Hong Kong 47: Ex-reporter questions nat. security judges’ knowledge of legislature, says primary poll not a ‘waste of time’
Hong Kong Free Press
Organising an unofficial legislative primary poll was not a “waste of time,” despite knowing pro-democracy candidates may not win majority control as they wished, Hong Kong journalist-turned activist Gwyneth Ho has said during her testimony at a national security case against 47 democrats.
The high-profile trial entered day 90 on Monday as the former Stand News reporter, who rose to fame in 2019 for her coverage of the extradition bill protests, cast doubt on a panel of three designated judges over their knowledge of the city’s legislature.
The 32-year-old is among 16 pro-democracy figures facing trial under the Beijing-imposed security legislation, after they denied the charge of conspiracy to commit subversion. The remaining 31 defendants pleaded guilty earlier and are awaiting sentencing, which could see the democrats jailed for up to life in prison if convicted.
At the centre of the case is an unofficial legislative primary election held in July 2020, which aimed to help the pro-democracy camp select the strongest candidates and win a controlling majority in the 70-seat legislature prior to the city’s electoral overhaul.
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.
Speaking Cantonese, Ho told the court on Monday that – following Beijing’s announcement of an impending security law in late May 2020 – she believed a “large-scale disqualification” of candidates from the pro-democracy camp was “inevitable.”
It was not possible for the democrats to win 35 seats or more in the Legislative Council, said the defendant who planned to stand in the New Territories East geographical constituency.
High Court Judge Andrew Chan asked Ho if she had told legal scholar Benny Tai, one of the organisers of the unofficial election and a key figure in the case, that his plan to win majority control was “a waste of time and a waste of money.”
Ho replied by saying she “strongly disagreed” with Chan’s description. Very few social movements could achieve their original aims but, in the process, they could “build something new” and “open up new spaces,” the ex-reporter said.
“I believe that most Hongkongers knew deep down in their hearts that fighting for democracy under the Chinese Communist regime has always been a fantasy,” Ho told the court.
Her speech was stopped by Judge Alex Lee, who told Ho to “calm down” and said the court was not an occasion for her to make political statements. Ho said she wanted to finish her sentence, adding it was “unfair” that the judges did not allow her to respond after raising questions.
Whether or not her comments would be allowed depended on their relevance, Lee said, to which Ho interjected immediately and said the three-judge panel had a “limited understanding” of the Legislative Council and questioned how they could evaluate the relevance of her answer.
Judge Andrew Chan responded by saying he has been sitting as a judge for 25 years and he knew what was relevant and what was not. Ho interjected again and said the judge did not know about the “split-voting” system, and she wanted to point out that Chan’s judgement was “very flawed.”
“But my mistake will not be corrected by you, but to be corrected by the Court of Appeal,” Chan said.
Large turnout
Ho’s representative Trevor Beel asked his client to explain phrases from her election manifesto, as well as pamphlets she prepared at the time.
In her manifesto, Ho mentioned Hong Kong could only “break free from its destiny” through “resistance.” The ex-reporter said holding the primary election was a way to “contend” with what she described as an unfair electoral system, and how the legislature failed to impose checks and balances on the executive branch.
The court asked if there was a second way to resist, to which Ho said there were countless forms of resistance during Hong Kong’s social movement at the time: “My role and position at the time was to promote the primary election,” Ho said.
She added after Beijing announced its move to enact a security law for Hong Kong, she shifted her focus towards encouraging a larger turnout, which the former reporter said could be a way for voters in Hong Kong to indicate their “will” in spite of potential disqualifications of pro-democracy candidates by the authorities.
“If Hongkongers still go to vote, that can show Hong Kong, Beijing and the world that Hongkongers had the ability and will to win 35 seats,” Ho said.
She added: “Whether Beijing chose to respond with disqualification… it would face a major legitimacy crisis, because the whole world could see that it was not what Hongkongers wanted. Beijing rigged the elections to cover up the real intention of Hongkongers.”
Ho will continue to testify on Tuesday morning.
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
