judges

Chinese-only top court would
hurt HK’s global standing

Victor Fung Keung says our effective legal system should be left alone

The call from a legal expert
to appoint only Chinese
judges to Hong Kong’s
Court of Final Appeal is alarmist
and misguided. Such a move
would only erode investors’
confidence in the city.
Mainland scholar Cheng Jie,
a former researcher for the Basic
Law Committee, told a seminar
this month that the Court of
Final Appeal should be made up
only of Chinese nationals. She
said this would reflect the
principle of Hong Kong people
ruling Hong Kong. Alan Hoo,
chairman of the Basic Law
Institute, said she raised a valid
concern.
Their remarks were made on
the heels of former Secretary for
Justice Elsie Leung Oi-sie’s
criticism of Hong Kong judges
for failing to understand the
relationship between Hong
Kong and the Beijing
government.
The city’s top judge, Chief
Justice Geoffrey Ma Tao-li, said
last week that it was natural for
Hongkongers to speculate about
Leung’s recent criticism of the
judiciary. While speaking to a
small group at Oxford
University’s Harris Manchester
College, Ma said Leung had
every right to voice her opinion,
and Hong Kong’s higher courts
were subject to criticism like any
other body. But her background
and close ties to Beijing could
lead people to believe she was
voicing the views of certain
interests in Beijing, he said.
Although the views of Leung
and the two other legal experts
were noble and informed, most
people in this city, I believe,
would beg to differ. Hong Kong’s
prosperity hinges on whether it
can continue to be an
international city. Foreign
investors and businessmen
would lose confidence if local
top judges were influenced by
politics in Beijing. Hong Kong’s
seven million inhabitants would
become China’s burden if the
city lost its competitive edge.
We must be appreciative that
Beijing has tried very hard to
maintain Hong Kong’s
economic growth by sending us
thousands of tourists and
investments worth millions of
dollars. But Beijing has never
hinted that there’s something
wrong with our legal system.
Hong Kong’s legal system
prides itself on maintaining its
independence and preserving
the common law tradition. Any
moves to ruin these can only
hurt the city. The system has
worked well since the handover.
Why do we need to break it?
The Basic Law stipulates only
that the top judge in both the
Court of Final Appeal and the
High Court must be Hong Kong
Chinese. Other judges can be
citizens of any nation as long as
they are familiar with rules in
common law jurisdictions. We
should respect the Basic Law,
shouldn’t we? It is unwise to
bring politics into Hong Kong’s
legal systems. If all the judges are
local Chinese, what would
foreign investors think? The first
question they would ask is:
“Why?” It wouldn’t do Hong
Kong any good if foreign
investors have doubts.
At present, 10 of the 15 nonpermanent
judges of the Court
of Final Appeal come from other
common law jurisdictions such
as Britain, New Zealand and
Australia. If the Court of Final
Appeal works effectively and
fairly, let us keep it this way. It is
unwise to tie our own hands as
we face a very competitive and
ever-changing world.
Justice Secretary Rimsky
Yuen Kwok-keung should be
lauded for saying that “the
presence of overseas nonpermanent
judges helps to
enhance the international
reputation of our judiciary. Any
proposal to impose nationality
or residence requirements
would unduly restrict the pool of
talent that can be appointed as
judges”.
Fifteen years after the
handover, many patriotic
Chinese may be starting to focus
on the “one country” and not
the “two systems”, believing that
it’s time for Hong Kong to be
closely reintegrated, politically
and economically, with the
motherland. Their views should
be respected. However, the
reality is that Hong Kong can
only survive as a world financial
centre if it has a common-law
legal system free of political
intervention. We should build,
not erode, people’s confidence
in Hong Kong.

Victor Fung Keung is a local
commentator and co-ordinator
of the B.S.Sc in financial
journalism programme at
Hong Kong Baptist University

The door may be closing

好文共賞 V26	Sharp Daily - Hong Kong Version	馮強 2012-11-22
“The door may be closing, for good.”聯合國秘書長潘基文（Ban Ki-moon）
1."The door ① may be closing, for good ② ." （Ban Ki-moon） 背景：聯合國秘書長潘基文（Ban Ki-moon）警告以色列不要再在巴勒斯坦土地上搞殖民，威脅中東和平。 2."You want to try it ③? Get in the ring ④." （Ann Romney） 背景：美國共和黨總統候選人羅姆尼太太Ann Romney在電台反諷那些不支持她丈夫的人時如是說。 3."Dignity ⑤ does not come from ⑥ avenging ⑦ insults ⑧, especially with violence ⑨." （Hillary Clinton） 背景：美國國務卿希拉莉在談到中東政局動盪時發表這樣的意見。 馮強短評 好辭彙共賞： ① the door = 和平之門。Shut the door behind [after] him = 把他身後的門關上。See somebody to the door = 送客。Show somebody the door = 驅逐，攆走某人。 ② for good = 永遠（forever）。A good joke = 逗人樂的笑話。Good faith = 正直、誠實。Good life = 道德的生活；幸福的生活。 ③ You want to try it = 你想嘗試競選的滋味嗎？ ④ Get in the ring = 站到擂台上去（意思是試試捱打的滋味）。He is trying to solve the problem = 他正在努力解決這個問題。It's hard, but I will try = 這不容易辦，但我要試試看。 ⑤ dignity = 尊嚴 。 With dignity = 莊嚴地。Impair one's dignity = 有傷體面。 ⑥ come from = 得到。You come out well in that photo = 你那張相片照得很好。Nothing came out of all this talk = 談來談去，結果全無。 ⑦ avenging = 報復 。 He avenged himself on his enemies = 他對仇人實行報復。 ⑧ insults = 侮辱。Add insult to injury = 傷害之外又加侮辱。 ⑨ violence = 暴力。Resort to violence = 用暴力、動武。Use violence = 用暴力。 短評共賞： 　　我很同意報復並不能換回尊嚴。 Do not pay back evil for evil.（Proverbs 24.29） [不要以惡報惡。（箴言24章29節）] 馮強

an independent HK?

an independent HK?

