tim's experiment

I seem to be spending far too much time pointing out the deficiencies of our beloved government (no shortage of material, thanks) so let us keep this quick.

The Hong Kong government appoints judges. The Hong Kong government also makes laws. So when one of the judges whom the government has appointed finds that the government is in breach of one of the laws it has passed, the correct response is contrition, not a public attack on the motives of the plaintiff. It does not matter whether the person who asked the court to rule against the Environmental Impact Assessment on the Macau Bridge was motivated by spite, public spirit, affection for clean air, affection for the rule of law, or affection for the Civic Party. The judge is not a member of the Civic Party and his verdict requires respect and contrition from our Chief Executive, not a freshly minted conspiracy theory.

The government is, it says, going to appeal. Now it is of course a fundamental legal principle that judges in the Court of Appeal would not be influenced by anything they would read in the newspapers. Nor would they discuss an upcoming case with a government official, however senior. Still, for the benefit of those lay members of the public who did not receive a full legal education it would be a good idea if officials did not continue to complain that “the judgement” was going to cause delays, cost increases or both in all sorts of White Elephants planned or under construction. What is going to cause the delays etc, is the government’s attempt to get away with impact assessments which meet bare minimum requirements, instead of the careful job required by the law and a proper concern for the local environment.  Hearing constant complaints about “the judgement”  people might naively suppose that officials were trying to influence the judges. And that would never do, would it?