Silence amounts to guilt when there is a duty to speak. In commemorating the sixth anniversary of reunification with the mainland on July 1, Hong Kong witnessed its largest protest since 1989. The protest's core objective was to resist the Hong Kong government's proposals to pass Article 23 legislation. But the demonstration, and the expression of the right to dissent, are a reflection of the state of governance in Hong Kong. The government has obviously not sufficiently and genuinely engaged the residents of the Special Administrative Region on the need for national security legislation. The Sars crisis and the handling of it by the government only aggravated the concerns of the people, and July 1 reflected the deep and pervasive resentment of Hongkongers over the policies of their government. The protest brought to the forefront many issues relating to good governance, democratic dissent and the human right to protest and dissent. Hong Kong residents have demonstrated a unique sense of civic leadership by coming to the streets and expressing their concerns in a truly democratic way. The right to protest and the freedom to dissent are inextricable parts of democratic governance, and relate to the enjoyment of political freedoms and meaningful participation in the decisions that shape a society. Hong Kong is maturing and is getting ready to embrace democracy, but democracy is not just about elections. It is also about accountability and responsibility and, in this context, the Hong Kong experience of people protesting in the streets can have profound implications for the government developing policies relating to good governance. The United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific has described the characteristics of good governance as participation, the rule of law, transparency, responsiveness, an orientation towards consensus, equity and inclusiveness, effectiveness, efficiency and accountability. The United Nations Development Programme has said governance is the exercise of economic, political and administrative authority to manage a country's affairs at all levels. It comprises mechanisms, processes and institutions through which citizens and groups articulate their interests, exercise their legal rights, meet their obligations and mediate their differences. If protests and dissents are not heard by the government, and if people are not allowed to exercise their right to be heard, then, arguably, the situation could culminate in a crisis in governance. The conduct of the protesters was remarkable, as they aired their views and opinions through a democratic protest against government policies, including their concerns on the national security legislation. Not one person was arrested. It is important that the residents of Hong Kong understand these protests have profound implications. The fact that the protests generated no violence and produced no law-and-order problems, only reinforces the mature, self-regulating and disciplined approach of the residents of Hong Kong. The seriousness of the issue is reinforced by the fact that if half a million people were actually in the streets of Hong Kong, then, by any conservative estimate, that at least two or three times more than that number share similar views and concerns as the protesters, but were not in a position to join the protest. Expressions of dissent and protests against the policies of the government are the fulfilment of civic responsibilities. The rule of law that prevails in Hong Kong is not due just to the government ensuring its preservation through legal, judicial and institutional mechanisms. It is also, significantly, due to the residents of Hong Kong, who have chosen to adhere to the rule of law in pursuing their actions. However, the rule of law in Hong Kong is not necessarily guaranteed forever if the government does not respond to the dissent. The leadership of civil society, through dissent and demonstrations, has the potential to engage the government so it may be forced to rethink various issues disputed by protesters and the policy formulators. In the short run, these protests may result in the Hong Kong government being forced to alter its position on Article 23. In the long run, they may provide impetus to the movement for the deepening of democracy. Hongkongers may become much more aware of their rights and obligations, and may gain a better understanding of the responsibilities that come along with the democratic form of government. Activism in civil society - the participation of various social pressure groups, the work of non-governmental organisations, and sustained activism by a free media in Hong Kong - may generate a larger political consensus over how it ought to be governed. Thinking of Edmund Burke's words, 'The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men [and women] to do nothing', it is remarkable that the people of Hong Kong actually did something - they rose to the occasion, protested and recorded their dissent. The protest and the dissent in itself have intrinsic worth, regardless of whether they are being heard. Raj Kumar is a lecturer at City University's School of Law