HK Bar Association says Sinkie Lawyers must Stand Up for Rule of Law and Human Rights

Asterix · Jan 13, 2015

Power siah head of barristers' association
Can tell Attorney General to stop talking cock
Sub-humans blindly obeying law of tyrants
Real men understand law is meant to constrain
Behaviour of populace as well as rulers
Sinkie Law Society President really sub-standard
Disciplining errant lawyers is day to day
Protecting rule of law is the big picture dumbass

Hong Kong’s legal big guns tussle over rule of law
Bar Association head slams Hong Kong officials for feeding public a misleading definition, claiming there is undue emphasis on obeying

The Hong Kong government was accused of feeding the public a misleading explanation of the rule of law - moments after the secretary for justice accused the pro-democracy movement of blatantly challenging the rule of law and after the city's top judge insisted respect for the principle remained undimmed.

The fierce debate over the rule of law - that began in earnest when tens of thousands took to the streets in late September and stayed there for 79 days - spilled over into yesterday's annual gathering to launch the start of the new legal year.

Paul Shieh Wing-tai, outgoing chairman of the Bar Association, slammed officials' explanations of what constituted the rule of law when he took to the podium at City Hall. "There was an increasing tendency on the part of the executive … to emphasise the 'obey the law' aspect," he said.

"To the untrained mind or the unsophisticated, this may sound very respectful to the concept of the rule of law. However, in my view and in the view of the Hong Kong Bar, ironically that could have the opposite effect of misleading the public."

He said that citing the need to "do things according to the law creates the misconception that many phenomena in society are the inevitable consequences of adhering to the law when plainly they are not. Law had become the scapegoat or excuse".

Shieh said rule of law also covered respect for individuals' rights and liberty. He went on to say that Beijing's framework on Hong Kong's political reform was "unreasonably restrictive" but did not justify breaking the law.

His address followed a speech by Secretary for Justice Rimsky Yuen Kwok-keung. The city's top legal official said: "Unfortunately, the rule of law in Hong Kong is facing significant challenges. The recent Occupy movement ... brings about blatant challenges to the rule of law."

He described the rule of law as "the bedrock of democracy and universal suffrage". He added: "Constitutional development or universal suffrage without the rule of law is no different to a house without foundations."

People convicted for their part in the protests who were claiming that they were victims of political retribution were trying to gain "political mileage", Yuen said.

The pursuit of universal suffrage or social justice "cannot and should not be used" as a justification to act in the detriment of rule of law, he added.

Hong Kong's top judge also joined in the debate in his speech. Chief Justice Geoffrey Ma Tao-li said: "There can be no compromise as far as the rule of law is concerned. It is not something from which there can be any deviation nor can there be any room for bargaining in relation to it."

Speaking afterwards, Ma maintained that the public respected the rule of law, now and throughout the recent turbulence. "Overwhelmingly, most people respect the rule of law," he said. "They respected the rule of law before the Occupy movement, and they respect the rule of law after the Occupy movement.

"I did not believe that there was any contrary view that people thought somehow the rule of law was something not to be respected."

Court injunctions - once defied by a relatively small group of protesters - should be respected, Ma added. He also insisted that politics formed no part in judges' decision-making. "The administration of justice by the courts is not, nor can it be, influenced in the slightest by extraneous factors such as politics or political considerations."

Asked about the State Council's white paper last year - which controversially asked judges to be patriotic - Ma stressed that the city enjoyed judicial independence. "This is not something which is my own opinion - it is what the Basic Law says."

Asterix · Jan 15, 2015

Re: HK Bar Association says Sinkie Lawyers must Stand Up for Rule of Law and Human Ri

Some places are indeed blessed
Have independent and free press
Although no genuine universal suffrage
Yet Chief Justice's speech gets coverage

Not of the kind which he would crave
To be told he doesn't fully comprehend
What is the true meaning of rule of law
By chow ang moh journalist is shame

Sinkieland quite poor when it comes
To intangibles that truly matter
Aspire to more than char kway teow
Means must get rid of Lightning

The thumb rule of rule of law
Jake van der Kamp

“Overwhelmingly, most people respect the rule of law. They respected the rule of law before the Occupy movement and they respect the rule of law after the Occupy movement. I do not believe that there was any contrary view that people thought somehow the rule of law was something not to be respected.”

