Based on statements by Secretary for Justice Elsie Leung Oi-sie to provisional legislators, the public may never know why newspaper tycoon Sally Aw Sian was not charged in the alleged circulation fraud involving the Hong Kong Standard newspaper. Amid mounting pressure from the public for Miss Leung to expand on her decision, the justice chief was at pains to explain the Government's prosecution policy, hoping to allay concern about the case. Understandably, Miss Leung cannot comment on the affair on the grounds that it would be sub judice, but the public must find her insistence on not offering a firm commitment to tell the full story at the end of the case somewhat puzzling. Hong Kong people listened to her appeal for patience and trust in the judicial system. They also heard that during the trial of three newspaper executives, the evidence would become open to the public. They noted her pledge to be held responsible if her decision not to prosecute was proved wrong. The remarks gave the impression that after the evidence has come out, there would be sufficient information available to the public to make a judgment on her decision, and that Miss Leung would then be in a position to argue her case. But disturbingly, in explaining why she could not make a firm undertaking to tell the whole story after the trial, Miss Leung left us with another impression - that not all of the evidence would become available to the public. She said: 'There are different scenarios. The defendants might admit guilt, be convicted or discharged. It also depends on how much evidence is disclosed. I hope I can make a statement, but I am not sure if I can.' As far as the public is concerned, the contradiction apparent in these statements is a recipe for suspicion. Saying that she was not sure whether she could make a statement at the end of the case is tantamount to telling the public that her reason for not prosecuting may never be clarified. What will happen if, at the end of the trial, Miss Leung concludes she cannot say more? How will the public react? Will they conclude, from the outset, Miss Leung has no intention of holding herself accountable? Will they take her statements on Monday as no more than a delaying tactic, aimed at cooling down public outcry? Will they be even more suspicious that Miss Leung's decision has been coloured by considerations other than the normal prosecution principles? These are hypothetical questions. But as Miss Leung has admitted, she might have underestimated public reaction to the case. She should also be prepared for an equally intense reaction if she concludes she cannot clarify her decision. It is laudable that Miss Leung holds herself responsible for the decision made. What is at stake now is not her career, but Hong Kong people's faith in the rule of law. The SAR Government is at a critical phase in building up its credibility. Every single act taken by the administration will be judged not only locally but overseas. The rule of law is a pillar of Hong Kong's success. It has to be upheld and justice seen to be done. It is no good for Miss Leung to reiterate that she is acting independently and urge the public to trust her judgment. People believe in what they see, not what they hear. We trust our system, not individuals. Miss Leung must come up with concrete steps to assure the community that no one can act above the law. If she believes her present approach will satisfy the public's queries at the conclusion of the trial, she will be proved wrong. In the end, she will not only fail to instil public confidence, but also risks challenges to the sweeping powers she presently enjoys.
