On 1 July 2003, more than 500,000 people out of Hong Kong’s population of 6.7 million took to the streets on Hong Kong Island. Characteristically, the whole protest was peaceful. People remained in the streets for hours, until they made their point and were counted.
The huge event was in response to a dangerous law introduced by the Hong Kong government that was to be passed in eight days. The proposed law was to implement Article 23 of the Basic Law, Hong Kong’s mini-Constitution, which calls on the government to enact “on its own”, laws on treason, subversion, sedition, secession and the theft of state secrets. The proposed law was similar in nature to national security legislation in many countries, giving extensive powers to the administration to deal with any perceived threat to security. People feared that the law could be used arbitrarily to curtail their freedoms. Many whistle-blowers alerted others to the adverse aspects of the proposed law. Members of the legal community, academics and human rights organisations explained that countries in Asia that have such laws have, in fact, used them against their own people. Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore, India and Sri Lanka, among others, were cited as bad examples that Hong Kong should not follow. People said NO to the law by going onto the streets in numbers far beyond the imagination of the protest organisers.
How was such a robust reaction possible? Why do people feel that their freedoms are important, and their way of life worth defending? The answers lie in Hong Kong’s recent history. Within the last 40 years or so, it has transformed itself from a corrupt city into a society firmly grounded on the rule of law. This transformation has also helped it to become a modern, relatively prosperous and stable society. Among the pillars holding up this society is the Independent Commission against Corruption (ICAC), one of the greatest anti-corruption success-stories in the world. Hong Kong’s people have learned that arbitrary powers given to the government lead to corruption, and that corruption destroys civil liberties. Hong Kong’s people were able to realise this link between the elimination of corruption and the extension of civil liberties from their lived and felt experience. In other countries in the region, even democrats refuse to make this connection and therefore do not take a strong stand against corruption. The result is demoralisation among the people, who do not see any opportunities to influence actively the decisions and policies that affect their daily lives.
It is worth recalling the history of the ICAC, to demonstrate how such institutions can contribute to the morale of the people. The ICAC was set up in 1974 in response to public protests against the rampant corruption that plagued the public sector. At that time, even ambulance attendants would demand “tea money” before picking up a sick person. Offering bribes to the right officials was also necessary to obtain access to public housing, schooling and other services. Corrupt police officers covered up vice, gambling and drug activities. Since then, with adequate resources, full autonomy, the legislative will and popular support, the ICAC has carried out a widely publicised programme to eliminate corruption in Hong Kong through investigations and efforts aimed at prevention and education. It has had marked success, as Hong Kong is now deemed one of the least corrupt cities in the world. The success of the ICAC has been due largely to its ability to prosecute the powerful and the rich, who use corruption as a path to economic success. The Commission began by curbing corruption in the police, thus destroying its backbone.
Sri Lanka’s attempt to deal with corruption has not yet begun. Recent remarks by the country’s most senior judge, Justice Mark Fernando, citing a survey in which most people in the country think the judiciary is corrupt, show the depth of the problem. An attempt to rectify the deficiencies in the system has been made, however, in the 17th Amendment to the Constitution. Through this amendment, the Constitutional Council is empowered to depoliticise all state institutions by making proper appointments to the country’s highest bodies based on merit. It is quite natural that to hold high public office one must declare personal assets and submit to credible criteria in order to earn the job. All attempts to dilute the criteria will be an encouragement to corruption. But if such criteria discourage those with a doubtful record from aspiring to high positions, then it is a blessing for the country. This is something that can be learned from Hong Kong.