Chief Justice Geoffrey Ma Tao-li
SCMP, January 13

Spot on the money. He spoke the truth, no doubt about it. Water is wet, the Pope is Catholic and most people respect the rule of law. What depth of intellect.

The bigger question here, however, is what our chief justice might mean by rule of law. He seems to mean that people should obey the law and, moreover, that most people agree that people should obey the law.

This is all very well but it is not really what we mean when we speak of rule of law. What we actually mean is that government is bound by the law as much as the lowliest citizen is. If government is in conflict with the law then government must submit to the law. Rule of law comes before rule of government or any other rule at all.

It is why we have a Court of Final Appeal. Its members correct injustices that may have been inflicted in lower courts and they settle thorny points of law but their most important role is to stand up for our constitution, the Basic Law, when government oversteps the bounds of the Basic Law.

Of all people who should understand this crucial point, you would expect our Chief Justice to do so. Yet, oddly, it seems he may not quite appreciate the distinction between the obligation of citizens to obey the law and the obligation of government to abide by the constitution. He certainly appeared to confuse the two in his remarks on Monday at the launch of the new legal year.

He might do well in any case not to lean too heavily on the obligations of dissidents to obey the law. If dissident factions in China just over one hundred years ago had shared his views, there would still be an emperor in Beijing today and Mr Ma might still have his hair in a pigtail instead of being dressed in a silly bib.

... and certain irreverent columnists might more easily be sentenced to the punishment of a thousand cuts, but we shan’t dwell on that theme.

It is true across the world. If Parisians in 1789 had taken the view that law must always be obeyed in all circumstances then Louis the 35th would sit on the throne of France today ... and wouldn’t that just suit the demi-gods of haute couture.

If Americans had agreed in 1776 that tea was for drinking and not for throwing into harbours in illegal demonstrations then Queen Elizabeth would be Empress of Columbia today ... with proper parliamentary government in Washington instead of the present congressional shambles.

Likewise, the Queen would also still be Empress of India if a certain lawyer by the name of Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi had taken his thinking on the rule of law from the likes of our chief justice.

The fact is that constitutional development across the world has historically depended on dissident factions challenging established interests who confuse rule of law with blanket demands that they be obeyed.

It has mostly come down to the question of whether governments ruling without the express consent of the governed really have the right to impose constitutions of their own making, which is exactly the issue over which Occupy Central staged its recent protests.

Our judiciary takes the view that the government of China indeed has this right and cogent arguments have been made for this view. It is not my intention here to enter this particular debate.

But I do think that our senior judges ought to recognise that the debate does exist and to tread cautiously when pronouncing in public on who is right and who is wrong.

First, however, they might do a little reading up on constitutions and the meaning of the rule of law, particularly if they sit at the top of the Court of Final Appeal.

http://www.scmp.com/business/economy/article/1679625/thumb-rule-rule-law

Workaholic · Jan 16, 2015

Re: HK Bar Association says Sinkie Lawyers must Stand Up for Rule of Law and Human Ri

Singapore lawyers are afraid of their Kangaroo Chief. :biggrin:

halsey02 · Jan 16, 2015

Re: HK Bar Association says Sinkie Lawyers must Stand Up for Rule of Law and Human Ri

Hong Kong BAR & PUB Association do not understand that, the PxP here is the RULE & they are the LAW too....ha ha ha ha

KuanTi01 · Jan 16, 2015

Re: HK Bar Association says Sinkie Lawyers must Stand Up for Rule of Law and Human Ri

In this little dot, the Law Society is a ball-less and toothless society known only for politically-correct behaviour and always steering clear of OB markers, whether real or imagined. It is a very puny and pale shadow of the HK Bar and even the Malaysian Bar known for their fearless independent and incisive views on events which impact upon society in general and their own profession in particular.

