For the benefit of English language readers, the note in the photograph below roughly translates as follows: *** Hello! Law Society President Ambrose Lams praise for State Councils One Country Two System White Paper, and his statement that judges loving the country will not affect judicial independence, has led to him being rounded on by pan-democrats, who asked him to retract his statements, as well as implementing [sic] a vote of no confidence against him. Is this still freedom of speech? Who is instigating white terror? In order to protect the voice of justice, please vote against in the proxy appointment form for the 2014 Hong Kong Law Society Extraordinary General Meeting. Enclosed is a copy of the form, please send to the following address when completed: [Address redacted] Sincerely, Ta Kung Pao Marketing Department, Pang Kai Yiu [Cantonese transliteration of name] 24 July 2014 *** Just a few short points: 1. For those who may not know, Ta Kung Pao is one of the newspapers which has traditionally been considered as being closely identified with the Chinese Communist Party. 2. The substance of this purported note completely misrepresents reality: (a) In our EGM Statement posted on this page on 16 July 2014, we explained why treating loving the country as a fundamental political requirement (being the White Papers words) does indeed threaten judicial independence. (b) The issue is not about freedom of speech. It is instead about whether Mr Lam was entitled to violate the Law Societys longstanding political neutrality and due processes in speaking on issues in a Law Society official event (as was the case in respect of the 16 June press conference) and/or as Law Society President prior to going through proper internal procedures. We will provide more examples of these various flagrant breaches later this week. (c) If our EGM efforts are really part of an organised political plot as is insinuated by the reference to pan-democrats, we would not have members of our core team having to work intensely on an ad hoc basis on EGM issues, as well as maintaining their day jobs as solicitors, sometimes starting work before dawn and not finishing until well into the evening. 3. We are not aware of anyone having managed to verify the authenticity or otherwise of this note. In any event, we have been hearing rumours (obviously we are in no position to verify anything given the nature of such situations) from supporters about widespread, organised attempts to collect proxies against the EGM resolutions. 4. Such attempts, if true, confirms our every expectation that we would, in this EGM, more likely than not be up against a well-oiled proxy collection machine, such that the chances of the resolutions being carried (or even getting close to being carried) are not high. It is therefore even more important than ever that we solicitors stand up to make our voices heard in defence of fundamental values! Once again, thank you all for your support. Whatever the final result may be, we shall be heard!
Posted on: Mon, 28 Jul 2014 11:40:01 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015