In this regard, the administration's proposal in the policy commitments to hasten the use of Chinese in the highest level of courts without ensuring that we are fully prepared for it is a matter for grave concern.

There is no doubt that the greater use of Chinese in court makes the courts more accessible to more people. In appropriate cases, it may increase efficiency. Moreover, when most local inhabitants are Chinese, direct communication with the court in that language is highly desirable.

However, it must be equally recognised that the adaptation of the common law and its processes into a different language is not a simple matter, and certainly should not be left to chance. We must not compromise the high standard of professionalism which we have enjoyed, and reduce legal arguments to the kind of moral platitudes the mythical Judge Pao is prone to propagate. Take away that professionalism, and we risk losing the confidence of the world.

The use of Chinese in court is sometimes advocated as if it is the easiest thing; that a Chinese-speaking lawyer means a lawyer who can, with only the most informal trial and error, render the law in the Chinese language. All he needs is a glossary of legal terms. I am astonished at such a view. No one in Hong Kong can have a clearer appreciation than those who are involved in the translation of the law, how difficult it is to express in Chinese both fluently and accurately the legal concepts and ideas to which we have become familiar in English.

If professional linguists, law draftsmen and practitioners dedicated to the task, putting their heads together, still find this a daunting task, how can we expect this instantly from every lawyer and judge? It must also be recognised that Chinese comes more naturally for certain cases, and less so in others. In criminal cases or when dealing with factual evidence, using Chinese may present less difficulty, though it must not be assumed that this is always the case. But what is proposed in the policy commitment makes no such distinction.

Chinese will be introduced in the High Court for criminal proceedings in January, and by March extended to civil proceedings. By July, Chinese may be used in the Court of Final Appeal. Some time before that, presumably, Chinese may be used in the Court of Appeal, where arguments on the law are predominant.

Given this schedule, where is the supply of judges and practitioners to deal with cases in Chinese? If Chinese is to be used at a party's election to do so, with a public being irresponsibly fed the idea that he can choose either language freely, what is the demand the courts are expected to cope with? Further, will it mean the rapid rejection of non-Chinese speaking lawyers and judges, and proficiency in ordinary Chinese will replace legal expertise as the priority qualification? The administration must be realistic and responsible. A careful approach is needed, with an honest assessment of how well-equipped we are to proceed.

Each step should be taken only after adequate preparations. At the same time, systematic preparations must be launched as soon as possible. This does not mean just teaching judges how to write judgments in erudite Chinese quoting edifying ancient texts one afternoon a week, but the thorough discussion of fundamental concepts of common law and how they may best be expressed in Chinese.

This discussion should be held with judges, academics and practitioners so that a common understanding is forged as far as possible. If we can do this well, then we will not only preserve the common law system in Hong Kong; Hong Kong will have made a unique contribution to the development of law in the Chinese-speaking world.

The same principle goes for the translation of laws. A huge amount of manpower and funds in the Attorney-General's Chambers are being expended on this. His paramount concern appears to be to complete a translation of all Hong Kong laws in time for the transition, without regard for the practical value of such an exercise, or how impracticable it is to expect a high standard of legal drafting to be met.

Certainly no one whom I have met, including lawyers and judges, has found the Chinese text comprehensible. At the end of the day the whole thing may just be a white elephant. Indeed it may do harm, when these texts are used in real-life litigation. The obsession about things Chinese should be replaced with a dedication to strive for the highest standard of professionalism in the Attorney-General's chambers. Otherwise localisation can never be a true success.

I find it amazing that far more manpower resources are devoted to the study of Chinese law, computerising the China Law database, and offering training to Chinese lawyers, than to those studies, training, and databases which would strengthen the understanding of the common law among Hong Kong lawyers and government officials.

The administration of justice requires that we are equipped with the necessary laws. In this respect, the localisation of US legislation which hitherto has underpinned our legal system is of great importance. But even laws essential to the fundamental right of personal liberty such as the British Habeas Corpus Act, remains of uncertain status.

This is clearly the wrong priority. How can we be so busy publishing China Law Quarterlies, while laws protecting the rights of the individual in our own system are left unattended? The most disappointing area in the administration of justice is legal aid. This should be the working end of the rule of law, the assurance that ordinary people will have access to the courts.

Yet here there is the least progress - not even an attempt at a 'preparation for the transition' section in the policy commitment. It was under the threat of the administration that no other or better proposal would be forthcoming, that Legco passed the law to establish a non-independent Legal Aid Services Council. Although it is in its term of reference that Legco should study the feasibility of an independent legal aid authority, its chairman has already been reported to say that this is a matter of secondary importance.

It is necessary to look into the provision of legal aid seriously. How can the administration hold out on one hand, that the greater use of Chinese will make the law more accessible, while on the other, restrict legal aid, knowing that without the help of a legal representative, the ordinary citizen will find most legal processes an intimidating mystery? If we were serious about the administration of justice, we must encourage people to seek legal aid. We must eliminate undue delays and unreasonable restrictions on the scope of legal aid to give help where help is sorely needed, such as providing legal representatives for the child and for the guardian in care and protection proceedings, and for the deceased's family at inquests. We must adopt a caring attitude towards applicants and clients, and become keen on customer satisfaction and effective publicity. The establishment of an independent legal aid authority remains an urgent matter, because many of the present discouragements for better services are inherent in the fact that the legal aid is run by a government department.

Broadening the access to the courts is the best assurance for the appreciation of the rule of law. Why is it not regarded by the administration as an important preparation for the transition? As Hong Kong hurtles towards July 1, 1997, many people believe that the best way to prepare for the transition is to become as purely Chinese as possible - or at any rate, appear as Chinese as possible. So it is with the policy commitment: for 'Preparation for the Transition', one may as well read 'How to be Chinese'. This is fundamentally wrong. The transition is not just about being Chinese, it is about Hong Kong people governing Hong Kong. It is about keeping Hong Kong's systems unchanged and separate from those of the mainland. It is about taking responsibility for the autonomy which is entrusted to us in the Joint Declaration and Basic Law.

The question is not about how to be Chinese. The question is what makes Hong Kong, Hong Kong. For this uniqueness is what we are enjoined to maintain, so that Hong Kong can best play its role and make its contribution not only to China's modernisation or to international trade, but to the Chinese civilisation, to the development of the world. Hong Kong will have its place in history, and we, the people of Hong Kong, will help earn her place by developing the best of what is 'made in Hong Kong', from goods to people to institutions.

The great debate of what makes Hong Kong what it is has begun. With his address to Legco, the Governor has made his contribution to it. He thinks what makes Hong Kong so wonderful is superior British systems harnessed to Chinese elbow grease. I do not agree. He thinks what characterises Hong Kong people is their origins as refugees in search of freedom and their rights. I do not agree.

I would say that, not forgetting our historical background, what makes Hong Kong, Hong Kong is the generations which have grown up in it and with it and, hankering for no other place on earth, have made this place their own, have made this place work to achieve their own ambition by serving the needs of others, by always choosing the best of the world, and irreverently adapting each to Hong Kong's own use. And Hong Kong's future lies in remaining proficiently bilingual and cultural, always open to outside influence, always looking for choice and never settling for second best.

Just for illustration, Legco members have frequently been told in the course of council business, that such-and-such a provision in a bill or such-and-such a policy proposal is to be recommended because it is the same in Britain. Almost every time I would reject this as a reason for accepting, and almost every time, members would ask for the practice or provision in other countries. We have always endeavoured to understand and compare, and choose what is most suitable for us. Where none is satisfactory, we have invented our own.

We should follow through with this same spirit, with even greater insistence, the closer the transition draws.