In the New Statesman, Jonathan Sumption – former overseas member of the Court of Final Appeal – on the Jimmy Lai verdict. He blames the law, not the judges…
Reading through this very long judgment (it runs to 855 pages), one is constantly struck by the critical references on nearly every page to Lai’s hostility to China and the Chinese Communist Party, his criticisms of Chinese and Hong Kong officials, his objections to the national security law, his support for the pro-democracy movement and his preference for western over Chinese values, as if these things were self-evidently wrong and presumptive evidence of criminality. That is the abyss into which basic political freedoms have fallen in Hong Kong. In the end it does not matter whether it is the law or the judges who have suppressed basic political liberties in Hong Kong. The essential point is that those who criticise China or the Hong Kong government or organise themselves to press for a greater measure of democracy are liable to go to jail. These are the hallmarks of the totalitarian state which China has always been and Hong Kong is in the process of becoming.
The three judges who heard Lai’s case are excellent lawyers. Esther Toh Lye-ping, who presided, is an experienced and independent-minded criminal judge. So what explains the palpable judicial hostility to defendants in politically sensitive trials and the paranoia which equates political dissent with treason and subversion? To answer that question, it is necessary to understand the oppressive atmosphere which has prevailed in Hong Kong since 2020. It isn’t just the jailing of dissenters. Libraries have been purged. School syllabuses have been modified. Rights advocates have been aggressively interrogated by the police. Trade Unions and political organisations have been forced to close their doors. Broadcasters have been edited or jammed. The rare acquittals or grants of bail in politically sensitive cases have been followed by bellows of rage from pro-Beijing legislators and editorial writers. “Patriotism” according to China’s definition has been required of every public servant, including judges.
Hong Kong is a special administrative region of China with its own legal system based on English law, but no longer on English legal values. China is an enormous presence. Politically, it holds all the cards. Legally, it can and does redefine the meaning of the Basic Law or the national security law through “interpretations” from Beijing’s standing committee. Of course, the rule of law applies in principle, as Hong Kong government representatives never cease to tell us. But it does not apply to issues on which the Chinese government has a political agenda. The unity of the Chinese world matters too much to Beijing for that to be allowed.
On one of my last visits to Hong Kong, I discussed these matters over a meal with a senior judge of the Court of Appeal whose wisdom I have always respected. We cannot conduct a guerilla war against the Chinese state, he said. We are part of China. It is the dominant regional power. Our roots are in China and Hong Kong. We don’t have an exit route as you do. We are pressed by the West to uphold Western values as if we were a democracy, but what can the West offer Hong Kong except moral lectures and second passports? It is a good question.
“Judges stick together.”
Twenty years ago, one might have said that is an unjustified slur.
Today, one might say, “no surprise”.
Legal and civilisational collapse is here.
‘“Patriotism” according to China’s definition.’ That neatly sums up the problem for those who prefer a different definition. The verdict refers to Jimmy Lai’s hostility to the Chinese Communist Party as if that was a self-evident crime, but the law only refers to the government, not the Party. Technically the two are not the same thing.
Without any permission, may I re-post a seasonal work by Knownot, which he placed in this space exactly seven years ago:
– – – – –
Not a Christmas Poem, by Knownot
“Paul Yip couldn’t find a room in Shanghai, so he decided to build his own hotel.”
– South China Morning Post : 22 November 2018
What a coup! So bold, and shrewd as well:
No room, so you built your own hotel!
But that success resembles in some ways
The story of a Galilean pair
Who went to Bethlehem in Roman days
And couldn’t find accommodation there.
There was a census, and by law of Rome
One had to go to one’s ancestral home
So Joe and Mary went to Bethlehem,
A journey difficult for both of them.
He was a carpenter, with work to do;
She was pregnant, very nearly due.
And then to cap a long and tiring day
The couple couldn’t find a place to stay.
Again – again – they heard to their chagrin,
“I’m sorry, but there’s no room at the inn.”
