Recently the World Justice Project announced its 2014 Rule of Law Index. According to the report, Hong Kong ranked 16, with a total score of 0.76, ahead of Belgium, France, and the United States - the US ranked 19th, with a score of 0.71. Hong Kong ranked among the top 10 in the world in absence of corruption, open government, order and security, and criminal justice. Hong Kong performed worst in fundamental rights, and in constraints on government powers, for which the SAR ranked 29th and 24th, respectively, among 97 jurisdictions.

It is noteworthy that notwithstanding the Timothy Tong Hin-ming incident, the assessment by experts knowledgeable about Hong Kong shows that the city's record in fighting graft has not been tarnished at all. Actually, Hong Kong's heightened awareness in recent years about the need for clean government and expectations about people holding public office is more likely to make it even stronger as a graft-free society. Hong Kong's score of 0.85 in absence of corruption puts the SAR at the 9th spot in the world, well ahead of the US's 0.75.

The report shows that Hong Kong is clearly among the top in the world in terms of upholding the rule of law and justice, even though there remains plenty of room for improvement. The report does not give us reasons to be complacent, but it does not give us reasons to be disheartened either - certainly no reason to resort to civil disobedience. If there is any reason for civil disobedience in Hong Kong, then there would be even stronger reasons for civil disobedience in the US.

The fact is we do not live in an ideal world. There are always things that we are not satisfied with in any society, and that is what drives progress. But to realize a better world, we have to look at it from a wider perspective, and recognize that sometimes the best of intentions can lead to the worst of results. Universal suffrage, democracy, the rule of law, and social stability are all widely recognized to be desirable things. They do not, however, always mean the same thing to everybody. It is important to recognize that we should not hold our own interpretation to be all right and others' interpretation to be all wrong. Rational and responsible citizens should also recognize that every action brings benefits and costs. When the social costs clearly outweigh the social benefits, then an action is counter-productive, and can only lead to a worse outcome for society.

Many commentators who support civil nomination say that recent polls show the vast majority of Hong Kong people are in favor of civil nomination. From this they then conclude that Hong Kong people should demand civil nomination, and that even civil disobedience is justified.

Unfortunately such an interpretation of the poll results is totally mistaken. Having majority support for civil nomination does not imply that the majority of Hong Kong people agree with forsaking the law to achieve it. Evidently, if Hong Kong people are asked if they would favor equal political rights, naturally the vast majority will say yes. The questions are what social scientists call "leading questions" because the answers are already in the questions, because "equality" is a loaded word. If no cost is indicated the answer should be positive.

While civic nomination does not involve a value-load word like equality it is an implication of political equality and would be inherently desirable if no costs are involved. Jumping from a positive response from this question to conclude that this then justifies civil disobedience to achieve civil nomination is a clear abuse of poll results. To know if respondents support such a strategy, respondents should really be asked to indicate if they would agree to deviate from the law to achieve civic nomination. But when they are asked if they would support using "Occupy Central" as a strategy to achieve civil nomination, survey after survey shows the vast majority have responded "No".

The civil nomination cannot be found in the Basic Law. Insisting on civil nomination, and for that matter insisting on political party nomination, really does deviate from the Basic Law. Since the Basic Law is already in effect, even Beijing is not really in the position to deviate from it. From this perspective, it is really silly for the "pan-democrats" to accuse Beijing of "closing the door" to negotiation when Beijing denies these nomination channels. Instead of insisting on these things, they really should seek increasing the credibility of the Nominating Committee through broadening its membership and through a more liberal nomination procedure. It would be folly not to voice out these demands directly to central government officials when they have the chance to meet them in Shanghai.

The high Rule of Law Index ranking of Hong Kong means we do not have a case for civil disobedience, and that we really should guard against arbitrarily deviating from the law.

The author is director of the Center for Public Policy Studies at Lingnan University.

(HK Edition 03/18/2014 page9)