tim's experiment

Look at this way. If Mr Zhang Xiaoming, chief of the central government’s liaison office in Hong Kong, had stood up at a public function and said that the Occupy Central movement was organised by little green men as a preparation for a Martian invasion, we would all have giggled. But the Martian invasion theory cannot be dismissed as totally off the planet, as it were. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. We may feel it is a long shot but it cannot be positively disproved. Perhaps there was a Martian connection.

What Mr Zhang did say at a recent celebration of the 25th anniversary of the Basic Law, on the other hand, was not just unlikely but palpably and demonstrably wrong. The Chief Executive of the SAR, according to Mr Zhang, “possesses a special legal position”. For this reason he was above the executive, legislature and judiciary … “his power is not limited to leading the Hong Kong administration”.  Mr Zhang’s first error was to include the word “legal”. Of course we may well suppose that the CE does enjoy a special position – he enjoys the protection and advice (usually bad) of the Liaison Office. If he is in real trouble he can call on the support of the PLA. But we cannot deduce his legal position from observations of this kind. His legal position derives from the law, specifically in this instance from the relevant articles of the Basic Law, which specify his powers and role, as well as those of the other parts of the government. Mr Zhang’s fundamental error is to suppose that the law is whatever he says it is. This is the way things work on the mainland, but it is not yet the way things work here.

Let us suppose that you are accused of a crime. Let us further suppose that the Chief Executive publicly orders the court to convict you. This is a clear breach of Hong Kong law. The court will disregard the order. The CE will be prosecuted (albeit, the way things are done these days, very slowly). If it is argued in his defence that he enjoys a special legal superiority over the courts, conferred by the chief of the Liaison Office, then the defence will fail. Legal authority in the Hong Kong system derives only from the law, as interpreted by judges. Mr Zhang’s pronouncements enjoy no special status and indeed if he breaks the law himself he will be arrested and (extremely slowly) prosecuted. At least in theory. This is what the rule of law means, among other things.

Not content with annoying the simple by elevating the CE to godlike status Mr Zhang proceeded to irritate the constitutionally sophisticated by chatting about that mysterious beast, the separation of powers. The separation of powers was invented in the 18th century by the French political theorist Montesquieu, who picked up a moderate version of the idea from Blackstone and, as French intellectuals tend to do, carried it to its logical conclusion. The power of government commonly takes three forms, according to the theory – to run the country, which is executive, to make laws, which is legislative, and to adjudge disputes, which is judicial. Montesquieu claimed that the English system owed its success to the fact that the “three powers” were separated. In his defence we should perhaps note that the alternative political model in 18th century Europe was absolute monarchy, in which the powers were not separated at all. Still, it is now generally agreed that the three powers were not actually separated in the 18th century. Nor are they now. The idea had much influence on the framers of the American constitution, but it is impractical. Some overlap cannot be avoided. Even in America the President appoints some judges and his approval is required for legislation. Congress has unavoidable power over policy because it controls the purse strings.

So when Mr Zhang says, as he did, that “Hong Kong is not a political system that exercises the separation of powers — not before the handover and not after the handover — ” What can one say? No shit, Sherlock, perhaps. Or Doh!

I suspect that Mr Zhang was not really addressing the Hong Kong audience at all. There seems to be a backstage tussle going on between those who think that Hong Kong’s problems can be solved by redressing grievances and reforming the system, and those who think they can be solved by repressing dissent. It is suggested — and when dealing with a secretive organisation I realise that this may be unfair — that the Liaison Office is pushing for repression and the Hong Kong and Macau Affairs Office in Beijing for reform and redress. This sort of controversy can run and run. A similar argument over Ireland preoccupied English governments for four centuries. Clearly any attempt to soothe rugged feelings by giving the people what they want will have to start with the thought that C.Y. Leung should be removed from the scene as soon as decently possible. But he is the Liaison Office’s pick. So any attempt to remove him from his pedestal would imply (quelle horreur!) a bad choice by them in the first place. Better to provide a higher pedestal. Personally I think the priorities in the Dump CY campaign are misplaced. It would be more useful to get rid of Mr Zhang.