And so they did the best that they were able,
Dossing down like beggars in a stable.
They were newly married. Joe and Mary
Were awkward with each other, quiet, wary.
He was deeply troubled and ashamed:
He was not the father, Mary claimed.
This was the girl he’d tried so hard to win,
So sweet and pure, so free from every sin!
Now she was saying something very odd:
It was a special child, the son of God!
Joseph was a thinker, and he pondered this.
It sounded like the Greek and Roman myths.
The Gods were restless, it was often said,
And, tired of Mount Olympus’ austere height,
Would slip away some balmy summer night
And creep into a human woman’s bed;
A subject there are paintings, poems, on;
As, for example: Leda and the Swan.
Perhaps Joe’s god, the Jewish God, had done
The same as any Greek or Roman one?
No, never, Joe was sure, out of the question;
But something heard, half-heard, a faint suggestion
In Mary’s mind, romantic and naïve,
Had caused the simple woman to believe.
It was nothing, just a puff of air,
And Joseph, proud and trusting, could declare:
“This is our baby, and my son and heir.”
. . . Away in a manger, asleep, no crib for a bed,
The new-born lay still. Joe lovingly said,
“Joshua, I name you, my son. I hope you will be
A carpenter, skilful, hard-working, and honest, like me.”
Who knows what will happen? Who knows why?
The next day, with a calculating eye,
Joe looked at Bethlehem and shrewdly thought:
But why is the supply of rooms so short?
No room at the inn? So I will build
My own hotel! And soon his inn was filled
With guests who never would have come that way
Before, without a decent place to stay.
The dim, short-sighted men of Bethlehem
Lost the trade that could have gone to them;
And Joe’s Hotel – for merchant or sight-seer,
Was one of the very best in all Judea.
Joshua grew, and waxed in spirit strong,
But differed somewhat from the other boys,
Seldom pleased with pranks and games and toys.
Rather a strange youth, seeming to belong
With priests, discussing ethics, right and wrong.
Joseph told him patiently, “Just be
More down-to-earth, my son; and you must be
About your father’s business. My life will end,
And all my enterprises will descend
To you.” Joshua often used to wander
In the desert. He saw a vision yonder,
Of life as outcast, harried, short, and poor;
But here – there was a business, sound, secure.
Though prophet / profit were the words he muttered,
He understood which side his bread was buttered.
Joshua married Mary Magdalene,
A pretty girl, a former beauty queen,
Although there was a rumour or report
That she had been a prostitute, or escort.
Her husband said “Those stories are untrue,
And if you ever print them, I will sue.”
In later life, Josh gained a reputation
For eloquence and powers of narration.
People liked to stay in his hotel
Just for stories that he used to tell.
Parables, in fact, the word he used;
Anyway, the guests were all amused.
Joshua was smart, and Joe’s Hotel
Was fully booked and doing very well.
A second hotel followed, Josh’s Place,
And Joshua managed it till he retired,
Popular and wealthy and admired.
A good life, but without profound effect;
A life that did not leave a single trace
On history – or so you would expect.
But here’s the thing. There is a tiny sect
Surviving still, who reverently claim
That Joshua – they use another name –
Was, as his mother said, God’s son, a being
All-knowing and all-loving and all-seeing.
He could have calmed our anger, cleansed our sins.
So with a question I conclude this verse:
If Josh had chosen not to manage inns,
Would the world be better now or worse?
https://www.biglychee.com/2018/12/24/the-bright-side-to-2018/#comment-142021
Reader –
I permit the re-post. Thank you.
On the topic of judges this snippet released by the Judiciary today might fly under the radar because of hols:
Court of Appeal NS Justices Anthea Pang Po-kam and Maggie Poon Man-kay both retired in November 2025, two years earlier than the normal retirement age.
Both got Gold Bauhina this year ‘in recognition of dedicated and distinguished service in the Judiciary”.