Mayer Brown’s lawyers issued a statement last Friday (15th) confirming that they will no longer seek to remove the "Pillar of National War" sculpture on behalf of the University of Hong Kong. This is undoubtedly the case between the University of Hong Kong and the Stake and the sculptor Gao Zhihuo. Legal disputes have evolved into political wrestling.
The American lawyer Mayer Brown originally sent a letter to the stake liquidator on behalf of the University of Hong Kong, requesting the other party to remove the "Pillar of National Sorrow" statue before the 13th of this month.
Subsequently, more than 20 organizations put pressure on Mayer Brown to stop representing the University of Hong Kong. The co-signers included the British organization Hong Kong Watch and the Hong Kong Democracy Council currently led by Zhou Yongkang and Liang Jiping.
U.S. Senator puts pressure on Mayer Brown
Senior senators Lindsey Graham and Ted Cruz of the Republican Party also condemned Mayer Brown on this matter. Cruz clearly stated that "American companies (on the issue of "Pillars of National Defence") should be ashamed and assassinated."
Even if Mayer Brown only stated that it would no longer represent the University of Hong Kong, and would not comment on the "Pillar of National War" incident, from the perspective of the development of the matter, it was obviously caused by political pressure.
Tracing back to the source, the "pillar of national sorrow" was originally a legal issue.
On the one hand, according to the creator Gao Zhihuo, an agreement in 1998 stated that the "Pillar of National Sorrow" was displayed on the campus of the University of Hong Kong. The stake and the University of Hong Kong would manage and be responsible for the cost of permanent display. In principle, the sculpture still belongs to him. have.
But on the other hand, the stake has entered the liquidation process, and the Hong Kong University Huang Kejing Building Platform erected by the "Pillar of National Sorrow" is also within the campus of the University of Hong Kong.
The University of Hong Kong has asked the liquidator of the stake to remove the "pillar of national sorrow," what should be done with the rest, and what should be done if the stake is not cleared away. Strictly speaking, it is a legal issue. It should be in accordance with legal principles such as title. deal with.
Some people even prevent the University of Hong Kong from appointing lawyers to handle the matter. This is undoubtedly a political position that goes against the spirit of the law.
Political criticism is not the first time
More importantly, similar things are not the first time.
In January this year, in the unapproved assembly of the "August 18" case involving nine people including Li Zhiying and Martin Lee, the Law Firm was originally approved by the Chief Justice of the High Court, and the British Queen's Counsel David Perry came to Hong Kong as the prosecutor.
However, political criticism from the British society followed one after another. Only eight days later, the Attorney General issued a statement stating that David Perry meant that he would not come to Hong Kong for prosecution due to pressure from the British society.
The same is that whether to hire an external lawyer is a technical issue measured by the court, and whether the defendant is guilty is also a legal issue to examine the rationale of both parties. However, some people in the community prevent one of the parties from hiring a lawyer, which is also a politically first operation.
The law itself is the method of resolving social disputes. If it is repeatedly reduced to political wrestling due to social pressure, the problem will no longer be dealt with in a fair manner by legal methods and principles. In the end, the entire society will inevitably suffer losses.
This is not only a wrong path in legal disputes, but also a wrong path in a civilized society. All walks of life in Hong Kong must be vigilant.
The law should not be subjugated to the law. Political struggles to intimidate judges will only undermine the independence of the judiciary. Regret for those who set fire to the court.
