Advertisement
Advertisement
Hong Kong extradition bill
Get more with myNEWS
A personalised news feed of stories that matter to you
Learn more
Hong Kong’s pro-democracy activists, legal professionals, and even its business community have voiced concerns over proposed changes to the extradition law. Photo: AFP

Letters | Hong Kong government must fully address doubts about fair trials for extradited fugitives

  • Dismissing concerns by praising Hong Kong’s legal system is not helpful when it’s not our legal system that detractors of the amended extradition law are worried about
As a former lawyer and law teacher, I was impressed by the article, “Justice demands that we amend our extradition laws”, published on May 13.

In his article, Chief Secretary Mr Matthew Cheung Kin-chung “lays out the case for why Hong Kong should not fear the government’s plan” and he also ably sets out 10 arguments to support the government’s current proposal.

But he did not address the most fundamental issue: whether the person surrendered to another jurisdiction will be given a fair trial there, and how this can be ensured after the person has been handed over.

The government has always been proud to sing the praises of Hong Kong’s legal system, which is supported by our system of the rule of law, observance of the rules of natural justice and compliance with our Bill of Rights based upon international standards and norms.

The assurances offered by officials such as Chief Secretary for Administration Matthew Cheung have yet to win doubters over. Photo: Xiaomei Chen

Our legal system is also supported by jury trials, excellent judges, fair-minded prosecutors and competent lawyers.

Most of all, the Hong Kong government itself ascribes to – and is bound by – the rule of law.

Mr Cheung and all our officials, whether in government or elected to office, are reminded that their first duty – as representatives of the people of Hong Kong – is owed to everyone who is entitled to the protection of our laws.

Extremely careful consideration must be given to any proposal that may see a Hong Kong person protected under Hong Kong’s legal system handed over to a different jurisdiction which may not practise the same legal principles or may enforce a different rule of law system, and where a fair trial cannot be assured.

I shall be grateful if Mr Cheung could publicly respond to the above concerns to dispel the legitimate fears of Hong Kong people.

Winston K.S. Chu, Wan Chai

Post