A few years back, social unrest and all sorts of violence related to it were rampant, causing serious damage to Hong Kong. Jimmy Lai Chee-ying, who appeared in the Admiralty area frequently during that time, is alleged to have been a key figure behind the insurrection that almost destroyed the special administrative region. Back then Lai operated media and printing businesses through his Next Media group, but there were reportedly more sinister intentions than simply keeping the public informed of what was happening. He spared no efforts to manipulate public opinion to accomplish his anti-China and anti-Hong Kong SAR objectives. Many young people in Hong Kong were influenced by his toxic propaganda.
To many people in Hong Kong, it is a joyful thing to see a political “black hand” like Lai being sanctioned legally. Lai resorted to hiring British barrister Timothy Owen, a King’s Counsel who is not qualified to practice in Hong Kong, to defend him in his national security offense case. Some people may see that as nothing more than a technical issue. However, those harboring such views have overlooked two very important points.
First, in most former British colonies such as Australia, New Zealand, India, Malaysia, Singapore and South Africa, local courts no longer allow defendants involved in court cases to be represented by British barristers. The prohibition is a straightforward defense of their judicial independence which is an important part of any country’s sovereignty. The same practice should apply in Hong Kong. Why does Hong Kong not deem it necessary to safeguard China’s national sovereignty as the city returned to the motherland 25 years ago? UK courts do not allow Chinese barristers to represent defendants in national security cases in Britain. So, how on earth can a defendant in a national security case on Chinese soil be represented by a British barrister? It is the starkest illustration of double standards and absurdity. Something that is not allowed in the UK is practiced in a city in China? How can that be?
The legislative interpretation has not only provided a way for resolving the dispute over whether overseas law practitioners can participate in national security trials in Hong Kong but also ensures the accurate implementation of the NSL in future. More importantly, it reaffirms that China’s judicial independence, sovereignty and national interests are not something that is subject to contempt
ALSO READ: NPCSC gives interpretation of provisions in Hong Kong's NSL
Second, the National Security Law for Hong Kong (NSL), as its name implies, involves national security, which is related to the most important issues of national sovereignty, security and interests. No country in the world would ever allow others to interfere in legal cases of that nature, and there is no reason to argue that Hong Kong should be the exception. It is not sensible at all to allow an overseas barrister who seldom handles continental law cases, does not support the fundamental status of the Chinese Constitution, does not have a full license to practice law in Hong Kong generally, and who does not even understand the Chinese language to handle an NSL case here in Hong Kong. Moreover, an overseas barrister, after being granted the privilege to read confidential documents in the process of handling an NSL case, will leave Hong Kong after the case concludes. There is a real risk of State secrets being leaked upon the overseas counsel’s departure from Hong Kong.
Let’s turn the clock back a bit. In the 1970s, there were less than 100 barristers in Hong Kong. So, it might have seemed plausible then to hire a foreign barrister for certain cases. Nowadays, the legal resources in Hong Kong are greatly expanded and there are more than 1,500 registered barristers in the city, alongside more than 100 senior counsels. Under such circumstances, it would be difficult to convince anybody that a British barrister is required to handle a Hong Kong NSL case. There must be ulterior motives behind such a move.
Article 45 of the “Legislation Law of the People’s Republic of China” clearly states that when the provisions of a law need to be further clarified in terms of its meaning, or when new circumstances arise after the implementation of the law and the applicable legal basis needs to be clarified, the law in question shall be submitted to the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress (NPCSC) for interpretation. Therefore, Chief Executive John Lee Ka-chiu’s request for an interpretation of the NSL by the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress has a solid legal basis. The request is, thus, both lawful and justifiable. With a view to safeguarding national sovereignty and security, it is also necessary for the chief executive to make such a move. When a move is justifiable and necessary, it has to be done without any hesitation.
READ MORE: NPCSC interpretation crucial to cementing constitutional order
In response to the chief executive’s request, the NPCSC on Friday delivered its first interpretation of the NSL since its promulgation in June 2022. The legislative interpretation has not only provided a way for resolving the dispute over whether overseas law practitioners can participate in national security trials in Hong Kong but also ensures the accurate implementation of the NSL in future. More importantly, it reaffirms that China’s judicial independence, sovereignty and national interests are not something that is subject to contempt.
The author is a specialist in radiology with a master’s degree in public health from the University of Hong Kong, co-founder of the Hong Kong Coalition and an adviser to Our Hong Kong Foundation.
The views do not necessarily reflect those of China Daily.