August is usually a down-time for the Hong Kong political scene since the Legislative Council is in recess and many officials and civil servants are on vacation with their children. However, two political events did happen in the past month and have aroused heated debate in the community. First, we heard of the story of Howard Lam Tsz-kin, a long-time member of the Democratic Party, who claimed he was kidnapped, drugged, tortured and then dumped on a beach by Chinese mainland agents. His so-called evidence of the "torture" was the 20 or so staples on his thighs. Some senior figures in the Democratic Party immediately arranged a press conference for Lam and accused mainland authorities of violating the Basic Law and, more importantly, they took the opportunity to foretell "the risk" the proposed co-location arrangement for customs and immigration facilities at the Express Rail Link terminus in West Kowloon would pose to Hong Kong residents. As we all know by now, it turns out that CCTV footages from nearby stores, reviewed by the police and leaked by the press, show Lam was not kidnapped at all. In fact, he took a public mini-bus to leave the area.

This bizarre story has given rise to much worrying conjecture. One would say that it is not inconceivable that a political nobody with almost zero public name-recognition has been tempted to make up some outlandish plots for personal gain. After all, being flanked by journalists and under the spotlight of both local and international media and appearing on the front pages of newspapers is something many political neophytes can only dream of. What puzzles me and many other people is how come so many veteran and seasoned political figures of the Democratic Party have been lied to so easily. As a result, they have seen their credibility undercut by the fiasco. Twenty-two opposition lawmakers jointly issued a public letter attacking mainland and local authorities; some anti-establishment commentators also scrambled to condemn the "abduction" and concluded that the "one country, two systems" had failed. When it was clear that they had made a terrible mistake by accepting Lam's bizarre tale without any hesitation, they refused to acknowledge it and instead blamed the police, but not Lam, for not immediately exposing the true story. Those, not only Lam, who attacked the government over the fake abduction and caused widespread anxiety and fear owe the public a formal and sincere apology.

In recent weeks, the opposition has been systematically attacking the proposed co-location arrangement. When someone suddenly claimed he had been kidnapped by mainland agents, it was quite possible they subjectively chose to believe the story, no matter how weird it was. This is simply because they were desperate to vindicate their preconceptions. If that is really the case, one can only say that political divisions can really make people irrational.

Soon after the phony kidnapping, Hong Kong's Court of Appeal reviewed a lower court's sentences on three student activists convicted of unlawful assembly during the illegal "Occupy Central" movement in 2014 and sentenced them to jail. Since it was an excellent opportunity to divert public attention away from the shameful fake kidnapping scandal, the entire opposition camp immediately accused the government of carrying out "political persecution" against the trio. Some biased Western media also exploited the court case and attacked Beijing. However, the judges' written ruling has expounded the legal basis and principles behind their decision very clearly and convincingly. The Hong Kong Bar Association and the Law Society of Hong Kong issued a rare joint statement, refuting the notion of "political persecution". Even some senior opposition members from the legal sector conceded that while they disagreed with the Court of Appeal ruling, there was no evidence that it was under political influence.

As a former chairman of the Bar Association said in a media interview, when the opposition violated the law to achieve their political agenda, they should know jail sentences were possible and they are now only getting what they deserve. A former student leader admitted that they had previously thought that, based on previous rulings, they might be able to get away without imprisonment. What I find annoying is that those who fooled young people into breaking the law have yet to face any legal punishment, and they have prevented their own children from participating in those illegal protests. Moreover, the opposition organized a public rally to protest the ruling and assembled outside the Court of Final Appeal. Is this not a blatant attempt to use public pressure to influence the court ruling? Is this not undermining the city's rule of law?

These two incidents demonstrate that rifts caused by the "Occupy" movement have not faded over time. While the law-enforcement agencies and courts have to strictly abide by the law, putting violent protesters in jail cannot heal the wounds and lessen political polarization of our city. The new administration has had a good start so far but there is much to be done to enhance social harmony.

(HK Edition 09/05/2017 page12)