Equalisation · Jan 16, 2015

Re: HK Bar Association says Sinkie Lawyers must Stand Up for Rule of Law and Human Ri

Believe in Yourself is the new mantra !:o :cool:

Tuayapeh · Jan 16, 2015

Re: HK Bar Association says Sinkie Lawyers must Stand Up for Rule of Law and Human Ri

Sinkie lawyers are so nicely fixed, even their once influential law society got their balls cut off and hung around its ears like earrings....

Someone tell me where else in this fucking world is there any decent developed country where there is a law society and an "academy of law" that dishes out titles like SC to make sure that the lawyers play ball? Why is there a need for this other entity? What's the point of it all?

This country is so totally fucked,.........

Equalisation · Jan 16, 2015

Re: HK Bar Association says Sinkie Lawyers must Stand Up for Rule of Law and Human Ri

Equalisation said:
Believe in Yourself is the new mantra !:o

All The Way Munro ! Manyak daging lah ! :biggrin:

:o

Asterix · Jan 17, 2015

Re: HK Bar Association says Sinkie Lawyers must Stand Up for Rule of Law and Human Ri

KuanTi01 said:
In this little dot, the Law Society is a ball-less and toothless society known only for politically-correct behaviour and always steering clear of OB markers, whether real or imagined. It is a very puny and pale shadow of the HK Bar and even the Malaysian Bar known for their fearless independent and incisive views on events which impact upon society in general and their own profession in particular.

Change takes time but it doesn't mean we just sit back and do nothing ... ...

[video=youtube;-mPErn9Ddt8]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-mPErn9Ddt8[/video]

CoffeeAhSoh · Jan 21, 2015

Re: HK Bar Association says Sinkie Lawyers must Stand Up for Rule of Law and Human Ri

Equalisation said:
All The Way Munro ! Manyak daging lah !:o

http://www.turfclub.com.sg/Racing/Pages/ViewRaceResult/3566/7

xpo2015 · Jan 21, 2015

Re: HK Bar Association says Sinkie Lawyers must Stand Up for Rule of Law and Human Ri

SG Lawyers are cowards except for LKY JB Jeyaratnam and Mr. Ravi. Who else I left out? CST?

blissquek · Jan 21, 2015

Re: HK Bar Association says Sinkie Lawyers must Stand Up for Rule of Law and Human Ri

KuanTi01 said:
In this little dot, the Law Society is a ball-less and toothless society known only for politically-correct behaviour and always steering clear of OB markers, whether real or imagined. It is a very puny and pale shadow of the HK Bar and even the Malaysian Bar known for their fearless independent and incisive views on events which impact upon society in general and their own profession in particular.

I agree with your statement...

Even from my end, the financial side I can tell u Malaysia parliament does listen and make amends accordingly.

Bank Negara is the biggest market speculators in the early 90"s...They lost billions M$30 billions and they even have a public forum on this scandal.

Singapore lost heavily as well in speculating the Deutsche Mark in the early 80's on USD/Deutsche parity but hardly anyone outside the market knows about it.
( google..Singapore losses on Deutsche Mark)

On Bank Negara Forex losses, it was tabled out in Parliament and they put a complete stop to it.

In Singapore our GSIC and Temasek books are untouchable. Even the President holding the highest office cannot take a peep.

See how far we lagged behind our neighbours on transparency and accountability..

mojito · Jan 21, 2015

Re: HK Bar Association says Sinkie Lawyers must Stand Up for Rule of Law and Human Ri

Silly ass streak always going about with those foreign ways. This is singapore ok? Here we do things differently. We prosper together with the PAP. Win-win.

Asterix · Jan 21, 2015

Re: HK Bar Association says Sinkie Lawyers must Stand Up for Rule of Law and Human Ri

:kma::oIo::kma::oIo::kma::oIo:

Dumbass Morbid Cock always stalking me on behalf of Lightning to earn money to sappork his twelve children. Ooi, you never listen to the Pope izzit? He said don't breed irresponsibly like farking rabbits!

Indeed this is SINKgapoor where voters like Morbid Cock alias Rabbit can be easily bribed with lift upgrading! No need checks and balances lah, estate upgrading, Pioneer package and char kway teow more important.

To be truly in the same class as Switzerland, there must be rule of law in Sinkieland and that means protecting indididuals against overarching state power.

