July 1st is usually known as Hong Kong Special Administrative Region Establishment Day, where Hong Kong’s sovereignty was transferred to the People’s Republic of China and HKSAR was founded. However, this year, it is also known as the day where a 50-year-old male perpetrator Leung Kin-fai stabbed a 28-year-old police officer in Causeway Bay, then proceeded to stab himself and subsequently commit suicide. This event provoked an outbreak of opinions from multiple sources including citizens, the HKPF, individuals from the education sector, politicians, government officials, and other groups. Directly after the incident, citizens started to place flowers and offer their condolences at the specific location where the incident occurred. Some individual's even carried weapons when mourning at the scene. Responding to this type of activity, the HKPF came forward and emphasised that civilians should not justify the behaviour of Leung Kin-fai through glorifying and mourning his death.

It is arguably natural to agree that the so-called “martyring” of a person who has conceived and carried out the stabbing of a police officer through possible radicalised hatred of the HKPF is considered morally reprehensible behaviour, just as it is socially frowned-upon to show similar sympathy to other knife-crime offenders. The danger and possible message that could and will be conveyed out of the “glorifying” of Leung Kin-fai is to imply that violence is a perfectly acceptable right of way for justice. This ideology is completely wrong and it is being insinuated and inferred by educators in the public eye such as Johannes Chan, who have unfettered access to young minds in Hong Kong today and the ability to responsibly influence their thought processes.

Johannes Chan SC (Hon) is known as the only “academic silk” in Hong Kong and is a chair professor at HKU. Johannes Chan has quite an extensive CV with his plethora of experience in writing, public service, teaching, and even multiple recognitions. However, even though his experience is never ending, his view on democracy is unrealistic and far-fetched. Mr Chan has already taken a stance which was expected of him in coming forward and giving his view on the occurrence. He has stated that the people who have come out to the Causeway Bay vigil to mourn the death of Leung Kin-fai do not support terrorism as it is too “far-fetched” to do so. Furthermore, it is contended that the real reason why Johannes Chan has stated that it is not terrorism is because the civilians who are mourning Leung Kin-fai could be doing this to show sympathy or to demonstrate their dissatisfaction with the Hong Kong government which is “distinct” from the promotion of terrorism. Not surprisingly, this can be contradicted by the definition stated in the United Nations (Anti-Terrorism Measures) Ordinance. Terrorism or a terrorist act can be briefly defined as the threat or use of action with the intention to advance a particular ideology. That definition can suggest that by mourning the death could have a particular reason stated by Mr Chan of demonstrating the citizen’s “dissatisfaction with the Hong Kong government” which could be aligned with “the intention to advance a particular ideology.” Ergo, this reason outlined by Mr Chan could in fact promote terrorism. Moreover, under the National Security Law, conduct pertaining to promote instability or perceived secessionist thoughts would be caught under this legislation. Therefore, although individual actions may not be intended as advocating violence or terrorism, the danger of it being interpreted as such means that greater care should be given to potential ramifications in the context.

Additionally, Mr Chan has given multiple lectures in different locations in our world and written many pieces of work filled with his illogical thinking patterns as demonstrated previously. It could be argued that he is trying to conceal the truth that the violence committed by Leung Kin-fai is wrong and instead shift the focus of the matter to the ‘innocent act’ of mourning thereby enabling idolising of violence to continue. By being a university professor, he has the capability to effectively disseminate an individual's ideology to his audience, especially if their belief is easily swayed. At HKU, he specialises in constitutional law, administrative law as well as human rights which are directly correlated to the relationships of government figures. He has the ability to give his perspective in any type of issue in these lectures, which could lead to questionable moral and ethical behaviour such as idolising violence. The Hong Kong youth in the current era are typically led through public figures who are seen to fight for freedom of speech and advocate for free will to prevail. However, what Leung Kin-fai did is definitively and inherently wrong in the moral sense, as pursuing a violent act is distinctly different from speaking out about human rights issues. For example, the Hong Kong jury system has been created to ensure decisions based on the finding of facts is adjudicated on moral behaviour. If we step into the shoes of the juror in a case involving such a person like Leung Kin-fai who has stabbed a police officer and subsequently committed suicide, would a juror declare this individual guilty or not guilty of the crime? In the shoes of a juror, they would look at the facts of the case in an unbiased manner for a decision. Nevertheless, you can never ensure that a jury is 100% unbiased, and based on how a university professor like Johannes Chan is teaching our citizens that violence is a “perfectly fine” action, this would change their beliefs to allow someone like Leung Kin-fai to be absolved of guilt. This is why the National Security Law is a very important piece of legislation as it does not allow the minds of which Mr Chan has tainted into the court system to allow a man who has committed a vicious crime to be idolised. Regardless of the National Security Law, if Johannes Chan continues to feed the unethical fruit of his beliefs to our society, more police officers, other officials, or even citizens who have opposing views have the potential to be harmed due to his suggested  approval of violence.

原圖：星島日報

https://std.stheadline.com/realtime/article/1618933