Over the past few years, there have been a few political incidents in Hong Kong, and often lots of people have taken to the streets to demonstrate. Public opinion usually overwhelmingly supports the demonstrators and adopts a "belittling" attitude towards those who choose not to take to the streets. Hong Kong is a free society where some take to the streets in support of their beliefs, while others dislike demonstrations. For example, some boycotted the resignation farce in five Legislative Council (LegCo) geographical constituencies; some others prefer silence, and yet still others choose to be politically neutral. We should respect each of them no matter how different their opinions are, even those who prefer to be politically neutral. We should not condemn, denounce or bombard with overwhelming media pressure certain sectors such as the judiciary and civil servants.

For example, Switzerland has strictly maintained its political neutrality since it became a neutral country in the 19th century and remains neutral today. Other countries often in dispute with one another never pressure Switzerland to abandon its "political neutrality". Democracy shall flourish with the quality of citizens to respect opposite opinions and/or neutral political stands. It is also a kind of freedom of speech.

At the LegCo meeting last Wednesday, quite a few members raised a series of demands on the succeeding Chief Justice Geoffrey Ma Tao-li of the Court of Final Appeal and three non-permanent judges. Quite a few pan-democratic members expressed the wish that the newly appointed Chief Justice consider not only legal issues but also politics. Most expressed the hope that the new Chief Justice would determine in their favor on grounds of human rights, democracy, freedom. I believe that the role of the LegCo should focus on examining whether those judges have disciplinary problems or unsatisfactory records making them unsuitable to be judges. Otherwise, the LegCo shall adhere to the principle of judicial independence. The Chief Justice shall consider only the Basic Law and Hong Kong law, respect the legislative intent of the Basic Law and adjudicate cases in a fair and just manner. In hearing cases of great social impact such as the right of abode cases in Hong Kong that involve immigrants flooding to the city, the Court of Final Appeal, for example, must take into account the legislative intent of the Basic Law as well as the capacity of Hong Kong as a whole to sustain such an impact. A considerable number of jurisdictions, for example the Supreme Court of the United States, are very strict in immigration cases. With respect to cases heavily related to political orientation, the Court shall maintain its political neutrality when adjudicating cases. We should, indeed, not require our judges to play the role of "political adjudicator" and behave like politicians.

Therefore, judicial officers, judges and Chief Justice are not supposed to take political stands when adjudicating cases nor shall they have political party background nor are they to join any organization with clear political orientation. The LegCo, on the other hand, shall restrain us from giving instructions to judges on the basis of "this and that" principle which may be heavily laden with political aims.

The author is a Member of the Legislative Council and Associate Professor of the School of Law, City University of Hong Kong.

(HK Edition 06/25/2010 page2)