[video=youtube;XAJVu9LK7WE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XAJVu9LK7WE[/video]

Asterix · Mar 9, 2015

Re: HK Bar Association says Sinkie Lawyers must Stand Up for Rule of Law and Human Ri

Asterix said:
The thumb rule of rule of law
Jake van der Kamp

“Overwhelmingly, most people respect the rule of law. They respected the rule of law before the Occupy movement and they respect the rule of law after the Occupy movement. I do not believe that there was any contrary view that people thought somehow the rule of law was something not to be respected.”

Chief Justice Geoffrey Ma Tao-li
SCMP, January 13

Spot on the money. He spoke the truth, no doubt about it. Water is wet, the Pope is Catholic and most people respect the rule of law. What depth of intellect.

The bigger question here, however, is what our chief justice might mean by rule of law. He seems to mean that people should obey the law and, moreover, that most people agree that people should obey the law.

This is all very well but it is not really what we mean when we speak of rule of law. What we actually mean is that government is bound by the law as much as the lowliest citizen is. If government is in conflict with the law then government must submit to the law. Rule of law comes before rule of government or any other rule at all.

It is why we have a Court of Final Appeal. Its members correct injustices that may have been inflicted in lower courts and they settle thorny points of law but their most important role is to stand up for our constitution, the Basic Law, when government oversteps the bounds of the Basic Law.

Of all people who should understand this crucial point, you would expect our Chief Justice to do so. Yet, oddly, it seems he may not quite appreciate the distinction between the obligation of citizens to obey the law and the obligation of government to abide by the constitution. He certainly appeared to confuse the two in his remarks on Monday at the launch of the new legal year.

He might do well in any case not to lean too heavily on the obligations of dissidents to obey the law. If dissident factions in China just over one hundred years ago had shared his views, there would still be an emperor in Beijing today and Mr Ma might still have his hair in a pigtail instead of being dressed in a silly bib.

... and certain irreverent columnists might more easily be sentenced to the punishment of a thousand cuts, but we shan’t dwell on that theme.

It is true across the world. If Parisians in 1789 had taken the view that law must always be obeyed in all circumstances then Louis the 35th would sit on the throne of France today ... and wouldn’t that just suit the demi-gods of haute couture.

If Americans had agreed in 1776 that tea was for drinking and not for throwing into harbours in illegal demonstrations then Queen Elizabeth would be Empress of Columbia today ... with proper parliamentary government in Washington instead of the present congressional shambles.

Likewise, the Queen would also still be Empress of India if a certain lawyer by the name of Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi had taken his thinking on the rule of law from the likes of our chief justice.

The fact is that constitutional development across the world has historically depended on dissident factions challenging established interests who confuse rule of law with blanket demands that they be obeyed.

It has mostly come down to the question of whether governments ruling without the express consent of the governed really have the right to impose constitutions of their own making, which is exactly the issue over which Occupy Central staged its recent protests.

Our judiciary takes the view that the government of China indeed has this right and cogent arguments have been made for this view. It is not my intention here to enter this particular debate.

But I do think that our senior judges ought to recognise that the debate does exist and to tread cautiously when pronouncing in public on who is right and who is wrong.

First, however, they might do a little reading up on constitutions and the meaning of the rule of law, particularly if they sit at the top of the Court of Final Appeal.

http://www.scmp.com/business/economy/article/1679625/thumb-rule-rule-law

Finally, video of HK Bar Association chairman's speech and correct definition of rule of law has been uploaded on Youtube.

[video=youtube;_ZDpHqEZvvI]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ZDpHqEZvvI[/video]

jw5 · Mar 9, 2015

Re: HK Bar Association says Sinkie Lawyers must Stand Up for Rule of Law and Human Ri

Asterix is right, Narong and Sideswipe are both right, Chia Yong Yong and Mark Andrew Yeo are both wrong! :wink:

mojito said:
Silly ass streak always going about with those foreign ways. This is singapore ok? Here we do things differently. We prosper together with the PAP. Win-win.

