Law Society Head Questions HK's Grasp Of Rule Of Law

The president of the Law Society, Melissa Pang, has questioned whether Hong Kong people truly understand what the rule of law is, during her speech at the ceremonial opening of the legal year.

"In the opening of legal years that I have attended either as an audience or as the president of the Law Society, the phrase 'rule of law' comes up for discussion without exception," she said.

"I had wondered whether we, as citizens of Hong Kong, were too slow to grasp this concept, or important things have to be repeated many times," Pang said.

"I used to believe that it was the latter. However, given what happened to Hong Kong from 2019 to 2020, I now believe it may be both."

Pang said that some "eminent legal practitioners and scholars" had said that obedience of the law is not necessary for the rule of law.

But, quoting from a Court of Final Appeal judgement on the constitutionality of the chief executive's mask ban, she stressed the importance of the peaceful exercise of the freedoms of speech and assembly.

Pang said the court had noted that such freedoms are not absolute, and may be subject to lawful restrictions.

"In considering whether a fair balance has been struck, the Court of Final Appeal rightly informed us that 'the interest of Hong Kong as a whole should be taken into account since the rule of law itself was being undermined by the actions of masked lawbreakers who, with their identities concealed, were seemingly free to act with impunity'.”

The Law Society president then turned her attention to the "unprecedented amount of criticisms" faced by the judiciary in the past year.

She said unfair and misinformed criticism, if not immediately rebuffed, would undermine trust and open the path for measures that could affect judicial independence.

But she said legal professionals also had a duty to explain to the public why certain outcomes had been reached.

"There is no point in telling the public that they should not express their views on judges and judgements simply based on the outcome. It is only natural and human," Pang said.

"Rather, the duty rests on us as professionals to explain clearly to the public the correct legal principles and procedures. Disengagement is not an answer."