Hong Kong's rule of law has passed the Occupy test - so far
Cliff Buddle says though tested by the illegal Occupy protests and related infractions, the rule of law remains intact in Hong Kong. In fact, it is all the stronger for having weathered the storm so far
The surrender to police by Occupy Central leaders brings their civil disobedience campaign to a symbolic end, almost two years after it was first proposed. The pro-democracy protests, which they long ago lost control of, still occupy Hong Kong streets. But, as the police continue clearance operations amid waning public support for the protests, we are surely reaching the end of this extraordinary chapter in Hong Kong's history.
There has been much discussion, over the nine weeks of protest, about the impact of the Occupy movement on Hong Kong's rule of law. We have, regrettably, seen violent clashes on the streets, with protesters, their opponents and the police all culpable at times. There has been sustained breaking of the law, through the occupation of the streets, causing businesses to suffer and people to be inconvenienced. And, amid a political deadlock, our courts have been dragged into the affair.
The rule of law has been sorely tested. But I suggest it has passed that test and will, if anything, emerge stronger from these difficult times.
The term "the rule of law" is bandied about as if it only has one meaning. But it is open to different interpretations. Core elements of Hong Kong's rule of law include government power to be limited by the law and the law to apply equally to everyone. There must be adequate legal protection of people's rights and disputes are to be decided freely and fairly by an independent judiciary. There is much more to the concept than simply obeying the law.
Judges in the United Kingdom have disagreed on the question of whether civil disobedience is compatible with the rule of law. It is clear, however, that breaking the law is not, in itself, a threat to the rule of law.
Even widespread illegality need not necessarily undermine it. The occupation of the streets is not the only example of this in Hong Kong. Two years ago, all the talk was of illegal structures in flagrant breach of building regulations. Warnings were issued to 200,000 owners of village houses. Then we have smoking in public places, idling engines, unlawful dumping in the New Territories and illegal parking. While Hong Kong deserves its reputation as an orderly and lawful place, we are no strangers to widespread breaking of the law.