Asterix · Sep 26, 2015

Re: HK Bar Association says Sinkie Lawyers must Stand Up for Rule of Law and Human Ri

Kangaroo Sinkie judge embarrasses himself by clapping at inappropriate time

Hong Kong Chief Justice Geoffrey Ma sets out firm stance on rule of law and judicial independence
Geoffrey Ma tells audience including Beijing officials judges will not favour the government

In a not-so-subtle speech to local and mainland officials, Chief Justice Geoffrey Ma Tao-li yesterday stressed the importance of judicial independence and rule of law to Hong Kong while dismissing the possibility judges would avoid rulings unfavourable to the government.

Amid intense debate on the city's legal system that has seen the independence of courts called into question, used the opening of the new Court of Final Appeal building to discuss rule of law in the context of the common law system that sets the former British colony apart from the rest of the nation.

"Those components of the rule of law which are of particular relevance to Hong Kong - indeed to all common law jurisdictions, of which Hong Kong is one - comprise first, the due recognition of rights and fundamental freedoms," Ma told an audience including the mainland's Chief Justice Zhou Qiang, liaison office director Zhang Xiaoming and Chief Executive Leung Chun-ying.

Those rights and freedoms include equality for all persons before the law, while the common law which emphasises fairness and justice "has served Hong Kong well over the years and will continue to do so", Ma said.

The speech came just a fortnight after Zhang sparked controversy by describing the role of chief executive as "transcendent" over the three branches of government, including the judiciary, and insisting separation of powers did not apply in the city.

In his speech, Ma stressed the courts would continue to rule impartially, even in cases to which the government was a party.

"Decisions of the courts may sometimes not be to everybody's liking - whether they be private individuals, political and other groups, or even the government - but it is not the role of the courts to make popular decisions," Ma said. "The function of the courts is to adjudicate on disputes according to the law and its spirit."

In line with the court's traditions, Ma spoke in English. He sat alongside fellow top-court judges including non-permanent judge Lord Justice Neuberger, who also serves as president of Britain's Supreme Court.

His speech came as his predecessor, Andrew Li Kwok-nang, reiterated the importance of judicial independence. Li also repeated his call for overseas judges to continue to sit on the court after 2047, when Beijing's guarantees under "one country, two systems" expire.

"In the face of rule of law, anyone, however high his position, cannot be above the law," Li said on the sidelines of the ceremony. A day earlier, he made similar points and urged Beijing to refrain from overriding decisions of the top court.

In response, a Department of Justice spokesman said while the National People's Congress had plenary power of interpretation of the Basic Law, the department would handle Hong Kong affairs through the local systems within the Basic Law framework "as far as possible".

The spokesman added the appointment of overseas judges was conducive to the development of common law and would not give rise to inconsistency with the mini-constitution.

Another former chief justice, Yang Ti-liang, declined to comment as he left the court, saying Li and Ma had been very clear. Asked if he was worried about rule of law, Yang waved his hand and shook his head.

Zhou, who sat alongside chief justices from jurisdictions including Canada, Australia and Macau, attracted protests outside court. Protesters criticised his role as provincial chief in Hunan province in 2012, when the suspicious death of June 4 activist Li Wangyang was officially declared a suicide.

Apparently unused to the customs of Hong Kong's courtrooms, Zhou started applauding at the end of Ma's speech - but stopped abruptly when he realised no one else was doing so.

[video]http://www.scmp.com/video/1861559/hong-kongs-chief-justice-highlights-citys-rule-law-speech-cy-attendance[/video]

http://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/...hief-justice-geoffrey-ma-sets-out-firm-stance

HK Bar Association says Sinkie Lawyers must Stand Up for Rule of Law and Human Rights

Asterix

Alfrescian (Inf)

Asterix

Alfrescian (Inf)

Workaholic

Alfrescian

halsey02

Alfrescian (Inf)

KuanTi01

Alfrescian (Inf)

Equalisation

Alfrescian (Inf)

Tuayapeh

Alfrescian (InfP)

Equalisation

Alfrescian (Inf)

Asterix

Alfrescian (Inf)

CoffeeAhSoh

Alfrescian

xpo2015

Alfrescian

blissquek

Alfrescian

mojito

Alfrescian

Asterix

Alfrescian (Inf)

Asterix

Alfrescian (Inf)

jw5

Moderator

Asterix

Alfrescian (Inf)

Similar threads