With jailing of Joshua Wong and fellow activists, civil disobedience loses its allure in Hong Kong as rational thought returns

In recent days, the Hong Kong judiciary has underlined its intention to protect public order. First, Joshua Wong Chi-fung and two other young activists received tougher penalties for their involvement in an Occupy Central-related protest. Then, the Court of Final Appeal rejected a final bid by ousted pro-independence lawmakers Sixtus Baggio Leung Chung-hang and Yau Wai-ching to regain their Legislative Council seats.

Beijing understood the seriousness of the situation, but could not directly address the problem because of the “one country, two systems” constitutional framework set out in the Basic Law. Thus, the judiciary’s response was vital.

In the Occupy case, the magistrate overseeing the sentencing was sympathetic to the protesters’ motivation, and said there were grounds for leniency as they were driven by their ideals to break the law. But her sentences of community service orders for two offenders (and a suspended jail term for the third) only had the effect of fanning radicalism, undermining the city’s rule of law. Thus, the Court of Appeal’s decision to jail the activists, and the top court’s refusal of Leung and Yau’s appeal, reflected the judiciary’s awareness of the public order crisis and its rational move to shoulder the constitutional responsibility.