Public Eye | One year after Occupy Central, the world is no longer buzzing to support Hong Kong's democracy
A year ago, the city was raw with anger. Live television images of riot police raining tear gas on citizens had seared the public psyche. A defiant uprising that came to be known as the "umbrella movement" lit the world's imagination, pushing Hong Kong into the glare of the international media. The movement's leading players boastfully declared "the eyes of the world are on us" - a warning to Beijing and the Leung Chun-ying administration not to crush the uprising. The world indeed was watching. Tent communes occupying key districts and a sea of yellow umbrellas fascinated the foreign media and spooked foreign leaders who feared a colour revolution that would be crushed by the People's Liberation Army. Well, the world has lost interest. If it really cared, wouldn't it have been opportune on the first anniversary of the democracy uprising for Barack Obama to press for Hong Kong's case during his recent summit with President Xi Jinping ? He didn't, even though the US is supposed to champion global democracy. The harsh reality is that Hong Kong is on its own in its fight for democracy. Will history judge Occupy as a success or failure? The jury is still out. But pro-democracy politicians are already running scared about how voters will judge them in the upcoming elections for their roles in the uprising. Most shunned Monday's ceremony marking Occupy's first anniversary. This is puzzling. If they believe occupying parts of the city for 79 days to press for democracy had the people's support, they should be cocksure of winning instead of fearing what they did has become political baggage.
Public Eye staunchly believes judicial independence is crucial for preserving Hong Kong's way of life. We are dismissive of those who say judges should be seen as part of the administration. We hold equal contempt for those in the pro-democracy camp who cry political persecution when judges rule against them. Such claims insult our judges. But we are also dismissive of those who say only including foreign judges in our top court can guarantee judicial independence. Former chief justice Andrew Li Kwok-nang argued recently for a permanent presence of foreign judges in our top court. Not only does that imply local judges can't be trusted to safeguard judicial independence on their own, it could also be construed by some as racist. Li didn't name names but was mocking mainland legal scholar Rao Geping, who had said our top court should eventually scrap foreign judges. Public Eye is not siding with Rao, whose position was politically-driven. We're just saying it's nonsense to insinuate, as Li did, that only the presence of a white man can win local and international trust in our judicial system. The Court of Final Appeal consists of the chief justice, currently Geoffrey Ma Tao-li, and three Hong Kong permanent judges plus an overseas judge. Public Eye would like to believe top court judges have enough integrity to protect independence without the presence of a foreign judge.