Advertisement

Letters

Reading Time:5 minutes
Why you can trust SCMP

HK's judiciary still stuck in colonial past

Advertisement

John Smith, a reader from South Africa, objects to Elena Kagan's nomination to the US Supreme Court ('Reject Kagan', July 2). He opines that the nominee lacks a 'mature philosophy of judging' and her approach to legal interpretation deviates from public opinion.

Her strengths and weaknesses are widely commented on in the world's leading media.

Mr Smith's interest in airing his view on judicial appointments in the US contrasts with the general public's blind faith in, or indifference to, everything judicial in Hong Kong.

Judicial appointments in the US are democratically decided, either indirectly by presidential nominations subject to congressional approval for federal courts, or directly by popular elections for the state courts, with the nominee's background and political stance subject to public scrutiny.

Advertisement

In contrast, a judicial appointment in Hong Kong is a secretive process, very much like the papal selection. Public opinion is immaterial because the public is accustomed to the judiciary as a colonial legacy where judges, who work in a foreign language, interpret laws according to legal principles the origin and development of which are outlandish to the native people.

The irony of Hong Kong's democratic movement is that enthusiasts who clamour for the right to elect lawmakers unquestioningly accept their powerlessness in the selection of judicial officers who interpret the law. This irony reflects Hong Kong's democratic immaturity.

loading
Advertisement