Hong Kong 47: Benny Tai’s ‘mutual destruction’ plan was ‘very wrong,’ democrat says at national security trial
Hong Kong Free Press
Hong Kong legal scholar Benny Tai’s roadmap detailing 10 steps to “mutual destruction” was “very wrong,” an ex-grassroots group chief has testified at a landmark national security trial relating to 47 pro-democracy figures.
Former chairperson of the Hong Kong Association for Democracy and People’s Livelihood (ADPL) Sze Tak-loy, one of the 16 democrats on trial over an alleged conspiracy to commit subversion, testified on Tuesday. Appearing before a panel of handpicked national security judges, Sze said he did not believe Tai’s prediction that the Hong Kong and Central governments would extensively disqualify pro-democracy candidates from entering a legislative race.
The predicted move was the first step of a timetable suggested by then-associate law professor Benny Tai, who published an article titled “Ten steps to real mutual destruction – the inevitable fate of Hong Kong” in the defunct pro-democracy media outlet Apple Daily on April 28, 2020. Sze said on Monday, the second day of his testimony, that he also did not believe that the authorities would conduct a “bloody crackdown” on “street rebellion” as outlined by the legal scholar.
Timetable of Benny Tai’s “Ten steps to real mutual destruction” – click to view
Step 1 (July to August 2020): The government would extensively disqualify the candidacy of pro-democrats, including the incumbent LegCo Members, in the election. The plan B candidates of the pro-democracy camp would run in the election instead.
Step 2 (September 2020): Triggered by the intervention of Hong Kong & Macao Affairs Office of the State Council and the Liaison Office of the Central People’s Government and the said disqualification, more Hong Kong people would be driven to vote for the pro-democracy camp. Coupled with strategic voting, it would allow the pro-democracy camp to secure 35 seats or more.
Step 3 (October 2020): The chief executive and the Department of Justice would commence judicial proceedings to disqualify LegCo members of the pro-democracy camp. However, as court proceedings would take some time, the pro-democracy camp would continue to dominate the LegCo.
Step 4 (October 2020 to April 2021): All the appropriation applications made by the government to the LegCo would be indiscriminately vetoed by the LegCo. The government could only maintain general operation.
Step 5 (May 2021): The LegCo would indiscriminately veto the budget introduced by the government. As a result, the chief executive would dissolve the LegCo and the operation of the government would be maintained by provisional appropriations.
Step 6 (October 2021): There would be an election for a new LegCo. The pro-democracy camp would have to send the plan C candidates to run since the plan B candidates might have been disqualified as well. Nevertheless, they would still manage to secure more than 35 seats.
Step 7 (November 2021): The LegCo members would indiscriminately veto the budget again. The chief executive would thus have to resign and the government would come to a shutdown.
Step 8 (December 2021): The Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress would declare that Hong Kong had entered a state of emergency and the Central authorities would directly apply the National Security Law of the PRC in Hong Kong. The LegCo would be dissolved and a provisional LegCo would be established. The next chief executive would be selected through consultations. There would be large scale of apprehension and detention of the leaders of the pro-democracy camp.
Step 9 (after December 2021): Street rebellion would exacerbate within the Hong Kong community, thus triggering a very bloody crackdown. Hong Kong people would launch a general city-wide strike, which would bring the Hong Kong society to a standstill.
Step 10 (after January 2022): Western countries would impose political and economic sanctions on the [Chinese Communist Party].
“I think the predictions he made in that article were very wrong… I don’t really believe in Benny Tai’s political articles,” the activist said.
Sze, who was also a former Wong Tai Sin district councillor, stood accused of organising, or taking part in, a primary poll as part of a plan to seize majority control of the 70-seat legislature before the city’s electoral overhaul.
The case involved 47 prominent politicians and activists. Among them, 31 of them have pleaded guilty and are awaiting sentencing after the trial concludes.
Prosecutors have alleged that the democrats intended to abuse their powers as lawmakers – if elected – to indiscriminately vote down government bills. They conspired to paralyse government operations, cause the chief executive to dissolve the Legislative Council, and ultimately force the city’s leader to resign, prosecutors allege.
The defendants could face up to life imprisonment if convicted.
Negotiation strategy
Sze on Tuesday was asked about a clause in a document circulated among candidates of the Kowloon East constituency, in which it mentioned that the democrats, if elected, would “actively use” the powers conferred by the Basic Law. This included the power to veto the annual budget with the aim of pushing the government to respond to the five demands advocated by protesters during the 2019 extradition bill unrest.
The court asked the activist whether he was alarmed when the clause appeared on the document drafted by Tai which was sent out in May 2020, despite it not being discussed in detail during previous meetings.
“Did you at the time find what Benny Tai did objectionable?” judge Alex Lee asked, adding that Tai had built an “illegal structure” into the document.
Sze said he “did have this feeling,” but that he did not raise any objections at the time because he believed the clause had no binding effect.
Lee also asked whether Sze thought Tai, who was described as one of the two “primary movers” of the unofficial poll, was using the primary election to achieve his own agenda, and if he thought it was “dangerous” for him to go along with the legal scholar.
“I have always considered the vetoing power as a negotiation strategy and bargaining chip. Vetoing the budget cannot achieve the five demands… it could prompt Carrie Lam to make a further response to the five demands,” Sze replied.
The five demands were advocated by protesters during the 2019 protests and unrest. The demands were for the government to withdraw the controversial extradition bill that sparked the demonstrations; set up an independent inquiry into accusations of the police’s excessive use of force; scrap its designation of the protests as a riot; release all those arrested; and implement universal suffrage for the Legislative Council and Chief Executive elections.
‘Progressive’
Sze was among more than 30 defendants who signed an online declaration titled “Resolute Resistance, Inked without Regret,” which the prosecution cited as proof of their “unwavering pledge to knowingly achieve the impugned objective regardless of any legal consequences.”
The declaration used “more progressive” wording by saying the signatories “would deploy” the powers conferred by the Basic Law to compel the chief executive to respond to the five demands, according to the prosecution.
The former ADPL chief explained in court on Tuesday that he signed the declaration in June 2020 because he wanted to make his grassroots group appear more “progressive.” The organisation had given people the impression that it was conservative, and it was difficult to win support from the pro-democracy camp with that perception, he said.
Sze also told the court his decision to focus on political rather than livelihood issues at an election forum was part of an attempt to raise his profile within the Kowloon East geographical constituency.
“Even though my chance of winning was small, I still wanted to do something to improve the image of ADPL,” Sze said.
The activist will continue to testify on Wednesday.
In June 2020, Beijing inserted national security legislation directly into Hong Kong’s mini-constitution – bypassing the local legislature – following a year of pro-democracy protests and unrest. It criminalised subversion, secession, collusion with foreign forces and terrorist acts, which were broadly defined to include disruption to transport and other infrastructure. The move gave police sweeping new powers, alarming democrats, civil society groups and trade partners, as such laws have been used broadly to silence and punish dissidents in China. However, the authorities say it has restored stability and peace to the city.
Support HKFP | Policies & Ethics | Error/typo? | Contact Us | Newsletter | Transparency & Annual Report | Apps
