Advertising a threat to barristers' monopoly
They're for sale, but their services don't come cheap. And you don't get to view them first to see if you like them because they have this thing about advertising themselves. And oh, they like to dress up in gowns and wigs. What are they? No, it's not what you're thinking. Here's another tip - the people we're talking about are even bigger rip-offs. That's right - barristers. That last tip must have given it away.
We're not fooled by all this nonsense about it being undignified for barristers to advertise themselves. It has nothing to do with protecting the tradition of the profession. It has everything to do with protecting pockets. Even with the world's oldest profession we get to shop around and bargain. So why can't we size up barristers before we pay the outrageous fees they demand for their services? What we now have in Hong Kong is a virtual monopoly with the better-known barristers cornering the market, making it almost impossible for the younger ones to find work. Bar Association chairman Rimsky Yuen Kwok-keung wonders why 'lay clients really need the information of barristers to be put in the public arena'. We'll tell you why, Mr Yuen. We don't care about your stuffy tradition. We want to know what we're paying for when so many in the profession charge exorbitant fees. We want to know the price tag up front. We want to make informed decisions on which barrister to pick and not just leave it to the solicitor. More openness will create more competition, which will benefit the public. Should we go on?
What happened to this fraud allegation?
The one thing 29-year-old Chung Yik-tin will remember about this Lunar New Year is that he spent it in jail. The one thing we have a duty to remember about Mr Chung is that he was put behind bars by police officers so star-struck by our pop celebrities that they stumbled over each other catching culprits suspected of posting nude pictures of their idols on the internet. They locked Mr Chung up without even asking the Obscene Articles Tribunal to rule if the single photo he is accused of posting on the internet was obscene. When the public cried foul, they claimed they opposed bail because Mr Chung was also a suspect in a fraud case. It took a newspaper to ask the tribunal if the photo was obscene. When the tribunal ruled that it was not, the police dropped the charge against Mr Chung and asked the court to release him.
What happened to the fraud allegation? Was that simply made up? Or was that never actually so serious as to have him locked up? Are our police so prudish that they can see obscenity in something the Obscene Articles Tribunal cannot? Don't expect any answers from Commissioner of Police Tang King-shing. He's the one who warned us that just possessing the pictures could be a crime. When legal experts laughed that off as nonsense, Mr Tang was unrepentant. 'Everyone has his or her own view.' That's true, Mr Tang, but if you still believe that simply having the pictures is a crime, it's your duty to start arresting all those who have downloaded them.
