Hong Kong 47: ‘Not worth wasting resentment’ on gov’t, says ex-journalist at security law trial
Hong Kong Free Press
Hong Kong journalist-turned activist Gwyneth Ho, one of the 47 pro-democracy figures accused of conspiring to commit subversion, has told a panel of handpicked national security judges that she had “no resentment” towards the government, as she stood by her claim that the rule of law no longer existed in the city.
Friday marked day four of testimony by the former Stand News journalist at a closely-watched trial under the Beijing-imposed national security law. It could land dozens of ex-lawmakers, ex-district councillors, legal figures and other activists up to life behind bars 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.
Foster resentment
The former journalist, who will turn 33 next month, was asked by her representative Trevor Beel whether she had any resentment towards to the authorities. He made reference to the allegations made by the prosecutors in February when the lengthy trial began, in which Ho was said to have fostered resentment towards the authorities by alleging that “the system of Hong Kong has collapsed and the rule of law no longer exists.”
Speaking Cantonese, Ho denied the allegations and said she did not have any resentment towards the Hong Kong government.
“[I] have a lot of discontent but no resentment, because the Hong Kong government is not worth anyone wasting resentment on it…” the ex-reporter said before a three-judge panel consisting of High Court judges Andrew Chan, Alex Lee and Johnny Chan.
She went on to back her claim that the rule of law no longer existed in the city, by citing criteria set out by Justice Kemal Bokhary, a non-permanent judge at Hong Kong’s Court of Final Appeal, in 2018. According to Ho, Bokhary said the existence of the rule of law could be determined by factors such as whether the place had judicial independence, separation of powers, or the protection of human rights in accordance to international standards.
Ho said the city “very obviously” failed to meet the criteria, “so I think ‘the rule of law no longer exists’ is a correct saying.”
The former journalist of the now-defunct online media outlet was also questioned over whether she had “fostered” anyone to be resentful towards the authorities. She said she was very meticulous about her public speech and would only make remarks that “had grounds.”
“I agree that a lot of people in Hong Kong resented the government. [They] didn’t need anyone to foster [resentment]. You cannot assume that – because they have such resentment – then there is no rational basis behind it, or they must be incited by someone…” she said.
Opposing the security law
Ho on Friday told the court that she became aware of an impending security law in late May 2020 and formed the belief that the offences were created to target conduct which the authorities deemed as paralysing the government.
She said when the actual provisions were revealed on June 30 that year. Instead of “paralysing” – a term used by Beijing’s two offices in Hong Kong to criticise the filibustering acts by then-pro-democracy camp legislators – the subversion offence covered acts which were deemed to be “seriously interfering in, disrupting, or undermining” government operations.
She had concerns over what could be deemed as “interference.” She said that opposing a legislative president’s order could be seen as a breach of law, despite it being an example of lawmakers fulfilling their duties.
“Throughout the charge period, [I did not think that] pressing the button to object could be seen as interference. Because to me, casting a vote to oppose would not count as a legislative protest,” she said.
Following the enactment of the national security law, Ho said she decided not to leave Hong Kong despite thinking it could be her only chance to leave the city. The new security law became a tool for the authorities to “disqualify everyone,” the ex-journalist told the court, as she claimed the government would cite any opposition to the security law as evidence that an election hopeful did not uphold the Basic Law.
“Those four offences were in mainland China’s criminal code for a long time. Hongkongers also knew about those cases, such as Liu Xiaobo… put simply, people were incriminated by their speech,” Ho said.
She went on to say that her risk assessment at the time – when deciding whether to openly oppose the national security law – was based on how similar laws were implemented in mainland China.
“I really could not imagine how such a law would be implemented in a common law system… At that point in time, I had already said a lot of things that could get me into trouble – there is no point in dodging it,” she said, adding no one knew whether Hong Kong’s national security law would be retrospective.
She eventually decided to make a Facebook post to criticise the law, as she deemed it would be “self-contradictory” for a person who supported and advocated democracy not to object to the security legislation.
Online declaration
Ho was among more than 30 defendants who signed an online declaration titled “Resolute Resistance, Inked Without Regret,” which the prosecution said was proof that the signatories had an “unwavering pledge to knowingly achieve the impugned objective regardless of any legal consequences.”
Beel asked if Ho saw the declaration which was shared online was an attempt by the “resistance camp” to put pressure on traditional pan-democrats to adopt a similar stance, including endorsing the five demands advocated by protesters and pledging to deploy the powers conferred to lawmakers by the Basic Law to compel the chief executive to respond to the five demands.
Ho responded by saying she did not think the pressure on traditional democrats was mounted by the resistance camp directly, but rather the need for candidates to give an explanation to their supporters, whom she said did not agree the democrats should “retreat without a bottom line” when faced with the security law.
“If they were affected by the voters and picked a stance which they did not full agree, that’s their political judgement… I personally just thought about what I had to say to my electors, and did not think of using this behaviour to affect other candidates,” she said.
Ho will continue her testimony next Monday, which means the high-profile trial is likely to exceed its estimate length of 90 days. So far 16 democrats are on trial, while the 31 others who pleaded guilty earlier are awaiting to be sentenced.
Protests erupted in June 2019 over a since-axed extradition bill. They escalated into sometimes violent displays of dissent against police behaviour, amid calls for democracy and anger over Beijing’s encroachment. Demonstrators demanded an independent probe into police conduct, amnesty for those arrested and a halt to the characterisation of protests as “riots.”
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
