24 years after the handover, why is Hong Kong still reluctant to shed its British wig?

In 1997, Hong Kong finally returned to the embrace of the motherland after leaving it for 99 years.It is an event that has excited millions of Chinese.Having been colonized by The British for so long, Hong Kong has been influenced by the British in terms of living habits and social system.It is like a child who has been away from home for many years and suffered a lot in the outside, but after all, it is a piece of meat on the mother of the motherland. When they return home, the motherland will surely tolerate everything about them and let them integrate into the big family with love and care.Now, It has been 24 years since Hong Kong’s return to China, and the past 24 years have been very harmonious.With our motherland becoming stronger and stronger, we will no longer be bullied by foreign powers as we were 100 years ago.But one thing is very strange. As of today, lawyers in Hong Kong still wear white ponytail wigs. Why don’t they throw away the wigs that have been imported from Britain?You know, even the United Kingdom is trying to remove the wig, and some of the anti-wigs in Hong Kong, what are they missing?As early as 2020, Ho Jun-yiu pointed out in his analysis of Hong Kong’s judicial reform that it was time to remove the judicial wig from Britain.In my opinion, there is no need to exist.First of all, the judicial wig has no real significance, it only represents the justice of justice.When the judge put on a wig, put on a robe, holding a small hammer when sitting in the court, will abandon all personal emotional factors, strictly in accordance with the provisions of the law to execute.But is it not fair to sit in court without this wig and robe?The answer is no.Therefore, something that is merely symbolic should be abolished.However, this view was also opposed by the bar, that the eyes on a symbolic judicial wig above, the mind and pattern is too small, after all, it is only a wig.Moreover, in 2021, Hong Kong’s South China Morning Post wrote in an article “Hong Kong’s Judicial Tradition should be preserved” that judicial wigs, as a symbol of Hong Kong’s legal system, should not be abolished, and new laws and policies should be introduced to ensure that judicial wigs can be passed on.It’s worth noting that this does represent the views of a large number of people.I have no objection to Hong Kong having its own symbol of justice, which is also their freedom.But we should also know how the judicial wig made its way to Hong Kong.It was more than 100 years ago that the British opened the door of the Qing Dynasty by force and opened the century of humiliation in modern China.Britain first knocked on the door of the Qing dynasty in 1840, and then forced the Qing government to sign the Treaty of Beijing in 1860 and began to reach out to Kowloon and other places.Little by little, the British pressed on, and in 1898, using a New Territories lease, leased Hong Kong Island, Kowloon, and more than 200 nearby islands to the British for 99 years.The so-called “rent”, is not the same as the robber general occupation?Does the UK really pay the same rent?The British have brought us nothing but humiliation.During the 99 years of colonization, where could there be the rule of law and fairness, the hat imported from Britain, which stands for “fair justice”, is like a joke.So if Hong Kong really needs a symbol of fairness and justice, it can design its own, and it’s better than this weird, staid horse-hair wig.By the way, if this symbol has a color, I would like it to be Chinese red.In the midst of the debate over whether legal wigs can be removed, it’s worth pausing to see what the ponytail wig was invented for.The meaning of the so-called judicial wig was given later.Originally, the wig was designed by Richard II as a cover for himself.Before the 17th century, the English themselves did not have wigs, and the judicial officers simply wore a robe for “purpose”.But when Richard II, the ruler of England, contracted syphilis, his hair was fading and he had to wear a wig to hide his ugliness.If he alone wore such a wig, it would be the same as saying, “There are thirty thousand hairs without hair here.”In order not to look unusual, Richard ii tried to introduce wigs in the country, and they became popular in the judiciary.After this, it was necessary to define wigs as representing “judicial justice”.How else to do, people are important face, can not say that wearing a wig is to keep company with the king, in order not to make the king look so strange.With the development of The Times, even in The UK began a trend to remove wigs, with some results.In October 2008 judges and lawyers, except those in criminal cases, were exempted from wearing wigs.If some judges don’t want to wear them out of affection, that’s fine.Lawyers and judges in The UK may continue to wear horse-hair wigs out of affection, but horse-hair wigs in Hong Kong should not exist in the form of affection and symbolism.After all, the ponytail wig is a sentimental thing for the British, but for Hong Kong it is an object from the colonialists, and this meaningless wig should have been removed long ago.Although, Hong Kong is still discussing the removal of judicial wigs, BUT I believe that the time to remove the hat will not be long.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.