My Take | The wigs may go, but the core legal principles must remain
- Assessments of how Hong Kong’s legal system is faring often focus on how much it has stayed the same. Appearances, however, can be deceptive
Just before Hong Kong’s return to China, 25 years ago, I bought an artwork that reflected uncertainties about the future of the legal system at the time. It showed a young Chinese barrister looking pensive, set against the national flag.
A year later, I showed a visiting Australian lawyer around the High Court. “Business as usual,” he said. “The only difference is the five stars on the wall.”
The common law system inherited from Britain is so integral to Hong Kong’s success and way of life, assessments of how it is faring often focus on how much it has stayed the same.
Even in 1998, there had been some changes. The higher courts were given different names. The Court of Final Appeal was established. And the judges began interpreting the new de facto constitution, the Basic Law. The big constitutional battles began.
But, as the Australian lawyer said, anyone visiting a court a year after the handover would not have noticed much difference. Even the traditional wigs and gowns worn by judges had survived.
The same would be true today. An observer might notice fewer foreign judges and more cases heard in Cantonese. Otherwise, proceedings would seem little changed.
Appearances can, however, be deceptive. Hong Kong has been transformed in recent years by civil unrest and a new national security law. The political divisions in society and need for judges to apply the security law have inevitably had an impact on the judiciary. Once again, there are uncertainties and concerns about what the future will bring.