A ruling last week made student activists Joshua Wong Chi-fung, Alex Chow Yong-kang and Nathan Law Kwun-chung prisoners of their own crime of storming the Hong Kong government headquarters during an illegal protest which kick-started the 79-day "Occupy Central" movement in the fall of 2014. On the Sunday after the sentencing, sympathizers of the activists took to the street to protest "political persecution", demanding the release of the trio.

One the more bizarre sentiments expressed in the wake of the ruling came from Wong's mother, who rebuked the government's "pursuit" of her son, calling it an act that has caused the city to become depraved, not forgetting, meanwhile, to express her disappointment over the Court of Appeal's decision to put her son and two other student activists behind bars. The father of Chow even phoned in to an RTHK radio show to voice his contempt for Chief Executive Carrie Lam Cheng Yuet-ngor's opinion, from a mother to another mother, regarding the ruling. While it is understandable for sentiments among the parents of the jailed activists to run amok, the two said parents seem to have conveniently forgotten that their children have made their decision to trespass to the wrong side of the law, despite warnings against dire consequences; that their children had due legal representation at the trial; that the trial took place in an open court, with absolute transparency, contrary to the belief of the trio's supporters, who liken the trial to "political persecution", which is usually done in a clandestine manner, where the press is gagged. To quote Lam, the rights and freedoms of Hong Kong people are protected under the Basic Law but their exercise is not without limits and must be law-abiding. In other words, the ruling was made not to suppress expression of individual views but to deter and punish unlawful acts, and acts which involve violence.

As if the two parents' bewildering defense was not preposterous enough, some even went on to draw parallels between these violent protesters and such peaceful political activists as Nelson Mandela, Mahatma Gandhi and Aung San Suu Kyi. Hilarity aside, lame excuses and the lack of which are what separate the "Occupy" trio and those great political personalities. Be it Mandela, Gandhi, or Aung San Suu Kyi, these political activists, who wanted a better future for their own country, were well aware and duly prepared for the possible consequences for their respective causes. Mandela, inspired by Gandhi, never deviated from his advocacy of nonviolent resistance, and he took imprisonments - the longest stretch being 18 years in the prison on Robben Island - in his stride. It wasn't all that long ago that, during the "Occupy" movement, these student activists made it known they were undaunted in their pursuit of "true universal referendum" and yet, with prison terms becoming a reality today, they cry bloody murder. Whether they are betting on Hong Kong people's forgetfulness or their penchant to cater to sentimentalism is anybody's guess but it's safe to say that it takes a very twisted mind devoid of logic to think of such comparisons as not being disrespectful to those honorable revolutionaries. Perhaps the lesson for the trio to take away is that in the eyes of law, there is only that much moral high ground you can delude yourself in claiming.

The absurdity about the whole saga doesn't end there, of course. Penning newspaper columns and social media posts, some - including one of the masterminds behind the "Occupy" movement - who seem to exude a sense of schadenfreude, suggested prison terms may ultimately become adversities that make the trio stronger. Here's my question to these heartless individuals: Would you have said the same things had those been your own children? Very unlikely. Even unlikelier still would be to egg them on to commit unlawful acts in the disguise of heroism.

Mandela famously said: "Education is the most powerful weapon which you can use to change the world." Contrary to the belief of many, education doesn't start from school - it starts from home, where one's parents and elders help shape one's morality, the ability to tell right from wrong. Such moral codes are further refined and tested at school, where one acquires academic knowledge as well as social etiquette, so that he/she will become a law-abiding citizen in society, in the knowledge that exercising one's rights and freedoms shouldn't infringe on that of others. Justice bodies are by no means the only ones responsible for governing acceptable behavior, as we often underestimate the power of public opinion in shaping the tapestry of code of conduct. In condemning the Court of Appeal's punishment of unlawful acts, are we even being reasonable in expecting our youth to grow up to be law-abiding adults, their strong sense of morality a huge contribution to society's integrity?

(HK Edition 08/25/2017 page12)