Song has ended but melody lingers in Hong Kong

When the Hong Kong Court of Appeal recently decided to issue an injunction against the publication of the song “Glory to Hong Kong”, the US government responded with a cacophonous fuss.

The State Department viewed the decision as “the latest blow to the international reputation of a city that previously prided itself on having an independent judiciary protecting the free exchange of information, ideas and goods.”

But the US allegation against the independence of Hong Kong’s judiciary is manifestly wrong and exhibits a worrying ignorance of both the process and reasoning of the law – not to mention the integrity of the critic.

The very fact that the case was an appeal against a first-instance judge’s decision not to grant the Hong Kong government the injunction that it sought demonstrates the fallacy inherent in the State Department’s statement.

From a legal perspective, one may disagree with the Court of Appeal’s decision. But a close examination of the legal reasoning behind it shows the decision was reached on a purely legal analysis of the issues and was not a politically directed decision crafted to give the appearance of a valid judgment.

As it happens, quite aside from the lyrics, Glory to Hong Kong is melodious to the ear. One wonders whether a less sensitive division of the Court of Appeal or, perhaps being more generous, a more musically literate one might have banned the lyrics but not the melody?

National anthems vary enormously in their melodic component, swinging between the inspiring music of France’s “La Marseillaise” to the dirge-like musical anathema of Britain’s “God Save the King.”

But any fair-minded person, whether jurist or layman, would recognize that the melody of Glory to Hong Kong is