After so many blows to the rule of law early this year, it would be remarkable had there not been a slump in public confidence over the integrity of the one-country, two-systems policy. The foundations of the SAR have been severely shaken, and the shock waves are all the greater because the spate of legal rows made such a contrast to the first trouble-free 18 months following the transition. The confusion these rows caused among the public is reflected in the latest survey from the University of Hong Kong.
Faith in the rule of law, and the fairness of the courts, took a jolt in February, but the biggest casualty was a belief in the fairness of the judicial process - plus a 14 per cent drop in confidence in the one-country, two-systems policy.
The decision not to prosecute newspaper tycoon Sally Aw Sian gave rise to a perception, which subsequent events have done nothing to allay, that different standards are applied to the highly placed whether they are in trouble with the law or seeking official support for business ventures. But the underlying anxiety reflected in the findings is less to do with the integrity of court decisions, and more about concerns over the right of abode ruling. Nightmare visions of three million mainland migrants pouring across the border were juxtaposed with worries that the mainland might be preparing to interfere with legal judgments in the SAR.
The unanimous decision of the Court of Final Appeal judges was a resounding victory for the rule of law. But rather than bolstering confidence in the one-country two-systems pledge, reaction was focused on the consternation the ruling caused in Beijing where the independence of the Judiciary from the state is an unfamiliar concept. A follow-on request from Secretary for Justice Elsie Leung Oi-sie for the court to clarify its ruling added to growing anxieties.
In fact, despite the undeniable damage which has been inflicted on the court by Miss Leung's action, the compromise solution appears to have set minds at rest among the public. The court's decision to explain the complex legal points and to emphasise that its ruling posed no challenge to the authority of the National People's Congress Standing Committee satisfied Beijing, and agreement on that front has calmed local fears.
The legal profession continues to warn that the challenge to the authority of Hong Kong's highest court was unacceptable political interference. But the legal implications are subtle and complex, and having weathered such a traumatic start to the year, people are clearly anxious to put the matter behind them, clinging to the hope that such an experience will never be repeated.
