Why Hong Kong need not get defensive about national security
Published: 9:30am, 27 Jan 2025
In the eight-and-a-half years that I led InvestHK, the major factor we always put front and centre in our pitch to potential foreign investors was Hong Kong's legal system: rule of law, use of common law, innocent until proven guilty in criminal cases, respect for private property rights including intellectual property, enforceability of contracts and so on, all administered by an independent judiciary.
In our annual opinion surveys asking foreign companies why they had set up here and what they most liked, the legal system came top of the polls year after year, neck and neck with our low and simple taxes. Because the legal system is at the heart of Hong Kong's success as an international financial and business centre, and because Hong Kong's strength is so important to China's development, those who wish China ill turn their big guns against us, in particular against our judiciary . It explains why US lawmakers have pushed to sanction some of judges and run a non-stop barrage of false criticism. It explains why British judges have come under pressure to quit our Court of Final Appeal. At the ceremony last week to mark the opening of the new legal year, Chief Justice Andrew Cheung Kui-nung referred to the 'orchestrated harassment and pressures' some judges faced. But he assured the public that the quality of the judiciary and its independence had not weakened.
He regretted the departure of some of the overseas non-permanent judges who sit on the top court. Recruiting replacements would be tough in the geopolitical environment, he said, but even without them, our legal system would remain robust given Hong Kong's large pool of qualified legal professionals steeped in common law. The Hong Kong Bar Association outgoing chairman, Senior Counsel Victor Dawes, has described our judges as 'first class' and urged the public to have confidence in their performance. He also had two pieces of advice for the authorities.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Asia Times
2 hours ago
- Asia Times
Why is Stalin back in the Moscow metro?
A statue of Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin was unveiled in the Taganskaya metro station in Moscow in May, recreating a mural that was dismantled decades ago. It is the first such statue to be erected in central Moscow since Stalin's death in 1953 and marks a disturbing new stage in Russia's authoritarian path. Tens of millions of people died as a direct result of Stalin's policies between 1924 and his death. These policies included the forced collectivization of agriculture, the Gulag labor camp system and the 'great terror' – a wave of mass arrests between 1937 and 1938, including of key figures in the army. Yet ultimate victory over Nazi Germany in 1945, with the support of Britain and the US, redeems Stalin in the eyes of Russia's current rulers. For the Russian president, Vladimir Putin, this victory was one of the crowning achievements of the Soviet Union and remains a unifying force in modern Russia. De-Stalinization, which from 1956 to the late 1960s saw the dismantling of Stalin's policies and legacy, meant no statues of him were erected from his death until the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991. But 110 monuments have been built since then (as of the last count, in 2023), with 95 of them erected in the Putin era. The rate of construction multiplied after Russia's 2014 annexation of Crimea. These statues initially tended to be in peripheral parts of the Russian Federation, such as Yakutia, North Ossetia and Dagestan, and not in city centers. The renaming by presidential decree of the airport in Volgograd as Stalingrad in April 2025, to echo the city's wartime name, was thus a significant moment. But the statue in the Moscow metro, an architectural gem in the centre of Russia's capital that is used by millions of people each day, is an even more important symbolic statement. Stalin's reputation in Russia continues to recover. According to a poll from 2015, 45% of the Russian population thought the deaths caused by Stalin's actions were justified (up from 25% in 2012). By 2023, 63% of Russians had an overall positive view of his leadership. This reflects the view promoted in schools and amplified by the Russian media, where criticism of Stalin is rare. Even the 2017 British comedy, The Death of Stalin, was banned in Russia for fear of popping the bubble of public approval. The purpose of rehabilitating Stalin is about boosting support for Putin's regime, training Russians' conformity reflex and instilling pride in their history. But it also has external ramifications. With the partial exception of Georgia, his birthplace, Stalin is widely reviled by Russia's neighboring countries, which were often the victims of Stalin's repressive policies. This is especially true of Ukraine. A famine known to Ukrainians as the Holodomor was deliberately imposed there between 1932 and 1933 as part of collectivization and killed as many as 3.8 million people. As a result, his death unleashed de-Stalinization accompanied by the destruction of his statues all over eastern Europe. This began during the 1956 Budapest uprising and was followed by later such reactions in Prague and elsewhere. The statue of Stalin in Budapest was torn down by demonstrators in 1956. Fortepan adományozó / Wikimedia Commons, CC BY-NC-SA After the uprisings were put down, Stalin's place was typically taken by the less controversial Vladimir Lenin, the revolutionary leader who founded the Soviet Union. But since the 2014 Maidan revolution in Ukraine, which culminated in the ousting of pro-Russian president Viktor Yanukovych, Ukrainians have also been pulling down statues of Lenin. Other Soviet-era symbols have also been torn down in a wave of demonstrations known as Leninopad or Leninfall . This is what has informed the latest intensification of Stalin-washing. The Ukrainian refutation of the symbolic heritage of the Soviet Union seems to have supercharged the Russian embrace of it, Stalin included. Russia has restored statues of Lenin in the Ukrainian territories it occupies. And it has now also started erecting statues of Stalin, notably in the southeastern city of Melitopol, where a statue was unveiled in May to commemorate the 80th anniversary of the Soviet Union's victory in the second world war. This is against the law in Ukraine, where there is a ban on pro-Communist (and pro-totalitarian) symbolism. Russian forces have meanwhile been destroying memorials to the Holodomor in a battle over the meaning of the Soviet legacy. The re-elevation of Stalin promotes a narrow interpretation of his rule, stressing Russia's military strength. Modern statues typically portray Stalin in a military uniform and evoke a sense of him as a victorious wartime leader. In fact, some of the appeal of the symbol of Stalin lies in welfare provisions of his leadership where, despite imposing