HK has democratie system, do u know what is meaning of Demonstratie? That means: Ask for permission by u HK citizen (7milj) for fundamentele eis! Hihihi... oke!
2c-2d) Oh my God... (((Chinese tanks in Tiananmen Square. On June 4, 1998))) I do know why is happend, because the CN think this, make this, crime this!!! Rule: Love u land, kritiek for veiligheid (kill)! Oh my God... if u don't understand this, i'm so sorry for u, Government HK, U are working for the biggest evil of the word! KILLER ZONE!!! Stop it! Now!
2e) yeah, **** u, never love u evil land CN, u are doom. Freedom of speech!
1e) Law Society onderschreven Pekings omstreden Witboek over Hong Kong gisteren als een “positieve" document dat herhaald rechterlijke onafhankelijkheid van de speciale administratieve regio … hoge mate van autonomie.)))?
(1a) He (Lam) tell me, that the paper are autonomy, independence from ”speciale administratieve and it's autonomie”! ... So, my question is, Who is this SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIEVE Regio? Is this HK? Or CN? If this is for HK, it's tell me, HK is freedom 100%, but if this is for CN, than HK is not free!? But he say the paper are for HK? Or did i read him wrong?
(1b) What are write in the paper, he doesn't tell me? Positive or negative for who? HK or CN? So, if there write a bad rule for HK, it's hurt me and concern me, that mean that HK has follow the paper, what in write/say? agree? Wow, i will first read this paper, before i argument!
(1c) I don't care this white-paper, for me he has never EXIST, cause it make by now, not by'84-'97, and I read that HK has 100% freedom from inside, so, government destroy this document (paper) now!
(1d) This man, Lam, I don't trust him, cause he talk with two month, one by HK and one by CN, and he twist with the word too, not talk by clearly answer, but by guess answer, he is smart boy, advocate, yeah, he can twist the words, it's his job to doing this, not so good, so, I will first see in his heart, where he really belong? To HK? Or to CN? I think he is for majority win, not for HK, not for CN! freedom of speech!
The real threat to judicial independence in common law legal systems is not external but internal from the judge-made rule of absolute judicial immunity from accountability. Said Prof Mauro Cappelletti, the “ultimate value of the judicial function” is “to have a decision taken by an impartial third person after the parties have had a fair opportunity to present and defend their case.” These two basic rules of natural justice – or due process – are vital to the “impartiality and fairness of the proceeding.” Predictably, the window of opportunity which absolute judicial immunity gives to judges who are prepared to abuse their powers so long as there is no accountability devalues the ultimate value of the judicial function both theoretically and in examinable real life cases. If English-style justice systems (or any others) are to have the greatest achievable integrity, fairness and justice that they should achieve, absolute judicial immunity needs to be abolished and replaced with sensibly qualified judicial immunity – such as has long existed in Ireland (despite having a common law legal system), Germany, Greece, Italy and Sweden. But that eminently worthy improvement will never happen so long as misguided or protectionist common law judiciaries bamboozle complacent governments, legislators and the people into looking the other way when judges abuse or exceed the powers granted to them under constitutional law.
Michael Scott
U are good! good talk! destroy this paper, it's not law paper, it's not make by gekwalificeerde justitiële immuniteit, it's make by rechters misbruik!!! Learn Learn Learn HK!!! Help them mr. ... ... ... (Y)
Worrying that the Law Society would view the document as positive; it must be overrun by the communist sympathiser.... This cancer is eating up our society....




SCMP.com Account