As one of those involved in scrutinising and amending the Public Order Ordinance both before and after 1997, I can confirm that the Hong Kong law regarding the holding of public rallies is more liberal than that in most other countries, with the possible exception of Australia.
For members of the public wishing to demonstrate or march, it merely requires notification seven days in advance (less on reasonable request) and notification by the police that they have no objection. Only on very rare occasions do the police object. They have the responsibility to protect the public from possible violence.
Older residents of Hong Kong will know that I, for many years, took up cases of injustice at a time when the law was much more stringent, but I held one principle that I strictly adhered to, that is, not to break the law. To win support for a cause, one has to be 'whiter than white' with respect to observing the law. If not, the cause is damaged and the one who breaks the law is discredited.
Those who insist on breaking the law by trying to demonstrate whenever and wherever they like are damaging their own cause and deserve no sympathy from the public, since they disregard the rights of others to use the pavements and roads, and run the risk of demonstrations erupting into rioting with no police presence. If such people support the rule of law, as they claim, they should first learn how to keep the law, and not behave like anarchists.
Hong Kong is fortunate to enjoy freedom of assembly. But the public also have the right of freedom to walk the streets unimpeded. Moreover, the police have more important duties to perform than having to rush to the scene of every unreported rowdy assembly to ensure no person is unduly harassed, and no office illegally entered.
The tragedy in the Immigration Tower should have taught everyone a lesson about what can happen when an unauthorised demonstration becomes emotional.
