Rule of law sets boundaries
Updated: 2013-08-02 06:47
By Yang Sheng(HK Edition)
|
|||||||
No one can deny that Hong Kong is a free society under rule of law. In this cosmopolitan city, Eastern and Western cultures converge, various political inclinations coexist and freedoms of the press, expression, assembly and association are protected by law. Its rule of law is so strong even Edward Snowden, the American whistleblower, chose the city as his first choice of asylum.
Civil disobedience is the extreme form of expression for civil liberty and rights. It is characterized by citizens openly announcing their intent to violate a particular law and willingness to accept the consequence of their illegal action so as to evoke greater social concern and win greater public sympathy for their demand for the government, or those in power, to amend the law being targeted. Although no government in this world has granted citizens the right to carry out civil disobedience, many scholars are inclined to agree that it is a God-given human right.
Because participants of civil obedience always insist their illegal action is for the greater good of society rather than personal interest, some groups supporting "Occupy Central" in Hong Kong have stated in the local press that "breaking the law does not necessarily equal a criminal offense" and therefore cannot be compared to a crime. Or, in University of Hong Kong's Associate Prof Tai Yiu-ting's words, it is "different from robbing a jewelry store".
However, take a closer look at these statements, and one can easily see their argument is shaky at best. If this kind of civil disobedience is hyped long enough through propaganda Hong Kong society may find itself in a collective cognitive disorientation or indoctrinated by a myth. Why?
Because, first of all, civil disobedience in essence is an act of achieving political goals by illegal means. However, abiding by the law is a prerequisite for democracy to function well. Civil society cannot exist without rule of law; and it helps rule of law develop and improve. The two are mutually interdependent. If citizens seek more rights by illegal means whenever they want, they will turn into a mob. That will pit rule of law and citizens against each other instead of being inter-complementary: either citizens are punished by law, or rule of law is trampled on or even destroyed by citizens.
There can be any number of excuses to break the law with civil disobedience. Some may concern personal moral standards or political beliefs, while others may come from faith or jurisprudence. No matter how high and mighty those excuses may sound, the act of achieving them illegally still constitutes a criminal offense in the eyes of the law. It is unusual in style, but still a crime nonetheless.
Openly violating the law, challenging the bottom line of the rule of law and triggering social disturbance run counter to the spirit of the rule of law that Hong Kong residents cherish dearly, which is why civil obedience must be used with extreme caution. If "Occupy" is really meant to force the central authorities into submission, it will be a very dangerous move, because others are bound to follow suit and seek political profit by illegal means if "Occupy" succeeds. It will be the death of the rule of law and nothing and no one will be safe anymore.
Second, a prerequisite of civil disobedience is that an autocratic regime completely ignores people's demand for reform, leaving the latter with no other choice but to achieve their goal through a revolution or civil disobedience. But this prerequisite does not exist in Hong Kong, because not even the most radical activists can say without blinking that Hong Kong is under dictatorial or autocratic rule. Moreover, the SAR government has always responded to popular demands extremely sincerely (or humbly shall I say). And Chief Executive Leung Chun-ying has invited opposition as well as pro-establishment parties to partake in public consultations over universal suffrage. How can anyone describe such action as "ignoring" popular demand?
Hong Kong people used to be widely known as politically insensitive and hardly raised any political demands under British colonial rule. Since the handover, however, Hong Kong residents now have a sense of being the masters of their own city; and their political enthusiasm has been rising steadily. This is beneficial to the development of democracy in Hong Kong. Still, we must keep in mind that what we need is rational argument and good interaction. We must protect Hong Kong's peace and prosperity and turn our backs on radicalism, secessionism and populism, which have attracted some subscribers in recent years.
Also, the legitimacy of civil disobedience should be based on the fact that all legal means to achieve justice have been "exhausted" without success. In other words, people's lawful demand has been completely ignored and no other way to secure the human rights of the masses is available except civil disobedience. There are normally three ways for citizens to achieve political quests: following the existing legal process with petitions for the judiciary, the legislature, or the government department concerned, to grant their wish by ruling in their favor, amending the law or changing the rules, respectively. They can also exercise their constitutional rights such as peaceful protest, public forum and/or mass petition. Those are legal means to achieve justice. And Hong Kong's reality tells me these legal means are far from having been "exhausted". The last way is not only illegal and least advisable but also unnecessary and inopportune.
The author is a current affairs commentator.
(HK Edition 08/02/2013 page1)