The letter from solicitors Jonathan Midgley and Christopher Morley ('Mainly Cantonese used in courts', February 18) misrepresented the issue, which is that Hongkongers are denied the right to be heard in their own language, Cantonese, in court.
Nowhere did my letter say that trials are conducted largely in English. Is this lawyer-speak?
They report that 76 per cent of trials in magistrates' courts were heard in Cantonese last year. This leaves almost a quarter that were not. Given that Hong Kong is a largely Chinese city, how many of the 24 per cent would have preferred their cases to be heard in Cantonese, but were denied this right? This is the point that I made, and that was not addressed.
The media has highlighted examples of people denied the right to language choice, probably because either the judge or the lawyers involved were illiterate in Cantonese. How can we continue to deny people justice in their own language and force them to be heard in a foreign one? I urge Secretary for Justice Wong Yan-lung to find out how many people would rather have been heard in Cantonese, but were not.
NAME AND ADDRESS SUPPLIED
Progress in democracy