Elderly busker who played protest song ‘Glory to Hong Kong’ tells court he was no threat to public order
Hong Kong Free Press
An elderly busker accused of playing the popular protest song Glory to Hong Kong in public without a permit has told a court his actions were not a potential threat to public order, as the prosecution has alleged.
Li Jiexin, a 69-year-old retiree, in May pleaded not guilty to four counts of playing a musical instrument without a permit and three counts of collecting money in a public place without permission.
Li’s comments on Tuesday came three days before the city’s High Court hands down its ruling on a landmark government application for an injunction allowing it to ban the song in circumstances where it could incite secession, sedition, or violate the national anthem law.
‘Unreasonable and obsolete’
Li appeared before Amy Chan at Shatin Magistrates’ Courts on Tuesday and told Chan he had no intention of hiring a lawyer. Chan then asked what he intended to do with the funds he had raised, but Li did not give a direct answer, saying: “Does the prosecutor over there have to declare her intentions with her salary?”
Responding to prosecution questions, Li agreed that he did not submit an application for a street performance permit because of the 14-day processing time and stipulations limiting applicants to only performing in one location for a certain duration.
Speaking in Mandarin, he added that the process was “not just troublesome, but unreasonable and obsolete.” Asked whether he had applied for a fundraising permit, he said he saw no need to do so.
On Monday, Li confirmed he displayed a sign while performing outside Tai Wai MTR station in June that read “No money to hire a lawyer, raising funds” – as shown in a video submitted to the court.
He added that he realised the wording of “raising funds” seemed inappropriate and changed it to “seeking aid” for the next performance.
Asked whether the money Li received from passers-by would go towards hiring a lawyer or supporting his art, Li said on Tuesday that the benefits accruing from his performance could be “spiritual or material” and not just monetary.
Li also argued on Monday that his right to perform in public was protected by the UN’s International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, which formed the basis of Hongkongers’ rights to “engage in academic research, literary and artistic creation, and other cultural activities” enshrined in Article 34 of the Basic Law.
The covenant, and Article 34, were both mentioned in a 2015 High Court ruling that saw the defendant acquitted on a charge of performing without a permit.
Police did not comment on politics
The prosecution has argued that Li’s playing of Glory to Hong Kong was “seditious” and he did not have “lawful authority or reasonable excuse,” as stipulated by the Summary Offences Ordinance, to perform it.
But Li on Tuesday disagreed that performing the song carried a risk of damaging public order and safety. “If you’re walking on the street with an umbrella, there’s a risk of accidentally poking someone. Does that make you guilty?”
Li also said police officers, when approaching him, always had a good grasp of the “scale” of his alleged offences, saying that they would not comment on the choice of song – only that they had received complaints that he was causing a public nuisance or obstructing a public place.
Li refused to answer, however, when asked whether he thought protesters would be emotionally agitated by the protest anthem. He said “everyone has different interpretations” of its lyrics, as well as those of its various parodies, such as Peace to Hong Kong and Happiness to Hong Kong.
Those two titles were among the various parodies of Glory to Hong Kong – which all had different lyrics over the same melody, some created by the pro-establishment camp – that Li has said he was playing on different occasions.
The prosecutor then questioned why his placard read that he was “charged for playing Glory to Hong Kong,” to which Li said: “That’s up for you to decide.”
The prosecution will make its closing statement on August 4, and the defendant on August 7. The magistrate will give her verdict on August 9.
Support HKFP | Policies & Ethics | Error/typo? | Contact Us | Newsletter | Transparency & Annual Report | Apps
Help safeguard press freedom & keep HKFP free for all readers by supporting our team
Support press freedom & help us surpass 1,000 monthly Patrons: 100% independent, governed by an ethics code & not-for-profit.
