C. Whistleblowers in Hong Kong
1. The Second Case of Mr Anthony C H CHUA :
2. The Hong Kong Barrister challenging that the Hong Kong Bar Code No. 101 is against the freedom of speech and that the Hong Kong Bar Association has practised double-standard by asserting itself not being subject to the application of Hong Kong Bill of Rights.

• As per South China Morning Post (SCMP) below (full report) and in Main HomePage - FrontPage (re-touched) and theOriental Daily News (below).
• Retaliating against Mr CHUA's dissident views in the policies of internship, China-relations etc., the Hong Kong Bar Association charged Mr CHUA for "self-advertising" under Hong Kong Bar Code No. 101 when he was interviewed by the Eastweek magazine on 24 Dec 92 concerning his case against the Hong Kong Colonial Government. He did not in fact "advertise" in the conventional way of holding out his legal services for financial returns. He just produced a photo of himself in wig and gown taken outside the Supreme Court on the day of his call to the Hong Kong Bar to highlight his difficulties in finding a pupilmaster to begin his internship.
  The difficulties were due to his cases against the Hong Kong Colonial Government. At the suggestion of the reporter, Mr CHUA agreed to the application of a Chinese saying that the difficulties would be described as his "fame being higher than his master's (B5:名高蓋主)". This saying, however, was taken by Mr Lawrence LOK QC (meaning Queen's Counsel, a senior barrister; now renamed to Senior Counsel) (B5:駱應淦) the prosecutor of the Hong Kong Bar Association, as Mr CHUA's advertising his legal skill being higher than that of his pupilmaster. His pupilmaster turned out to Mr Philip DYKES QC (QC since early 1997), a well-known advocate in human rights cases. It must be remembered, however, that at the time of the alleged "self-advertisement", Mr CHUA had difficulties in finding a pupilmaster.
• The Barrister's Disciplinary Tribunal, chaired by a leading criminal law lawyer Mr Alan HOO QC (B5:胡漢清), together with Mr Simon WESTBROOK and Mr SUM Choi-sang, accepted Mr LOK's arguments. Mr HOO rejected the authoritative view of pro bono defence counsel Mr Denis CHANG QC (B5:張健利) that the Hong Kong Bar Association, in promulgating the Bar Code No. 101 and then enforcing it via disciplinary prosecution, is a "public authority" for the purpose of putting itself under the Bill of Rights. Amicus Curia Mr Robert RIBEIRO QC holds a similar view on the basis that the Hong Kong Bar Association had not offered any evidence at all to justify that the Hong Kong Bar Code No. 101 was within the justifiable limitation on the right to freedom of expression. Both Miss Jacqueline LEONG (B5:梁冰濂) and Mr Ronny WONG (B5:黃福鑫), the two Chairs involved in initiating the disciplinary prosecution, refused to testify before the Tribunal (more for fear of being cross-examined of their dislike of Mr CHUA's dissident views). The Tribunal ruled that Mr CHUA's claim of victimisation did not amount to a defence in law.
  Commentaries in the society at large, however, have been adverse to the ambit of the Hong Kong Bar Code No. 101 and critical of the high-handed disciplinary prosecution of a barrister still under internship. At the beginning of the case, Mr HOO rejected Mr CHUA's submission that other minor disciplinary action (e.g. an interview by the Chairlady of the Bar) would be more appropriate to a full-fledged Tribunal hearing, which is reserved only for serious disciplinary misconduct (e.g. default of the client's money).
• Commentary by Hong Kong Economic Journal (B5:;GB:) 8 Jun 94 queried why a lady solicitor, who was also interviewed (in an even higher profile for many times), was not so charged by the Hong Kong Law Society (which governed the solicitors - the other half of the legal profession under the British common law tradition). Commentary by Ming Pao (B5:;GB:) 14 Sept 94 focused on the policeman's propriety (and by implication lawfulness) in checking Mr CHUA's Identity Card, when his identity was already well known.
• Commentary by Sing Tao (B5:;GB:) 10 Sept 94 centred on Mr CHUA's lone demonstration outside the Supreme Court (in wig and gown again to attract a second charge under Hong Kong Bar Code No. 101 - the Hong Kong Bar Association has so far taken no action). By not invoking Hong Kong Bar Code No. 101 again when the demonstration is CLEARLY intended as a "self-advertisement", the Code No. 101 itself and the Hong Kong Bar Association have been TOTALLY discredited. Commentary by Hong Kong Economic Times (B5:;GB:) 10 Sept 94 concentrated on the "hands-off" reactions of other Hong Kong senior barristers.
• Commentary by Bill of Rights Bulletin v3 n2 Oct 94:40-41 supported Mr CHUA's argument that the Hong Kong Bar is a "public authority" under the Bill of Rights when promuglating and prosecuting under Hong Kong Bar Code 101. It pointed out that the Tribunal, in agreeing to the assertion of the Hong Kong Bar Association that it is a "private club" not subject to the Rule-of-Law under the Bill of Rights, "may well be doing a disservice to the Association in the long run". The Attorney General's Consultation Report 1994 further recommends to relax the blanket prohibition under Hong Kong Bar Code 101 and to allow advertisement and promotion by lawyers on the basic of the prevailing international standard of advanced countries of "not be false, misleading or deceptive" (p.70).
• Non-independence of the Hong Kong Legal Aid Director and the Hong Kong Judiciary (Masters BETTS, WOOLEY and JONES) in not granting legal aid on merit to the foregoing cases, raise issues on Hong Kong's system of justice, which has already been under the scrutiny of Amnesty International (AI). The 21 April 1994 AI report Hong Kong and Human Rights: Flaws in the System says "...cases can be extremely expensive and people have often been refused legal aid", cited by Anna WU in Michael C DAVIS (ed) (1995) Human Rights and Chinese Values p192-193. WU went on to quote that "...over 92% of applications for legal aid in Bill of rights civil rights (excluding immigration cases) were rejected under the 'merit test' of the legal Aid Department". Mr CHUA passed all the 'means tests'; but not the 'merit tests' (see ref. M/LA 14489/97(I10) letter from Acting Deputy Legal Aid Director Mr Harry MAK).
• Bankruptcy Move, after two years of relative low-profile follow-up pursuits by the then Bar Chairlady Miss Gladys LI QC (B5:李志喜), was made by the new Chairlady Ms Audrey EU QC (B5:余若薇) to enforce the cost awarded by the Barristers' Disciplinary Tribunal (almost half a million Hong Kong dollar, about US$64,000). The Move takes advantage of Hong Kong's present bankruptcy laws, which are against human rights (e.g. lifetime bankruptcy, closure of all bank and credit card accounts, restriction of freedom of movement). On 12 Nov 97, Master KWAN referred the question of whether Mr CHUA's "Gandhi-Style Protest amounts to a valid legal Opposition to the bankruptcy move" per his faxbroadcast of 7 Nov 97 ref H-P-Bar3, to be heard on 17 Nov 97 by Mr Justice Anthony ROGERS.