International Outrage as Hong Kong Court Convicts More Democracy Advocates

On May 30, a Hong Kong court found 14 local democracy activists guilty under the Hong Kong National Security Law. The 14 individuals had simply worked to promote democracy in Hong Kong within the legislative council, LegCo. Their efforts included pushing to introduce universal suffrage. In Hong Kong, however, they were accused of conspiring to subvert state power.

Political activity considered legitimate in a democratic nation has now been deemed a serious crime in Hong Kong. In response, members of the international community have also reacted with alarm, countering, "Democracy is not a crime." 

Judges Appointed by Chief Executive

Issuing its ruling days ahead of Tiananmen's 35th anniversary, the Court of the First Instance of the High Court argued that the individuals concerned had chosen to indiscriminately vote down the government's proposed budget. It added, "thus rendering the Government unable to introduce any new policies or implement existing policies on benefitting people's livelihood." The court alleged the defendants had thereby provoked a constitutional crisis.

All three judges who heard the case specialize in national security cases. They were appointed by Hong Kong's chief executive, John Lee, Beijing's hand-picked hardliner.

The 14 convicted individuals sought to introduce universal suffrage for the elections of the LegCo chief executive and members.

As a first step towards achieving that goal, the pro-democracy camp appeared set to win a majority of seats in the LegCo election. That election was scheduled for September 2020. To avoid an excess of democratic candidates in the general election which would hurt their election chances, a primary election open to all eliible voters was held earlier, on July 11 and 12 of that year. Approximately 610,000 voters cast ballots in the primary.

Benny Tai Yiu-ting's Plan

Former Hong Kong University professor Benny Tai Yiu-ting developed the pro-democracy camp's plan for the primary election. He was subsequently charged with conspiring to overthrow state power, pled guilty, and was convicted on those charges. His roadmap for winning a majority of LegCo seats was as follows: 

• Have Lego reject the government's budget proposal, 
• Thereby force the chief executive to dissolve the legislative council. 
• Secure a majority again for the pro-democracy camp in the new election.
• Then reject the budget once more in LegCo.

Parliamentary Struggle as a Pressure Tactic

The Hong Kong Basic Law (mini-constitution) stipulates that the chief executive must resign if a proposed budget is voted down twice. Democracy advocates thought that by applying pressure on the Hong Kong government through legislative contention, Hong Kong could be transformed into a democracy. 

The prosecution charged the plan was designed to indiscriminately reject budget proposals. According to the prosecutors, it was to force the dissolution of the Legislative Council. The final goal, they said, was forcing the chief executive to resign. Additionally, it alleged that the ultimate aim was "to undermine, destroy or overthrow the existing political system and structure" in Hong Kong. 

Article 22 of Hong Kong's National Security Law states that subversion involves "acts [employing] force or the threat of force or other unlawful means with a view to subverting the State power." 

The law stipulates that other acts also constitute subversion. For example, "seriously interfering in, disrupting, or undermining the performance of duties and functions [of the authorities] in accordance with the law." Prosecutors later argued that this included forcing the dissolution of LegCo and resignation of the chief executive.

Key Point of Contention

Initially, the trial began in February 2023. Its focus was whether "indiscriminately rejecting budget bills" actually constituted "unlawful means" as defined in Article 22. 

The pro-democracy camp argued that "unlawful means" as used in Article 22 referred solely to acts using force or the threat of force. Furthermore, the law did not apply to the use of peaceful methods, they argued. However, the court flatly dismissed this argument. Instead, its decision stated that under the law, national security can also be undermined through non-violent acts, including advocating for Hong Kong's independence from China. 

Who Are the Fourteen?

Fourteen democracy activists were found guilty. They included online journalist Gwyneth Ho Kwai-lam as well as former nurse and labor rights activist Winnie Yu Wai-ming. Both are young women still in their thirties They took part in the demonstrations in 2019 against the Hong Kong government and Chinese Communist Party and became advocates for democracy. 

On May 31 the international human rights NGO Human Rights Watch (HRW) also criticized the Hong Kong court's decision. They said its guilty verdict on the peaceful exercise of basic human rights showed utter contempt for the democratic political process and rule of law. HRW emphatically added, "Democracy is not a crime."

RELATED:

• Commemorating the 1989 Tiananmen Square Protests 35 Years Later
• Vague and Draconian, Hong Kong Gets New National Security Law
• Thirty-four Years After Tiananmen, 'Freedom is like Air' says Hongkonger
  
  

(Read the column in Japanese.)

Author: Kinya Fujimoto, Deputy Editor, The Sankei Shimbun