UN experts on shaky grounds defending renegade solicitor

The two United Nations (UN) Special Rapporteurs who expressed “grave concern” over the barring to practice solicitor Kevin Yam Kin Fung are on very shaky grounds, claiming there was no violation to the Law Society’s statutes or code of conduct.

Yet, the society’s Principles of Professional Conduct (Rule 2 of the Solicitors’ Practice Rules, Cap 159) clearly states that a solicitor shall not permit to be done anything which compromises or impairs “his reputation or the reputation of his profession.”

Yam is currently in Melbourne, Australia, after fleeing Hong Kong from prosecution relating to charges on sedition and collusion with foreign forces. The Hong Kong government has offered HK$1 million bounty for information relating to his arrest.

On January 6, this year, a formal complaint was filed by Secretary for Justice, Paul Lam Ting-kwok with the Law Society of Hong Kong alleging “conduct unbecoming a solicitor” by Yam. The charges stemmed primarily from statements Kevin Yam made to the US Congress’ Congressional Executive Commission on China (CECC) hearing last May. Lam’s complaint claimed that their acts brought the profession into dispute and undermined public confidence in Hong Kong’s judicial system and rule of law. In July, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found Yam guilty of professional misconduct, struck him off the Roll of Solicitors, and ordered him to pay HK$816,600 in legal costs.

Former Chief Justice Geoffrey Ma, wrote in his foreword to the Law Society’s Guidebook that: “The public looks to lawyers to fulfill the role of the administration of justice and is one that requires a combination of competence, proper conduct and professional ethics.”

Key to Yam’s crusade is his seeking support from US congress members for sanctions against Hong Kong officials and in particular the judiciary, including judges and prosecutors.

The two UN legal experts were Margaret Satterthwaite, special rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers and Irene Khan, special rapporteur on the protection and promotion of the right to freedom of opinion and expression. On October 3, they issued a joint statement expressing concern that Yam had been struck off the Roll of Solicitors “without having breached any of the Law Society’s statutes or code of conduct, and by a tribunal appointed by the Chief Justice.”

What the so-called experts failed to acknowledge was that Yam was bordering on treason by disrespecting the judiciary and the rule of law in Hong Kong by asking the US to impose sanctions on judges and prosecutors. And he was struck off the Roll by his peers in the Law Society and not by a tribunal appointed by the Chief Justice. His behaviour was definitely unprofessional by bringing the entire legal profession in Hong Kong into disrepute.

But the report itself was a flimsy piece of editorial, hastily prepared as if something had to be said to appease the human rights lobby. They claimed, for example, that for the Secretary for Justice to make a complaint to the Law Society was a conflict of interest. However, Lam defended his actions saying that the acts by Yam had undermined the judicial system and overall interests of Hong Kong. “As the guardian of public interest in the proper administration of justice and upholding the rule of law, I am duty bound to defend Hong Kong’s rule of law and due administration of justice,” he said.

UN special rapporteurs are not staff of the UN, but rather volunteers appointed by the UN Human Rights Council to investigate abuses in a private capacity. They carry no weight, and their findings are purely personal opinions. So much so that the press release issued under the banner of the Office of the High Commissioner of the UN Human Rights (OHCHR) carried a proviso that any views or opinions are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of the UN or OHCHR.

However, they do attract attention in the media which has the ability to make a mountain out of a mole hill. For the media, sensationalism is the name of the game to boost readership regardless of the subject matter warranting any merit.

Mark Pinkstone

** The blog article is the sole responsibility of the author and does not represent the position of our company. **

Washington-based Foreign Policy magazine has been quick to point out that the Wang Fuk Court fire confirmed that the city’s “once prized freedom have vanished.”

How the magazine in it’s December 2 edition came to this conclusion is anyone’s guess, but it is indicative that anything untoward in Hong Kong is seen as politically motivated and a bad thing.

The fire, a great tragedy in Hong Kong that claimed 159 lives and many still missing, has left the city in mourning. And yet, the American press continues to use the opportunity to lambast Hong Kong as it struggles to come to terms with the devastating tragedy. It is a time for sympathies, not political gain… but that is the American way.

Foreign Policy editor James Palmer said local authorities responded to the fire by stifling civil society aid efforts and detaining critics. According to Palmer, since the 2019 protests and the imposition of “draconian” national security laws, no public institution in Hong Kong can operate freely. “Democratic mechanisms have been gutted, and political candidates must now adhere explicitly to Beijing’s line. The city’s response to the fire has confirmed Hong Kongers’ fears that the city’s political culture is now indistinguishable from that of the mainland,” he wrote.

Such comments are coming from a magazine that is popular in the halls of the US Congress and Senate. This and other foreign news coverage of the fire, prompted the Hong Kong SAR government to issue a statement that external forces were making false and defamatory remarks about the government’s post-disaster follow-up and investigations, as well as stirring up trouble and maliciously attacking the disaster relief efforts, as they “harbour malicious intent”. The Office for Safeguarding National Security also condemned a “small clique of external hostile forces” for “stirring up trouble and taking advantage of the chaos.”

One woman has been arrested over a fake donation website for the Tai Po fire victims and others have been detained for making false claims about the victims whom they claimed were “harbouring grave sins” and “got their retribution.” Others have been questioned by police for unbecoming behaviour towards the victims.

But Palmer writes Police dismantled grassroots fundraising efforts and donation sites and replaced them with state-approved efforts. So says somebody more than 13,000 kilometres away.

Hong Kong people responded in their usual fashion, with compassion and within a short period some HK$1 billion had been raised for the victims. Food, clothing and blankets were also donated by a caring public.

What Palmer means is again anybody’s guess. If he is referring to Beijing, he is sadly mistaken. All efforts relating to the fire were Hong Kong’s efforts. Beijing did offer to help and had fire tenders on the ready at the Shenzhen boundary.

Chinese President Xi Jingping offered his condolences on behalf of all the Chinese people indicating the care the central authorities in Beijing have towards Hong Kong.

The city’s response to the fire was remarkable as more than 2,300 firefighters and medical personnel were involved in the operation, which included one firefighter killed and 12 others injured.

It is writers like Palmer who give Hong Kong a bad name for the sole purpose of sensationalism and political sway. But, unfortunately, their publications are read as 丶being authoritative in the corridors of power and impact on Sino-Anglo relations, an never ending frustrating situation.