an often cruelly authoritarian system, education and healthcare were free for all. The same can be said for his use of fear as a work incentive. Russians sometimes still denounce complacent or inept officials with the imprecation: 'If only Stalin was here to sort you out' ( Stalina na vas net in Russian). Nevertheless, it is the imperial version of Stalin that dominates, vindicating Russia's refusal to reckon with its colonial past as the center of the Soviet Union. Stalin's record is sometimes defended within Russia on the basis that Winston Churchill, for instance, remains a British national hero despite a bloody past (such as his role in the Bengal famine of 1943). While there is an element of truth in this, the difference is that Churchill's shortcomings and complicity in the death toll attributable to the British empire are publicly discussed. Such criticism of Stalin is not permitted in Russia. Even the new statue in Moscow was erected under cover of the night, evading public scrutiny and debate. Jeremy Hicks is a professor of post-Soviet cultural history and film at Queen Mary University of London. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
RTHK
3 hours ago
- RTHK
G7 leaders urge Trump to ease off trade war
G7 leaders urge Trump to ease off trade war US President Donald Trump holds a signed trade agreement with Britain during a meeting with British Prime Minister Keir Starmer at the G7 summit. Photo: Reuters World leaders at the Group of Seven summit in Canada on Monday tried to push US President Donald Trump to back away from his punishing trade war that poses a risk to global economic stability. At a summit where host Canada hopes to avoid stoking Trump's anger, and with attention on events in the Middle East, leaders still urged the US leader to reverse course on his plans to slap even steeper tariffs on countries across the globe as early as next month. "Several participants asked to end the tariff dispute as soon as possible. They argued that this dispute weakens the G7's economies and in the end will only strengthen China," a senior German official told reporters on condition of anonymity. The six other countries urged Trump to end his trade conflict as soon as possible, telling him that his protectionist policies were only "damaging to ourselves," the official added. Most countries represented at the G7 are already subject to a 10 percent baseline tariff imposed by Trump, under a temporary easing of higher rates, with European countries and Japan also slapped with additional levies on cars and steel and aluminum. Britain in May was the first country to sign a preliminary deal with Washington to avoid deeper tariffs, and the two leaders at the G7 said they had agreed on the accord's final points and signed the agreement. "I like them. That's the ultimate protection," Trump told reporters after a meeting with British Prime Minister Keir Starmer on the G7 sidelines. Trump opened a folder to display the signed documents, only for the paperwork to slide out and spread across the ground. "Oops, sorry about that," he said as Starmer scrambled to gather up the loose sheets and stuff them back in the folder. The trade issue is of particular interest to Canada after the Trump administration announced several extra levies on Canadian imports in recent months, throwing the country's economic future into deep uncertainty. After a meeting between Trump and Prime Minister Mark Carney, the Canadian government indicated that the two sides could come to a trade truce deal in the next 30 days. Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum will also have her face-to-face time with Trump as her country tries to renegotiate its three-way North American free trade agreement that also includes Canada. Dozens of countries are locked in negotiations with Washington to clinch some sort of trade deal before the US imposes stinging reciprocal tariffs, threatened for July 9. But US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent last week said that the date could be pushed back later for countries thought to be negotiating in good faith. German Chancellor Friedrich Merz told reporters he would team up with his counterparts from France and Italy to discuss the US trade threat with Trump directly. (AFP)
HKFP
19 hours ago
- HKFP
Hong Kong justice minister downplays departure of foreign judges, says numbers ‘not main point'
Hong Kong's justice chief has downplayed the departure of foreign judges in recent years, saying it is not about their numbers but whether the judges have 'a good international reputation.' Secretary for Justice Paul Lam told Cable News in an interview published on Monday that the city's foreign judges system was still effective. 'There are new [foreign] appointed judges who are willing to join. Would you say [the system] is useless?' Lam said in Cantonese. 'If they think they wouldn't make any contribution if they were to come here, [I] believe they would not come to Hong Kong to help,' he added. The top official's comments follow a recent exodus of foreign judges from the city's top court. The most recent departure was former Australian justice Robert French, who resigned in April and said the role of foreign judges in the court had become 'arguably cosmetic.' In June, a New Zealand judge, William Young, joined the city's Court of Final Appeal (CFA). There are currently six overseas judges in the top court, compared with 15 at its peak. Lam told Cable News that the number of foreign judges was 'not the main point.' 'It's about what type of people come, and whether they have a good international reputation,' he said. The justice minister also dismissed Hong Kong's fall in the global rule of law index. 'Regarding human rights and freedoms, I believe that their ranking of Hong Kong… does not reflect the actual situation. This might be an issue of external perception,' he said, adding that Western countries often did not have a 'comprehensive' judgement of Hong Kong. Top court exodus Since the CFA's establishment in 1997, it has sporadically extended invitations to judges from other common law jurisdictions to join its panel. This practice has been regarded as a testament to the international community's trust in the city's judicial system. Last year, however, the apex court lost five judges. Anthony Murray Gleeson from Australia did not renew his term when it ended in February 2024, citing old age; UK judges Jonathan Sumption and Lawrence Collins quit in June 2024 before their terms ended; while Canada's Beverley McLachlin and the UK's Nicholas Phillips did not extend their terms. Sumption wrote an opinion piece for the Financial Times just days after his resignation, saying Hong Kong was 'slowly becoming a totalitarian state.' Judges operate in an 'almost impossible political environment created by China,' he said. Before the recent string of departures, two British judges in 2022, Robert Reed and Patrick Hodge, quit the CFA, citing the erosion of political freedoms.
