16 Hong Kong democracy activists who were charged on grounds of conspiracy under the controversial National security law, went on trial on Monday, two years after their arrest. This article explains the case and its background, and then sheds more light on the National Security Law and what it has meant for Hong Kong in the past few years.
(Image Credits : AP Photos)
Table of Contents
Who is on Trial?
Source: TIME
The 16 defendants who are on trial were those who pleaded not guilty out of 47 activists. The 47 activists, now popularly known as the ‘Hong Kong 47’ were arrested in a ‘dawn raid’ in January 2021, and then charged with conspiracy under the National Security Law.
The prosecution of this group of the city’s highest-profile democracy supporters is the centerpiece of the government’s crackdown on oppositions, composed of personalities who are either veteran lawmakers that have been leading Hong Kong’s democracy movement for years, or a new generation of student and union activists.
Till date, thirteen of the 47 arrested have been granted bail, while the remaining 34 had been kept in pre-trial custody. 16 of the 34 are presently on trial.
What is the Charge?
What was the listed act of conspiracy? It was conspiracy on the grounds of committing subversion (trying to destroy, damage or overthrow an established institution or government), for participating in an unofficial primary election.
The primary election was organized by democracy supporters in 2020. The purpose of that election was to shortlist and select the most able candidates to further contest an election for the Legislative Council (LegCo), which is the city’s assembly. The primary was held in July, and saw a high turnout, despite a crackdown by authorities.
As Reuters reports, the issue of the primary election is seen by the prosecutors as a “vicious plot”, aimed at subverting the city government and to wreak “mutual destruction” on it, by taking over Hong Kong’s legislative body. The prosecutor’s case summary also accuses the defendants of a larger game-plan,
“The endgame…was to bring about an acute crisis in Hong Kong triggering bloody crackdown and ultimately to lobby foreign countries to impose political and economic sanctions on the mainland and the city.”
What does the Defense state?
(Image Credits : SCMP)
The defendants, who are pleading not guilty – clearly do not see it that way. The primaries have been a common feature of elections in the past, and were aimed at winning a majority of seats in the Legislative Council, to form a check against the pro-Beijing establishment parties.
Experts opine that the whole cast rests on hypothetical actions that defendants might have made in the future, and the defendants themselves call the accusation of a “massive and well-organized scheme” to paralyze the government and topple the mainland backed leader, a bit too far-stretched.
Defendant and former lawmaker Leung Kwok-hung, popularly known as “Long Hair” challenged the court on the legitimacy of the charge against him, saying that it is “not a crime to act against a totalitarian regime.”
Many have voiced support to the defendants, who find this case to be an authoritarian sweep by Beijing. Chan Po-ying, chairwoman of League of Social Democrats and Leung’s wife, said the following outside court,
“Running for the LegCo election is what kind of illegal means, what kind of violent threat?”
Details & Procedure
Prosecutor reports state that the trial is scheduled to last 90 days, and will likely have three defendants testify against the others. The case will also have several departures from established law procedures, including several delays and then the denial of the defendant’s request to have a jury trial. The case would therefore be ‘judge only’, being heard by three High Court judges, who have been assigned as per the National Security Law.
Some of the defendants who have pleaded not guilty, apart from Leung, include former journalist Gwyneth Ho, labor unionist Winnie Yu & activist Owen Chow. They face sentences of up to life imprisonment, if convicted.
All the defendants who pleaded guilty, including former law professor Benny Tai & noted youth activist Joshua Wong – known for leading the 2014 ‘Umbrella Movement’, are set to be sentenced after the trial.
National Security Law Again In Discussion
The case has become common conversation fodder for the local public, and has also drawn immense international criticism. People flocked to the court house, making a que for seats for a case that is said to be a test of the city’s judicial independence. Local authorities have tightened security measures, with dozens of police on standby and a bomb disposal vehicle nearby.
Much of the discussion and tension surrounding the case stems from the draconian nature of the law that was employed to bring the defendants to trial. In 2020, China introduced a wide-ranging new national security law (NSL) for Hong Kong, which made it easier to prosecute protestors, and reduced the autonomy of the city.
