We saw no cataclysmic or transformative events around Dec 21, 2012. The date marked the end of a 5,125 year long cycle in the Mesoamerican Long Count Calendar used by the Mayan culture. When superstitions that grew up around the calendar proved unfounded, the time came to look forward to the new year and the beginning of a new cycle for Hong Kong. It was time to reflect on what directions Hong Kong should take to further its prosperity, remove poverty and improve the quality of life through new legislation.

The recent report published in the UK favoring a new Bill of Rights reminds us in Hong Kong of the need to consult the public on controversial legislation, whether it concerns civil liberties or the quality of life.

It is worth mentioning that the UK Commission on a Bill of Rights, chaired by former permanent secretary Sir Leigh Lewis, spent 21 months and 700,000 pounds investigating the creation of a UK bill of rights. It has come out in favor of a bill that would "incorporate and build on all of the UK's obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR)". But it recognized the controversy on the subject.

In its first chapter, the Commission openly declared that few subjects generate more strongly-held views than human rights. The controversies apparently are no less than what took place in Hong Kong. Scarcely a week passes without the appearance of headlines supporting or condemning the latest human rights court judgment. Successive governments have been routinely accused by opponents of ignoring or reducing the rights of individuals. High profile court cases involving potential extradition or deportation turned increasingly on whether the human rights of those facing such action will be infringed. The media, politicians, commentators, academics and lawyers queue up to deliver their views, at times in highly colorful language, on the latest human rights controversy.

There ought not to have been any controversy, at first sight on the matter. Britain prides itself as a country capable of protecting its citizens with civil liberty rights.

However, the problem in this case, if one could crudely speak, is the result of the perceived or actual taking away of sovereignty of the courts in the UK by Strasbourg. In the first decade after the Convention came to life in 1953, only 36 cases were admitted for adjudication with just two cases concerning the UK. That position began to change, however, as more countries joined the Council of Europe and ratified the Convention and, as more of them agreed to the right of individual petition.

In the early 1990s, when former Soviet bloc countries began joining the Council of Europe and ratifying the Convention, the number of cases brought to the Court rose steeply and, unsurprisingly, a backlog of cases began to emerge. By the end of the 1990s, this had reached some 20,000. The situation cried out loud for a review of the relationship between the UK court and the European Court of Justice on Human Rights.

Notwithstanding this apparent need, however, the Commission recognized there is always a need in every civil society to respect different intellectually coherent viewpoints in relation to human rights. Any debate needs to be well informed and not distorted by stereotypes or caricatures that have all too often characterized it in the media. Consultation, and genuine consultation, is part of the process so that divergent views can be full ventilated.

Forming part of any consultation, the establishment of rights and the "concept of responsibilities" should be debated. This is simply because at least for certain rights, such as the right to privacy or the freedom to expression, the extent of the protection should be determined, at least in part, by the actions of the individual seeking to avail that protection.

It remains for me to wish our readers a most Happy New Year.

The author is a Hong Kong barrister and chairman of the Hong Kong Bar's Special Committee on Planning and Policy.

(HK Edition 01/04/2013 page3)