It came to the attention of many people over the weekend that Tanya Chan Suk-chong, a Civic Party member of the Legislative Council representing Central District on Hong Kong Island, attended a late-night gathering on Thursday of some 40 individuals in a bar. It was an undeniable breach of the temporary ban on all gatherings of more than four people, a social-distancing measure that had come into effect on March 29. It was also an outright defiance of the 14-day shutdown of bars announced by the government earlier. That is why numerous local residents were understandably concerned and angry about such a blatant disregard for legally binding rules, displayed by a lawmaker.

(Tanya) Chan has shown the public no statutory basis whatsoever for violating the law in the first place. Thus the only explanation one can think of is that Chan does not take the social-distancing rules seriously. Such nonchalance toward the law is not a result of ignorance of the law or any ambiguity of the law

After local media reported about the gathering the following day, complete with a photo of Chan walking down a street lined with bars and restaurants on Thursday night, she claimed she was “meeting” with about 40 representatives of the pub industry to hear their complaints about the latest ban.

Chan defended herself and the illegal gathering on her Facebook page: “If the government doesn’t surprise everyone with sudden policies all the time, why would all of us need to rush to hold a meeting to discuss a strategy in the middle of the night?” That is obviously a rhetorical question with unfounded accusations against the SAR government. Did she not know all the policy updates made by the SAR government and duly announced by government officials were in response to the mounting threat of the COVID-19 pandemic to the health and well-being of Hong Kong residents, or was she pretending to be ignorant of growing public demand for tighter preventive measures amid a sudden spike in the number of confirmed cases last week?

Even more deplorable is that, instead of admitting her own unlawful act, Chan tried to justify the apparently illegal gathering of 10 times the permitted number in a bar. Did she assume the 14-day closure of bars does not apply to a meeting with “industry representatives”? Or should the public trust her interpretation of any law just because she is a leading member of a political party led by lawyers? Let’s not forget that the Civic Party, commonly known as the “barristers’ party” for obvious reasons, has been the consummate defender of most if not all politically motivated illegal behavior of like-minded individuals as well as groups since it was founded. It is definitely fair to say those politicians “toy with Hong Kong law” for a living.

Chan has shown the public no statutory basis whatsoever for violating the law in the first place. Thus the only explanation one can think of is that Chan does not take the social-distancing rules seriously. Such nonchalance toward the law is not a result of ignorance of the law or any ambiguity of the law. After all, ordinary residents have been observing social-distancing and quarantine rules in public places. For instance, foreign domestic helpers have tried not to breach the social-distancing rules by avoiding large gatherings over the past weekend.

Like many of her peers in the opposition camp, Chan is too confident of her knowledge of the law and subscribes to the idea that they are above the law because of their “democracy” label.

Such an “above the law” mentality was obvious when they protested against what they called “outdated laws”. They had never faulted those laws over decades until they were applied to their peers. For example, they called sedition an “outdated” offense when the Democratic Party’s Cheng Lai-king was arrested for that offense late last month. In July 2018, they assailed the judiciary for invoking “an obsolete law” — the Public Order Ordinance — in handing down rulings on rioters who participated in the Mong Kok riot in February 2016.

Hong Kong is still under effective rule of law and its 7.5 million residents expect the legislators to lead by example when it comes to abiding by the law. After all, that is also what lawmakers have sworn to protect upon taking office. Political colors do not shield anyone from legal liabilities. Equity before the law still prevails in Hong Kong.

The author is a veteran current affairs commentator. 

The views do not necessarily reflect those of China Daily.