Read Full Post »

Sit down children. We have been urged to learn the lessons of history but those lessons have been much mangled lately so let us straighten a few things out.

1. China did not win World War Two. In fact if it had been left up to the Chinese war effort we would all be speaking Japanese now. Chinese people suffered terribly, but the efforts made on their behalf were totally unsuccessful. They were rescued by the Russians, like the rest of us.
2. The atom bombs did not end World War Two. Never mind the argument about whether the Japanese were sincerely considering surrender before the bombs were dropped. If you look at the records of Cabinet meetings afterwards the atomic bombing was scarcely mentioned. The US Air Force had been incinerating Japanese cities by less technological methods for months. This was not a government to be discouraged by civilian casualties. The decisive point was that the Russians had declared war on Japan and would, as they did, rapidly “liberate” the occupied parts of China, and gobble a few fragments of Japan itself.
3. The Communist Party did not win the Civil War because of all that interesting metaphorical stuff about the fish and the sea, surrounding the cities with the countryside and such like. There were big setpiece battles and sieges of mediaeval ferocity. The Party’s advantage was that the Russians handed them an army’s worth of good conventional equipment. The Americans were less generous to the nationalists and their stuff was not as good.
4. Since the war the PLA has seen action in North Vietnam, India, Russia, Tibet and Korea. In that time Japan has had a pacifist constitution and followed it. The Chinese constitution is rewritten every ten years or so and nobody follows it anyway. Who would you regard as an uneasy neighbour?
5. Parades for Peace???

Read Full Post »

This blog was not supposed to be a running commentary on the eccentricities of Hong Kong’s magistrates. But someone has to say it. Standards appear to have collapsed. I realize that cases with a political flavour put the impartiality of justice under a strain to which it may not be accustomed. But that is no excuse for abandoning basic standards.

So, here we have Eastern Court magistrate Lee Siu-ho, hearing a case of alleged unlawful assembly. The defendant, a sixth former now 18 years old, was apparently detected sitting on a central divider and throwing a plastic traffic cone into the road during an Occupy protest last October. Proceedings continued along the normal channels until defending counsel’s closing argument, which was that the prosecution had failed to prove a necessary ingredient in the offence. An assembly, lawful or otherwise, must comprise more than one person and the evidence only showed that defendant Law Cheuk-yan had acted alone.

A lay observer might suppose at this point that young Mr Law was ten minutes away from the standard interview on the courthouse steps, averring his undying faith in Hong Kong justice, and his gratitude to all concerned for a finding of not guilty. But this is not what happened. The learned magistrate then announced that he was going to change the charge to one of disorder in a public place. Mr Lee then convicted Mr Law of the new charge, and adjourned the case for reports before sentencing.

The law on this matter is quite clear, and indeed Mr Lee demonstrated his awareness of the point by citing the ordinance concerned, Section 27 of the Magistrates Ordinance. Section 27 says that a magistrate may amend defects and variances in complaints, information and summonses before him that are not material (my italics). In other words the magistrate is free to overlook misprints, errors in addresses or names, and similar trivia if they do not affect the substance of the matter before him. This does not provide carte blanche for the magistrate, having heard both sides of the matter, to delete the charge on which he would have had to aquit the defendant, and replace it with another more promising for the prosecution. Clearly if the defence has been that an essential element of the original charge was not proven, then it is highly material to replace the charge with one that does not have this requirement. After all the defence is entitled not only to make the defence it wishes, but also not to make others which in the circumstances are not necessary. If Mr Law and his counsel had known the charge would be disorder then they might have concentrated on other matters, considered other arguments, and sought other witnesses.

Authorities on these matters have different ideas about when in the proceedings the defendant should be told what is the charge he faces. But they generally concurr in the view that this point should come before the end of the presentation of his defence. Then there is the Hong Kong Bill of Rights Ordinance, which states that “everyone shall be entitled to a fair and public hearing by a competent, independent and impartial tribunal”. Mr Law may well feel that his treatment did not come up to this standard. Mr Law (an interesting name in the context) may feel that there is an ass involved here. And it is not him.

Read Full Post »