China had tried for years to gain more control over Hong Kong, but as part of the 1997 agreement between UK & China which handed Hong Kong over to China, the city was accorded its own autonomy with a mini-constitution that protected certain freedoms for Hong Kong – such as free speech, free press & judicial independence, which other parts of mainland China does not possess.
China was finally able to draft the National Security Law (NSL) in secret, and when democracy & anti-China protests broke out in Hong Kong in 2020 over a potential Chinese bill on extradition – Beijing used the opportunity to unanimously pass the NSL on 30 June, 2020.
Through the NSL, Beijing possesses the power to shape life in Hong Kong in a manner it never had before. The law is considered to be extremely vague and broad – almost anything can be interpreted and charged as a ‘threat to national security’ as per its provisions, and it also has universal application – in a sense applying to everyone on the planet. Critics observe that the main purpose of the law was to prosecute and criminalize political dissent.
According to the law, secession, subversion, terrorism and collusion with foreign forces – threaten national security and therefore call for maximum penalties. However, these offences are defined in the broadest sense possible, and end up becoming “catch-all” provisions, as per an Amnesty International report.
The law has been abused since day one, where the UN has found multiple examples of how the law and its usage has contravened international human rights laws and standards. The right to having an opinion, and peacefully expressing it is also sometimes a threat to national security.
Social media, press and education – have all been whipped and restricted by the provisions of the law. Students cannot chant slogans or conduct political activities on campus, and online content could be removed and the data of users can be obtained without a judicial warrant, if authorities feel the requirement.
Beijing also increased its presence in Hong Kong through the law, setting up an Office for Safeguarding National Security in the heart of Hong Kong, completely independent from Hong Kong’s jurisdiction. China’s national security officers have routinely violated the rights of individuals, and have enjoyed impunity.
The law also applies to everyone on the planet. As per a UN report -anyone, regardless of nationality or location, can technically be deemed to be in violation of the law, and face arrest and prosecution if they are in a Chinese jurisdiction – even in transit.
Ever since the law came into force, hundreds of protestors, activists and former opposition lawmakers have been arrested. Free speech has been severely gagged, as a vast majority of people who are charged under the law have been accused of speaking up for independence and multiple press portals had to shift their headquarters in fears of press restrictions.
The judicial system of Hong Kong has also changed dramatically. The ambiguous language of the law allows Beijing to interpret it as it wishes to, and can even circumvent decisions made in Hong Kong courts.
Is the Trial sending a message?
As New York Times analysts write, the case demonstrates the wide reach of the national security law, which the authorities initially said would only affect a small minority of the city.
Other experts write that the specific target of the Hong Kong 47 shows how Beijing is sending a message to the pro-democracy movement. The National Security Law could have focused on more serious threats, such as those who wish to win independence or to secede from China, but they put the major crackdown on the democrats.
The mass arrests that took place in 2021, was followed by complete overhaul of the city’s elections. New laws were passed to remove any candidates who might be ‘disloyal’ to Beijing. A ‘patriots-only’ campaign was run after that, which led to a LegCo in 2022 where all except one member was pro-Beijing.
Eric Lai, an expert in Hong Kong Law expresses his opinion on this,
“It really tells the world that as long as you are in alignment with the pro-democracy movement, you will be considered a criminal.”
The trial is also set to have some defendants testifying against each other, while a few others plead guilty – in return for reduced sentences. Some experts state that these guilty pleas would allow China to argue that the “wrong-doers” had seen the problems in their criminal activities – thus further setting the narrative that China is doing the just thing in criminalizing political dissent.
The trial comes up in the background of the highly anticipated trial of perhaps Beijing’s highest-profile target in Hong Kong : the media mogul Jimmy Lai, who had criticized the Chinese government for a long time. The trial is due in September, and might draw severely from the precedents that the current trial will conclude on. Lai’s trial would be one to watch out for – as his case rounds up the erosion of free speech, free press and judicial independence in Hong Kong in a nutshell.
Also Read : Continuing Crackdown, Beijing appoints hardliner as Hong Kong Liaison
