Rightly or wrongly, Occupy founders willingly risked their all for Hong Kong

Controversies can serve to separate the truth from falsehood, and the defenders of the truth from others. Most people prefer to play it safe and sit on the fence; some people act in their own interest and take the side that benefits them most; only a few people would sacrifice their bright futures, their freedom and even their lives in pursuit of justice and faith.

Of these three types of people, whom do you admire the most? The key leaders of the Occupy movement (“Four of nine Occupy leaders jailed for up to 16 months”, April 25), with their backgrounds and academic qualifications, could have enjoyed cosy lives and very high social status if they had maintained the status quo; instead they chose a path which most people would consider to be folly.

In fact, the action taken by the Occupy trio in the protests of 2014 was prudent, though it did not comply with laws and regulations, and their peaceful civil disobedience was understandable and respectful.

Although the protests they had called for went on for 79 days, much longer than the two to three days they had envisioned, their demand for democracy was a rational response in line with the Basic Law’s provision for universal suffrage.

In spite of being found guilty of public nuisance and incitement to commit public nuisance, the defendants did not voice regret for their roles in the movement and have not yet indicated they will appeal, which shows they were prepared for the consequences.

Some people, taking the opposite view, berate the leaders of the “umbrella movement” for their radical and unlawful activities, which paralysed the city’s financial and commercial districts, causing huge economic losses and social chaos. From this point of view, the activists deserve punishment.

Yet, what seems a reasonable accusation on the surface does not lay bare the truth. It is sometimes reckless to judge the legitimacy of an action or a movement according to the law, particularly in a nation governed by a totalitarian regime, where laws are enacted to become instruments to suppress human rights, and the powerful tolerate no dissent.

Whether an action is just or unjust can be attested to by the motivation behind it, the intrinsic desire behind a course of action, its direct influences on an individual’s options and opinions, and whether it stemmed from selfishness or unselfishness. Only those who selflessly devote themselves to justice and virtue are worthy of being held in high esteem.

Barnaby Ieong, Macau