Your honour, I am grateful to your honour for allowing me to make this statement about my background and the personal conviction I have held in what I did.
I was called to the bar in 1988, but my early training was not in law. I had indulgent parent is who allowed me to spend 10 years in the university in Hong Kong and then in Boston to study philosophy. There I learned about rigorous intellectual honesty in the pursuit of truth and alleviation of the suffering of mankind.
It was a sharp change for me to switch to law in 1981 when I went to Cambridge to read for a law degree. Those were the crucial years of Sino-British negotiations over the future of Hong Kong.
This was so important to all of us that, after I was called to the bar, I did not immediately start to practice, but took up an editorial post in the Ming Pao Daily News, because I accepted that it was critical to Hong Kong's future to have a strong free press, and at that stage I had some standing as a political commentator.
Your honour, the legal profession, steeped in the common law tradition of civil liberty, did not believe in unequal elections, but they considered that so long as there was such a seat, they would not allow anyone to compromise the rule of law in their name.
So I was elected their representative to hold that office in trust for the people of Hong Kong, to use it to uphold the system under which their rights and freedoms are protected by law.
I was charged with a dual mission: to do my utmost to prevent legislation that would harm the rule of law, and to safeguard the institutions that underpin the rule of law. At the top of the list was judicial independence, and the administration of justice.
法官閣下，雖然我的法律生涯較遲開始，但我是在獻身法律之下成長至老的，亦明白到 Sir Thomas More 之所以被譽為法律聖徒的原因；他不願意為皇帝屈曲法律，因此被判叛國。他的終言有多人印證過；我亦希望自己微略修改之下，能夠以此為格言：我是法律的僕人，但首先是人們的僕人；因為法律侍奉人民，而非人民侍奉法律。
同時稍早，中國對香港小朋友的「愛國洗腦教育」
香港民權議題 國安法 中國人權議題
「香港國安教育日」，讓學童玩中模擬地鐵鎮壓示威者。
香港這兩天發生兩件震撼的新聞，懇請大家多加關注！
吳靄儀早上在求情階段解僱其代表律師，並親自作求情陳詞。她陳詞後庭內掌聲四起，及後各大傳媒亦刊出其陳詞英文全文。
It meant, first of all, working conscientiously in LegCo's committees.
↓備份另外貼於站外
（延後貼）
當然可以有許多答案，但是我給予的自答是：
如果該法律和公義無限接近，我們可以要求人們服從法律。但這同時意味著我們有責任聆聽對法律的批評，並真誠地作出努力完善法律，並儘可能糾正錯誤。
公義是法律的靈魂，沒有公義，就算有多數人支持，法治只會淪為暴政。