Hong Kong activist found guilty in first for new security law

Former waiter Tong Ying-kit, the first person charged under Hong Kong’s national security law, was found guilty of terrorism and inciting secession. Activists say the ruling represents an “ominous moment for human rights” in Hong Kong.

Tyrone Siu/Reuters
A prison van carrying Tong Ying-kit arrives at High Court for a hearing in Hong Kong on July 27, 2021. The security law, imposed by Beijing in June 2020, punishes what China sees as subversion, secession, terrorism, and collusion with foreign forces.

The first person charged under Hong Kong’s national security law was found guilty on Tuesday of terrorism and inciting secession in a landmark case that carries long-term implications for how the legislation will reshape the city’s common law traditions.

Former waiter Tong Ying-kit, was accused of driving his motorcycle into three riot policemen while carrying a flag with the protest slogan “Liberate Hong Kong, revolution of our times,” which prosecutors said was secessionist.

The widely anticipated ruling, much of which has hinged on the interpretation of the slogan, imposes new limits on free speech in the former British colony, activists say. Human rights groups have also criticized the decision to deny Mr. Tong bail and a jury trial, which have been key features of Hong Kong’s rule of law.

The government did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the accusations.

Mr. Tong’s trial was presided over by judges Esther Toh, Anthea Pang, and Wilson Chan, picked by city leader Carrie Lam to hear national security cases.

Ms. Toh read out a summary of the ruling in court, saying “such display of the words was capable of inciting others to commit secession.”

She added that Mr. Tong was aware of the slogan’s secessionist meaning and that he intended to communicate this meaning to others. His actions caused “grave harm to society.”

In a detailed judgment published on the judiciary’s website, the judges also said Mr. Tong’s motorcycle was potentially a lethal weapon.

“The defendant’s failure to stop at all the police checklines, eventually crashing into the police, was a deliberate challenge mounted against the police, a symbol of Hong Kong’s law and order,” the judges said.

An alternative charge of dangerous driving causing grievous bodily harm was not considered. The High Court will hear mitigation arguments on Thursday and sentencing will be announced at a later date.

Mr. Tong had pleaded not guilty to all charges, which stemmed from events on July 1, 2020, shortly after the law was enacted.

Mr. Tong’s lawyer Clive Grossman told Reuters outside the court no decision had been made on an appeal. He declined further comment.

Nathan Law, an activist who has been given asylum in Britain after leaving Hong Kong, said in a message on Twitter: “The judicial system in Hong Kong is weaponized to suppress.”

Amnesty International’s Asia-Pacific Regional Director Yamini Mishra said in a statement the conviction was an “ominous moment for human rights” in the global financial hub.

“To convict Tong Ying-kit of ‘secession’ for displaying a flag bearing a widely used political slogan is a violation of international law, under which expression must not be criminalized unless it poses a concrete threat.”

Meaning of the slogan

Mr. Tong’s trial focused mostly on the meaning of the slogan, which was ubiquitous during Hong Kong’s mass pro-democracy 2019 protests.

It was chanted on the streets, posted online, scrawled on walls, and printed on everything from pamphlets, books, stickers, and T-shirts to coffee mugs.

The arguments during the trial drew on a range of topics, including ancient Chinese history, the U.S. civil rights movement, and Malcolm X, to determine whether the slogan was secessionist.

Two expert witnesses called by the defense to analyze the slogan’s meaning, drawing upon sources including an examination of some 25 million online posts, found “no substantial link” between the slogan and Hong Kong independence.

The judges rejected the defense argument.

“Even if we were wrong in finding that the defendant understood the slogan to mean Hong Kong independence and adopted that meaning when displaying the flag ... we are of the view that the slogan still advocated a political agenda,” they said in the judgment.

The governments in Beijing and Hong Kong have said repeatedly the security law was necessary to bring stability after prolonged unrest and that the rights and freedoms promised to the city upon its return to Chinese rule in 1997 remain intact.

The law, imposed by Beijing in June 2020, punishes what China sees as subversion, secession, terrorism, and collusion with foreign forces.

The government has said that all prosecutions have been handled independently and according to law, and that legal enforcement action has nothing to do with the political stance, background, or profession of those arrested.

This story was reported by Reuters. 

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.