Amnesty for Hong Kong extradition bill protesters would heal society and close rifts with mainland China
- Hong Kong’s guidelines for prosecutors say there are conditions in which prosecution does not serve the public interest
- Recent acts, in a highly charged atmosphere created by unresponsive government, should fall under those conditions
The continuing political crisis in Hong Kong has reached, in the words of Chief Executive Carrie Lam Cheng Yuet-ngor, an impasse.
The government is merely dissembling. Its “listening” and “dialogues” are pure window dressing rooted in Hong Kong’s political culture – Confucian authoritarianism, by which the old and rich are wise and the young and less well-off immature, uninformed or “spoiled” – and doomed to failure.
Arresting and prosecuting young people for their protests will only further alienate them. It will do nothing to ameliorate the schisms between Hong Kong society and the Hong Kong and central governments. It is precisely because the acts alleged to have constituted riots were committed for a political purpose, in a highly charged political atmosphere, that the government must consider extending amnesty for them, ideally through legislation.
The government is right to assert the importance of the rule of law. However, amnesty and the rule of law are not mutually exclusive.
Hong Kong laws need to evolve as protests enter digital realm
Throughout its handling of the extradition bill, the Hong Kong government – including the chief executive, Executive Council members and pro-government Legislative Council members – has displayed such levels of groupthink, indifference, arrogance, contempt and incompetence as that normally permeate totalitarian regimes. If the government wants a “second chance”, as it pleads, it must acknowledge its part in creating Hong Kong’s politically charged environment.
Amnesty is not about caving in to the demands of protesters, or undermining the rule of law in Hong Kong. It is about bringing reconciliation to a polarised society in which genuine political representation has not materialised.
The rule of law is a principle that forms good governance in aggregate. It is not a stand-alone principle (the Holocaust took place under the umbrella of the rule of law). The government should not abdicate its responsibilities to jurors and judges.
The “umbrella movement” in 2014 subsided, after 79 days, without success because protesters were occupying major thoroughfares on Hong Kong Island that put prolonged strains on how Hong Kong people lived their lives. This may be why the government is seeking to portray protesters’ demands as unreasonable and their actions as unlawful, in the hope that the rest of the people of Hong Kong will side with the government and police.
Hong Kong’s dignified protesters deserve a Nobel Peace Prize
Their expansions, in geography and in scope, demonstrate that the furore over the extradition bill has since metamorphosed into a generalised movement uniting Hongkongers, of all ages and from all walks of life. The people are expressing their frustrations with an array of issues brought about by the government’s relentless initiatives aimed at Hong Kong’s full and complete integration with China – and also with their unelected, unrepresentative, unresponsive and unaccountable government.
As the political crisis drags on and metastasises, it will become more and more intractable for the government to resolve. Violent clashes between protesters and the police across Hong Kong have become such regular occurrences that hitherto mutually respectful relations between the police and the community will take years to rebuild.
It is undeniable that the government’s objection to amnesty is driven, at least in part, by Beijing’s resolve that protesters face criminal repercussions, lest the idea of protests driving political reform spread across the increasingly fragile border. However, in extending amnesty, the government will demonstrate that it really has “listened” to Hongkongers and is sincere about healing Hong Kong society. Doing so will halt further instability in Hong Kong and fissures between Hong Kong and China. It will, therefore, serve both Hong Kong’s and Beijing’s interests.
Unless Hong Kong takes active measures to mend the rift between society and government, the endgame for Hong Kong will befall the city far sooner than 2047.
China cannot succeed if Hong Kong fails.
Phil C.W. Chan is senior fellow at the Institute for Security and Development Policy in Stockholm and Chengdu, and holds law degrees from Hong Kong, England and Singapore. Paul Serfaty is director of Asian Capital Partners, barrister in England and permanent resident of Hong Kong