What Occupy sentencing means for Hong Kong’s autonomy

Now that jail time has been ordered for the protest leaders, on the dubious grounds that they inconvenienced the public, it is clear that the courts are no bulwark against Beijing’s determination to block democratic progress

3-MIN READ3-MIN

Occupy leader Chu Yiu-ming cries as he speaks to the media after sentencing at a court in Hong Kong on April 24. Eight leaders of massive protests in 2014 were jailed up to 16 months for conspiracy to commit public nuisance. Photo: AP

Philip Bowring

Philip Bowring has been based in Asia for 39 years writing on regional financial and political issues.

Published: 11:00am, 28 Apr 2019Updated: 11:00am, 28 Apr 2019

“Go with the flow” seems the mindset of much of the Hong Kong judiciary, as it largely falls in with the government’s stretching of laws to their limits to punish and hobble its pro-democracy opponents.

This is painful but perhaps not surprising, given the obvious determination of Beijing to close the gap between judicial and executive authority. Separation of powers is meaningless if the legislature, from which many of those directly elected in 2016 have been or may now be excluded, is a rubber stamp and judges live in fear of having their decisions overturned by the National People’s Congress.

In sentencing the “umbrella” activists to prison, Judge Johnny Chan Jong-herng may have been correct in saying that they were naive to believe that their actions could advance democracy. But the judiciary is naive too if it believes itself to be immune to the patronage powers of the executive, or whispers from the central government’s liaison office. Chan was worse than naive in suggesting that two uncharismatic professors, one ageing cleric and three middle-level politicians could conspire to get tens of thousands of Hongkongers onto the streets for days on end.

Typically, the judge purported to represent the interests of “the ordinary folks who needed to use the carriageways” obstructed by the protests. In reality, the greatest inconvenience was not to those using public transport but the bankers, officials and judges accustomed to being driven to work in Central. The masses who were inconvenienced were often the very same people (myself included) who took part in the movement. It is entirely clear that the government is dead set on finding scapegoats for the mass participation in an event that so embarrassed it and Beijing.