Legal and Helpful: Commentary and Criticism of Court Cases in Hong Kong
It’s pleasant to learn that the secretary for security enjoys reading Ming Pao. Consider the alternative scenarios. Unfortunately, though, Secretary Chris Tang seems rarely to appreciate his readings.
The final straw that provoked Mr Tang’s anger was law professor Johannes Chan’s opinion piece. The most recent legal development regarding the Yuen Long incident .
Mr. Tang criticized, "The author, being a law professor, has once more released a prejudiced piece," he said, "failing to acknowledge that certain individuals clad in white have faced legal consequences. This misleads readers into believing that the courts have issued unjust rulings concerning one side or another, thereby eroding public trust in the judicial system and damaging the rule of law in Hong Kong—a situation that undoubtedly warrants condemnation." ”
Mr. Tang further stated that the afterword, which is often appended to opinion articles nowadays with the intent of stating there was no desire to foster animosity towards the government, does not absolve the editor’s responsibility to guarantee that their publication remains "fair, objective, and impartial."
* See also: Hong Kong's security minister criticizes legal expert for 'eroding the rule of law' in op-ed following Yuen Long incident court decision *
He stated: "It is wished that Ming Pao will cease being utilized by individuals with hidden agendas to employ this platform for disseminating misleading statements, sowing discord within society, and fostering tensions."
I suggest disregarding certain aspects of this. Opinions articles aren’t meant to be balanced, impartial, or unprejudiced; they reflect personal viewpoints. Furthermore, if Mr. Tang aims to run an credible campaign advocating for unbiased journalism, he must steer clear of such rhetoric. an impression that he has a specific issue with Ming Pao .
I shall also pass by the bit about white-clad people being brought to justice, which strictly speaking is entirely irrelevant. Injustice to one defendant cannot be balanced by justice to another.
More interesting is Mr Tang’s claim that the offending piece misled readers into the “warped perspective” that the court had made an unfair judgment, and that this had “shaken the public’s confidence in the court system,” thereby undermining the rule of law.
This, unfortunately, is absurd. The principle of the rule of law has never demanded that the public must view judges as infallible. Back in 1793, Chief Justice Lord Kenyon stated, "Even the most capable Judges can make mistakes amidst the rush of work."
Recently, Lord Denning offered this perspective: “Criticism does not frighten us, nor does it provoke resentment. The stakes are much higher because what’s truly at issue is the liberty of expression... Commentators have the right to address judicial proceedings honestly. They may assert that we are incorrect or that our rulings are flawed, irrespective of their eligibility for appeal.”
Alternatively, one might consider the well-known and frequently cited view expressed by Lord Atkin, who was renowned for his contributions to commercial law. He stated in part: "The avenue of critique is open to all. Those who are misguided may stumble upon this pathway...Justice should not remain isolated like a secluded virtue; instead, it must endure the examination and respectful—even candid—observations of common people."
It seems that Mr. Tang is providing the courts with protection, something they haven’t needed nor requested. When a judge comments on legal matters, such statements are subject to critique and discussion. Likewise, when a judge presides over cases independently and determines facts, their decisions can also be examined. Strengthening rather than undermining the rule of law occurs when judicial proceedings are allowed to be analyzed and deliberated upon.
He could also bear in mind that safeguarding press freedom does not advance with threats from those in the law enforcement sector, and should the government desire to provide ongoing feedback on media content, it would be more appropriately handled by information professionals.
Mr. Tang does not need to continually emphasize that adding "this piece is not meant to foster animosity toward the government" or similar statements won’t prevent prosecution. We are well aware of this. It’s akin to beginning a book with the standard disclaimer “any resemblance to actual individuals, whether alive or deceased, is purely coincidental.” If your main antagonist is named Ronald Frump and behaves like an unpredictable politician, such a statement wouldn’t shield you from defamation lawsuits.
Mr. Tang might feel more content as a reader if he keeps in mind the insightful statement by the esteemed former U.S. Judge Robert Jackson: "The cost of having freedom of religion, or of speech, or of the press is that we have to tolerate, and indeed fund, a great deal of nonsense."
And when tempted to rushedly defend an official masterwork, he should also remember another insight from the same judge: "Does anyone not favor positive over negative feedback about their work? If renown—a favorable reputation—is, as Milton put it, 'the last weakness of a lofty spirit,' then it often represents the initial vulnerability of a less accomplished individual."
Aid in protecting press freedom and ensure HKFP remains accessible to all readers by supporting our team
Open the Youtube video
Open the Youtube video
