Student Protest and Assemby Law

On 2 October, 2000, hundreds of protesters led by less than 30 protest leaders took to a street in expressing their dissatisfaction towards the official allegation of seven student leaders who has initiated the demonstration without noticing the police on June 26. They criticized the unfair foundation of the existing assembly law which requires protestors to apply for the permission from the police before initiating any public assembly.

The five students, members of the Federation of Students, who are involved into organizing the rally or demonstration without an official permit, are arrested on August 11. As these five students fail to obtain any permission from the police seven days before launching the protest for the abode seekers, they are charged with the violation of the public order ordinance which is designed to regulate the more than 30 people public assembly for the sake of public interest.

Mrs Yip Lau Suk Yee, Secretary for Security, announced that nobody including students could have been allowed to stand over the law. Public order ordinance is designed to protect the public order and look after public interest. Those who violate the ordinance must deserve punishment according to the rule of law.

The public order ordinance passed in 1996 before the transfer of sovereignty stipulates that any party who would initiate public assembly must inform the police in advance. However after the handover, the ordinance is tightened to control the anti-communist activities. Under the amended assembly law, public rallies, which are composed of more than 30 protestors, have to be held with the official approval. Otherwise those assemblies would be regarded as illegal.

Upon the approval of the application for public rally, organizers are granted “Notice of No Objection”. With this notice, organizers are allowed to hold their public assembly which is supposed not to disrupt social order. 

Some Non-governmental organizations strongly aver against the amended ordinance which imposes more restriction on the freedom of initiating public assembly. It is thought that the ordinance hinders the public from taking quick actions in responding to new social and political changes. To make the matter worse, the ordinance leaves the law enforcement agent tremendous powers to control the public rally, which is definitely seen as the threat to the freedom of public expression.

Representatives also voice out that the government intended to control public expression with the claim of the protection of "public interest". They defend that the June 26 demonstration supported by student leaders was originally peaceful. However the police was spraying pepper gas against demonstrators with the result that the chaos broke out.

Arrested students deny the official claim that the violation of public order ordinance is to take over the rule of law. They said that their action is a sort of civil disobedience which emphasizes self-sacrifice as a means to gather public power against the unjust institutional mechanism. To challenge the injustice, one of arrested students bravely speaks that he has considered the possible political consequences such as jailing and is ready to take all political responsibility.

The student protest against the public order ordinance has lured immense support from other parties. Though other parties such as the Democratic Party or the Federation of Education support the students' claim against the Pubic Order ordinance, they feel dim to amend the ordinance as other legislators still subscribe that the ordinance is key to maintaining a stable social order.

One day after the student' s demonstration, executive councilors announced at the Central Government Office that no ordinances could satisfy all sorts of people. Also the ordinance is not designed to inhibit some. They said that the existing ordinance has taken a balance way for the interests of protestors and others.

It is seen that the executive-led government still take a parental role to look after "public interest", instead of letting citizens to define it. Even if citizens want to challenge the government, they still have to obtain her approval. Should she not issue "Notice of No Objection"to organizers, "definitely" the demonstration "endangers"public interest, isn't it?