Incivility reigns in Hong Kong’s civil society
Kerry Kennedy says though all groups are guilty, those who play the role
of government critic should especially bear in mind the need to uphold justice and practise tolerance
The great benefit of civil society is that it offers a voice that can often counter the excesses by governments. Yet, when civil society itself becomes uncivil, its potential to impact on those excesses is reduced and an important tool is lost to maintain a just and fair society. Hong Kong has reached this point.
The incivility shown by many lawmakers towards institutions such as the Legislative Council is a good example of how the potential of civil society is being wasted. It displays a selfishness that, in the end, undermines the influence of the institution and people’s trust in it. Throwing objects at speakers, rushing to the front to assail convenors and standing on seats to shout threats to all and sundry do nothing to advance the cause of democracy. Such actions send exactly the wrong message both to the community and the central government, reinforcing stereotypes of democratic behaviour.
Of course, the uncivil behaviour of legislators and students from Hong Kong’s most elite university does not exist as isolated incidents. The gloves are off for all groups: localists and nativists think it’s alright to harass mainland tourists, the Liberal Party thinks nothing of organising an alliance against refugees and some church leaders openly promote hate towards sexual minorities. These are all uncivil actions that seem to be increasingly tolerated as incivility dictates public discourse in Hong Kong.
This means that the democratic narrative around any issue will always be challenged, as in the case of the decision not to appoint Professor Joannes Chan Man-mun to an administrative position at HKU. The only question that needed to be asked in that case was did Chan meet the selection criteria for the position? Rather, the issue has been politicised by both the pro-democrats and the pro-establishment camp, to the point where the real question has been lost and incivility reigns on both sides. As a result, the university has suffered, the candidate has suffered and the community has suffered.
This applies to all groups in civil society – not just the pro-democrats. Getting one’s own way at the expense of social cohesion and inclusion is not a victory at all. People live in society because there are benefits in being and working together. Aggrandisement by one group at the expense of another breaks this social contract. Disagreements should never be allowed to outweigh the core of common values that unite all Hong Kong people. It seems at the moment there is no champion for what brings people together – just uncivil behaviour that drives people further apart. Hard work is needed to recover a sense of community that can help the city recover both its civility and dignity.
Professor Kerry Kennedy is director of the Centre for Governance and Citizenship at the Hong Kong Institute of Education