(commentary in the SCMP Nov. 14, 2012) An independent HK is not on anyone’s agenda Victor Fung Keung says people are just resorting to extreme means to vent their frustrations (1) Chen Zuoer , the former deputy director of the Hong Kong and Macau Affairs Office in Beijing and a key negotiator during the 1997 handover, said recently that “a force calling for Hong Kong independence has been gaining momentum in recent years, and it has spread like a virus”. He needn’t worry; there is no independence force, or virus. Not for an instant would I or hundreds of others ever believe that an independence movement could take root in this city. Our water, fuel and food – without which we couldn’t survive – all come from the mainland. Physically or (3) No one in this prosperous world city wants to start a revolution. Tycoons such as Li Ka-shing and Lee Shau-kee also love a stable Hong Kong so local and foreign investors will continue buying properties and boosting their profits. Chen, who retired in 2008, also told a reporter that he was “heartbroken” to see a picture of a Hong Kong colonial flag being waved by a protester in Sheung Shui shouting at “parallel traders” to “return to the mainland”. However, this was an isolated case. Sheung Shui residents say they have grown weary of hordes of cross-border professional shoppers pushing up the prices of milk powder and other daily commodities, and so resort to extreme means to drive home their point – such as wearing “Satan” masks or waving colonial flags. These are just expressions of anger, nothing more.

(2) politically, Hong Kong could never become independent. Chen, an extremely patriotic Chinese citizen, can rest easy. No political party in Hong Kong ever talks of the slight possibility of an independent Hong Kong, and their political platforms, including those of the powerful Democratic Party and Civic Party, never offer hints that advocating independence is one of their goals. I am also pretty sure none of the major think tanks in Hong Kong has called on the city to go its own way. So why did Chen make such an alarmist statement? The timing of his warning betrays him, coming when he was in Hong Kong last month to launch a book, Negotiations on The Handover of Sovereignty of Hong Kong: A Witness Recount, in which he shares his experiences of the Sino-British negotiations over Hong Kong’s future. (4) Most middle- and working-class Hongkongers, myself included, cherish the stable political, social and economic environment that enables us to make a living. As long as we can enjoy the freedoms promised to us in the Basic Law, no one will waste their time and energy in fighting for an independent Hong Kong. Victor Fung Keung, a local commentator who has published seven books on English enhancement, is co-ordinator of the B.S.Sc in financial journalism programme at Hong Kong Baptist University

These practices have no basis in science

好文共賞 V28	Sharp Daily - Hong Kong Version	馮強 2012-11-08
"These practices have no basis in science or medicine, and they will now be relegated to the dustbin of quackery."
1."These practices ① have no basis ② in science or medicine, and they will now be relegated ③ to the dustbin of quackery ④ ." （Jerry Brown） 背景：美國加州州長Jerry Brown簽新法案禁止行為治療學家（Therapists）宣稱可以把同性戀男孩變為異性戀。 2."There was a massive intelligence failure on behalf of ⑤ our American friends. However, I do believe that the Americans learn very fast ⑥ from their mistakes." （Rami El-Obeidi） 背景：前利比亞情報局長Rami El-Obeidi在利比亞班加西市的美國大使館受攻擊後如是說。 3."Couldn't you just go to the future ⑦ and then come back ⑧ and kill that Arnold ⑨ ? " （Jon Stewart） 背景：電視節目主持人Jon Stewart在節目上訪問前加州州長阿諾舒華辛力加（Arnold Schwarzenegge，電影《未來戰士》The Terminator演員）時提出這個問題。 馮強短評 好辭彙共賞： ①　practices =醫生、律師和治療師等的業務。A plausible idea, but will it work in practice？=主意雖好，然而能實行嗎？A common practice =風氣；常例。 ②　no basis =毫無根據。 ③　On a production basis =在大規模生產的基礎上。On what basis？= 憑甚麼條件、基礎等？ 　　relegated =貶黜；丟棄，束之高閣。Relegate的同義詞有demote, downgrade和consign等。 ④　quackery =自我吹噓，大話；騙子行為。江湖醫生的治療，庸醫的醫術。 ⑤ 　on behalf of =代表（Speaking or acting for）。例句：On behalf of all those present, may I thank you, Professor Huang, for a well executed revamp of our department. ⑥　learn very fast =學得很快。 ⑦　go to the future =去到未來。 　　Future delivery =期貨交割。 　　Have a future =有前途，將來有希望。 　　Have no future =沒前途，前途無望。 ⑧　come back = 回到目前。 ⑨　kill that Arnold =把對Maria Shriver不忠的阿諾舒華辛力加殺掉（像電影情節）。 短評共賞： 同性戀是不是可以用行為治療法（Therapies）去改變呢？美國加州的經驗是不可以。政府認為聲稱用行為治療法可以改變性傾向是騙人的。 馮強 浸會大學傳理學院財經新聞統籌主任 逢周四刊登