The National Security Law for Hong Kong, passed 13 months ago, has played a decisive role in restoring peace and stability to Hong Kong. By giving new powers to the police, it makes it possible to go after subversives and terrorists, thus marking a new dawn for the city.
However, because the law, enacted by the National People’s Congress, is relatively new, some questions have been raised about its scope and extent in a judicial context. The first trial under the law has now clarified many key issues that will set an authoritative precedent for future cases in its scope and implementation.
A panel of three judges has convicted Leon Tong Ying-kit, 24, of inciting secession and terrorism. He can now be jailed for life, if the maximum sentence is imposed. The 62-page judgment has clearly spelled out the judicial approach to be taken under the law. They will offer much guidance in future cases.
A day after the security law was promulgated, Tong was arrested on July 1 last year, after he rode a motorcycle displaying a “Liberate Hong Kong, revolution of our times” protest flag into three police officers during a protest in Wan Chai. He was denied bail and a jury, two issues he had sought unsuccessfully.
The slogan was popular among anti-government protesters during the violent unrest in 2019. Its meaning therefore took on a crucial dimension in his trial, as both the prosecution and defense called expert witnesses to testify about its possible meanings, from Chinese linguistics and also the perspectives of contemporary Chinese history and local politics.
The court appeared to find the experts for the prosecution more persuasive. In any case, its finding now leaves no doubt that the slogan bore a secessionist meaning to warrant a conviction. Tong was found to have intended to convey that meaning and to incite others.
A robust legal and judicial set of laws and practices are in place to protect the prosperity and stability of Hong Kong against lawlessness, terrorism and secessionism. It’s been a long time coming. But as the proverbial saying goes, better late than never
Wisely, the judges allow for some leeway in the use of the slogan, having examined the intention, circumstances and context before convicting Tong. Even so, those who deliberately court trouble by shouting or displaying the slogan should have no excuses if they get into legal trouble. The judgment leaves no doubt as to the legal risks: The slogan can and does incite separatism in Hong Kong, which is universally recognized as an inalienable part of China.
Meanwhile, Tong may now be described as a convicted terrorist, the first of his kind in Hong Kong. He was found guilty of the terrorism charge because he rode his motorcycle through barricades and hit three police officers. The judges concluded that his actions involved serious violence and caused significant harm to the public. What he did, the judges wrote, was intended to intimidate the public for the purpose of pursuing a political agenda. The court has now established an authoritative interpretation of terrorism and set a legal standard for its conviction.
Many people have welcomed the conviction, the first under the law, as a way forward. Predictably, some have warned about the “chilling” effects the judgment will have on freedom of speech. But everywhere there is a proper government, free speech is not an absolute right. It does not entitle people to advocate violence, terrorism, secession or subversion.
Also, unsurprisingly, cowardly anonymous threats have been made against the judges. This has been a recurrent occurrence whenever a violent or subversive protester was convicted in the past year. In the latest instance, the judges involved were threatened with bomb and knife attacks. The lawlessness of some radicals within the anti-government movement poses the greatest threat to the very freedom and democracy they claim to be defending. The court’s decision not to involve a jury is therefore a wise one. There is no reason to subject ordinary citizens to such potential threats and violence.
As the Department of Justice has stated in response to the threats, judges have to be able to handle cases in accordance with the law and evidence without any outside interference. Such threats are intended not only to interfere with, but to intimidate, independent judges from carrying out their judicial duties and must be condemned by every right-thinking person in our society.
Police have launched an investigation and must get to the bottom of this sorry affair. The person or people responsible need to be held to account and brought to justice, even though identifying them may be difficult.
As the first security law case, the trial was held at the Court of First Instance. Therefore, an appeal is possible, indeed likely, given the willingness of Tong and his legal team to fight the charges in every possible way during the trial. Also, more cases will follow from people charged under the National Security Law. The latest judgment has achieved much in clarifying the status and application of the law in future cases. An appeal is well within Tong’s legal rights. It may even help to fortify the judgment and further cement the powers and scope of the law.
Finally, a robust legal and judicial set of laws and practices are in place to protect the prosperity and stability of Hong Kong against lawlessness, terrorism and secessionism. It’s been a long time coming. But as the proverbial saying goes, better late than never.
The author is a veteran journalist focusing on the Chinese mainland and Hong Kong affairs. The views do not necessarily reflect those of China Daily.