Some of us are familiar with the maxim, “For the law holds, that it is better that 10 guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer”. It comes from Sir William Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England published in the 18th century.
As per common law, the government has a duty to put some people in prison to protect others. However, this right to punish people needs an extraordinary degree of justification. One way to justify it is to have the presumption of innocence and to set the bar for proof of guilt very high.
Well, that is the theory and intent of the law as we understand it.
The Hong Kong government has been trying to
muscle through an ill-advised
amendment to the extradition law, which has come under scrutiny by the general public and some political parties and they have started to question the real motives behind it.
The government’s justification for pushing for the changes, that these are aimed at “plugging loopholes” exposed by a homicide case in February last year in which Taiwanese authorities were unable to prosecute
a Hongkonger accused of killing his pregnant girlfriend in Taipei before fleeing to Hong Kong, does not hold water. The government’s reasoning has, in effect, turned Blackstone’s maxim upside down.
Now some senior mainland Chinese officials, by
throwing their weight behind the proposed legislation, have added credibility to people’s suspicions.
Support for the “umbrella movement” in 2014 snowballed after the government decided to use
tear gas against peaceful demonstrators. The government should have, from that experience, learnt that adding oil does not put out a fire, unless its motive then was to fan the flames so that they could later use archaic laws
to imprison those who initiated the movement. If that was the case, mission accomplished.
From the
recent ruckus in the Legislative Council, it appears that the political parties which oppose the changes to the law have thrown the dice one last time. With a dysfunctional Legislative Council, a constitutional crisis has been created, which could justify a reinterpretation of the related laws by the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress. Again, mission accomplished.
The lines are already blurred and it is time to accept the fact that “one country, two systems” is no longer viable. Shall we end the facade, throw in the towel and just start following the diktats from the north of the border?
Venkitaraman Krishnan, Cha Kwo Ling
