Morality and immorality of civil disobedience
Jailed trio’s behavior, and the presence of legitimate channels for their grievances, does not square with ‘legitimate civil disobedience’, Ho Lok-sang argues
Last week three youngsters were put into prison for storming the government headquarters in 2014. The sentences ranged from six to eight months. Speaking on their behalf, Benny Tai Yiu-ting, an associate professor at the University of Hong Kong law school and protagonist of the “Occupy Central” movement, says Hong Kong badly needs people like these youngsters. “It is a mark of civilization to have those who sincerely break the law, so as to challenge the law or acts of injustice by the government,” he wrote. “The court, in handing down the sentence, must consider the sincere motives of participants of civil disobedience. This is completely opposite to the negative tone the appeal court adopts toward civil disobedience…” This position of Tai is to be expected but the dividing line between honorable disobedience and dishonorable disobedience needs to be made clear. And this requires judgment based on a willingness to put oneself in the shoes of others, and a sense of proportionality.
Today few will disagree with the view that there is such a thing as honorable civil disobedience. When some members of society are grossly mistreated, or taken as second-class citizens without the right to education, or without the right to take certain seats in a bus that is reserved for a “superior race”, or without the right to take senior positions in the government for reasons other than merit, there may be a case for civil disobedience. But even when there is a case for disobedience, there still needs to be a sense of proportionality. Among the most notable civil disobedience events in the United States occurred when Rosa Parks refused to move on the bus when a white man tried to take her seat after the whites-only section was filled. In India, in defiance of the colonists who exploited the people as overlords, Mahatma Gandhi preached “passive resistance in all departments of life”. In particular, he did not actively seek to disrupt the lives of others, and he asked his followers to adhere to the principles of “discipline, thought, care, attention and sacrifice”. Gandhi’s first act of civil disobedience occurred when he was a young lawyer in South Africa. He refused to comply with racial segregation rules on a South African train and was forcibly taken off the train.
In contrast with these acts of civil disobedience that attracted universal applause, the “civil disobedience” that we have seen in Hong Kong in 2014, and in particular the acts of the trio who were just jailed, were anything but civil. There was also little gross injustice that could compare with the discrimination against an ethnic group as in the US in Parks’ days. All legislators were already elected. In comparison, when Chris Patten arrived in 1992 as the last governor appointed by the Queen of England, the Legislative Council comprised only 18 directly elected seats from the geographical constituencies, 21 functional constituencies mostly selected by the powerful elite groups in Hong Kong, 17 members appointed by the governor, three exofficio members including the chief secretary, attorney general and financial secretary. The governor at the time served as the LegCo president. The Basic Law had set up the basic rules of further political reform and the process of democratization had never stopped. To every objective observer, in 2014 Hong Kong people were already enjoying unprecedented political rights. Had it not been for the opposition of “pandemocrats”, Hong Kong people even would have had the opportunity last year to elect their own chief executive via “one person, one vote” for the first time in history.
Of course, there is no lack of sympathizers for the trio Joshua Wong Chi-fung, Nathan Law Kwun-chung and Alex Chow Yong-kang. The last governor Chris Patten wrote a letter to the Financial Times describing the imprisonment of the trio as “deplorable”. Another Times article reported that “human rights campaigners” described the trio as Hong Kong’s first “political prisoners” alongside 13 others
Ten guards were injured during the storming of the government headquarters. The motivation that drove them (Wong, Law and Chow) into violation of other people’s legal rights is beside the point.
who were jailed earlier for similar acts. These allegations are wide out of the mark. The imprisonment had nothing to do with their political views but had everything to do with the violation of the legal rights of other people. Ten guards were injured during the storming of the government headquarters. The motivation that drove them into violation of other people’s legal rights is beside the point. The law is there to protect people’s legal rights, and the legal right of expression is fully protected. The trio were not prosecuted for their views but for their violence and their incitement of violence.
The “Occupy” movement was billed as “Occupy Central with Love and Peace” and a democratic movement, but survey after survey conducted by Ming Pao newspaper showed that there was always a majority of Hong Kong people who opposed “Occupy”. Thus “Occupy” was neither “loving and peaceful” nor “democratic”. Occupiers deprived the public of the use of the main thoroughfares of Hong Kong for 79 days. Those who depict the lawbreakers as “political prisoners” are not just biased; they are defaming Hong Kong’s independent judiciary. Their intent is suspicious, and their criticism of the court’s sentencing almost certainly politically motivated.