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
** 博客文章文責自負,不代表本公司立場 **
The appointment of Julie Eadeh as the new US Consul General in Hong Kong does not auger well for the city. In her previous posting here, she took an active role in the 2019-20 riots which rocked the very foundations of Hong Kong.
Photographs of her meeting with student activists Joshua Wong, Nathan Law and others at a hotel and at the consulate during the disturbances while she was head of the political department at the consulate went viral in the local and social media. It was seen by many at the time to be a direct US interference in Hong Kong’s internal affairs.
Now she is being criticised for reaching out to far-left activists in Hong Kong within the first month of her tenure in her new post. Meetings with former Chief Secretary Anson Chan and former legislature councillor Emily Lau, both sympathisers of the rioters, have been seen as an indication of Eadeh’s priority in dealing with Hong Kong matters.
Chief Executive John Lee said at a media briefing on Tuesday that consuls should perform their duties in Hong Kong in a manner befitting their diplomatic status and refrain from interfering in China's internal affairs and Hong Kong's affairs under any pretext or in any form.
“They should respect China's sovereignty and the rule of law in Hong Kong. I hope all consuls in Hong Kong will engage in constructive activities, not destructive activities,” he said. Of course he was referring to the US Consul General.
And Eadeh has been warned by Chinese authorities in Beijing and Hong Kong not to cross the “red lines” by interfering in China’s or Hong Kong’s affairs. The Hong Kong and Macao Affairs Office (HKMAO) accused Eadeh of “being back in the old game” of disrupting the city. She is being closely watched.
Eadeh has taken over the consul general’s job from Gregory May who has been transferred to Beijing as the US’s deputy chief of mission there. May was very outspoken on China and Hong Kong policies during his Hong Kong posting and was berated many times for interfering in local affairs. Eadeh served under May as the consulate’s political director.
She has had a colourful career having served in Ankara, Doha, Shanghai, Bagdad, Riyadh, Beirut and, of course, Hong Kong. When she joined the foreign service in 2004, she covered human rights issues including the first ever elections in Saudia Arabia. She assisted in the largest evacuation of American civilians in Lebanon in 2006. She also speaks fluent Putonghua, which would have helped her in her Shanghai posting from 2010-2012.
Hong Kong has 70 diplomatic missions, of which 62 are consulate generals, meaning all, except one, answer to their embassies in Beijing. Eight are consulates.
The one exception is the US Consulate General which answers directly to China hawk, the new Secretary of State in Washington, Marco Rubio.
It will be Rubio who will direct Eadeh on the line to take in relation to Hong Kong affairs, including trade and political issues.
The combination of Rubio and Eadeh dictating the US’s role over Hong Kong is like vultures hovering over our skies looking for easy pickings. But it will not be easy for them. Hong Kong people are fully aware of their ill-defined intentions and will look at anything coming out of the consulate with caution and suspicion. It cannot be trusted.
Rubio, who served as a Republican congressman before accepting the Secretary of State job, sponsored the bipartisan Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act, which required the U.S. government to impose sanctions on officials implicated in human rights abuses in Hong Kong.
Following the U.S. Treasury Department's sanctions on Hong Kong's former Chief Executive Carrie Lam and other officials in 2020, China retaliated with tit-for-tat sanctions against Rubio and five other Republican legislators.
"China has decided to impose sanctions on individuals who have behaved egregiously on Hong Kong-related issues," the Chinese foreign ministry said at the time.
The Rubio/Eadeh relationship could spell disaster for Hong Kong and given her human rights background and previous Hong Kong experience during the 2019 riots, it appears she was placed in this new position on purpose – to fulfill the US objective of dismantling Hong Kong to slow down China’s rapid growth and development. Beware of the enemy within.
