Pan-democrats march from Wan Chai to the government’s headquarters in Tamar, Admiralty, to oppose the government’s proposal on amending the law on the transfer of fugitives on March 31. Photo: Winson Wong
Opinion
Opinion
by Mike Rowse
Opinion
by Mike Rowse
Hong Kong’s extradition law controversy could have been avoided if officials spoke truth to power
While Chief Executive Carrie Lam seems determined to push through the change to Hong Kong’s laws on the transfer of fugitives, did her subordinates raise the concerns that would inevitably arise from various sectors?
The Hong Kong government’s well-intentioned plan to amend our arrangements for extradition of fugitives has run into trouble. This raises questions about governance and willingness within Carrie Lam Cheng Yuet-ngor’s administration to speak truth to power.
The impetus for the change to the fugitive transfer laws sprang from a case in which a Hongkonger allegedly murdered his girlfriend while they were holidaying in Taiwan last year. The man subsequently returned to Hong Kong where he was arrested for other relatively minor offences. Taiwanese authorities sought his return to the island to face murder charges there but there are no general provisions for the transfer of criminal suspects to Taiwan. The mother of the woman who was killed has pleaded for a change in the law to secure justice for her daughter.
Thus, the government has proposed amendments to the Fugitive Offenders Ordinance and the Mutual Assistance in Legal Matters Ordinance, which would apply to all legal jurisdictions that do not at present have a full-scale cooperation agreement with Hong Kong. The three-week consultation period that followed seems remarkably short for such a major piece of legislation.
The simplest way the suspect’s return could have been achieved might have been a one-off arrangement – existing Hong Kong law does provide for case-based surrender. The pan-democrats have now proposed such a plan.
They have quoted as a precedent the case of a daughter being allowed to donate part of her liver to save her mother’s life despite being below the statutory minimum age for organ donors. Suitable legislation was drafted to allow the donation to be made, though it was ultimately not needed as another donor was found.
The inclusion of Macau and mainland China in addition to Taiwan in the draft legislation, the range of offences and whether such legislation should have retrospective effect have also proved controversial.
On the question of scope, it appears that the government is taking advantage of a very sad individual case to make sweeping changes to an important piece of legislation. Every Hong Kong parent will empathise with the deceased’s family, but it is not honourable to try to harness that sympathy to rush through a wide-ranging set of amendments.
While Secretary for Security John Lee Ka-chiu, a former policeman, can perhaps be excused for seeing this as a simple tidying-up exercise, what about his more politically attuned colleagues? Did Secretary for Home Affairs Lau Kong-wah warn that in the present climate, anything touching on the mainland was bound to be controversial? Did Secretary for Justice Teresa Cheng Yeuk-wah warn that this was a piece of legislation with significant ramifications and should not be rushed? Were Lau and Cheng consulted early enough to influence the decision?
Would it have been better to have stuck to a much more restricted range of offences for Greater China, say murder, rape and kidnapping? If those worked smoothly, the range could later be extended.
The business sector complained loudly when the changes were first proposed, so that the crimes to be covered were cut from 46 to 37. Surely Secretary for Commerce and Economic Development Edward Yau Tang-wah should have anticipated such a reaction.
Secretary for Security John Lee, Chief Executive Carrie Lam and Secretary for Transport and Housing Frank Chan hold a press conference on the cross-harbour tunnels, Sha Tin-Central link and the proposed changes to Hong Kong’s extradition law at the government headquarters at Tamar, Admiralty, on March 26. Photo: Sam Tsang
I recently attended a seminar organised by an international chamber of commerce in Hong Kong on cases of corporate failure. For example, Volkswagen incorporated special software to cover up the fact that its vehicles could not meet environmental emission standards. The staff of Wells Fargo opened thousands of accounts in the name of unwitting customers to meet aggressive business targets.
In both cases, the top leadership had not created a culture of speaking truth to power. Had they done so, those at more junior levels encouraged by their direct supervisors to break or skirt the law would surely have raised objection. Many believe those in senior positions did actually know, but even if they did not, they were still culpable for failing to create the right culture.
It is incumbent on Lam to ensure that this weakness does not take root in the top echelons of the Hong Kong government. The management gurus’ next study subject is Boeing. Take it from me, it will not end well.
