|Which is more important? Keeping the society in check with orders as written on the books of rules or allowing more and more decisions to be made based on affections?
In my opinion, it is not the problem of how we interprete the law, but how we legistlate it. The law enforcement agencies did nothing wrong at enforcing the law in strict ways. By allowing more and more decisions made on individual basis, it is corrosive to the legal foundation. If there are frequent exceptions, why do we need the existing rules? Why not just write the exceptions as rules?
If you can bend a rule here, what makes you not able to bend another rule there? Why the Confucious thinking can be used as a way to judge whether you can bend the rule or not? For two thousand years Chinese have been trying to use these thinkings to bend the rules. And what does that gives you? A serious mix-up of the law enforcement agencies, judiciary bodies and legistlators. It's like Stallone crying out "I am the law" in the movie "Judge Dredd".
So to retain our great humane tradition of trying to bring education to every kids in Hong Kong, we should try to lobby for a new bill instead of blaming on the law enforcement agencies or the judiciary bodies.