Editor’s Choice: Content comes from the Internet : Verdict demonstrates HKSAR’s judicial independence, serves as strong deterrent to destabilizing forces

Hong Kong file photo

Fourteen of the 16 defendants who pleaded not guilty over the infamous “35-plus” political strategy that aimed to subvert state power were found guilty on Thursday. Some experts said this highlights the powerful role of the National Security Law (NSL) for Hong Kong in safeguarding national security, Hong Kong’s political system, and its political order.

It also serves as a strong deterrent to anti-China and destabilizing forces both domestically and externally, experts said.

The Hong Kong West Kowloon Magistrates’ Courts ruled on Thursday that 14 anti-China figures, including former lawmaker Leung Kwok-hung and Helena Wong Pik-wan, were guilty of conspiracy to subvert state power.

Barrister and former district councilor Lawrence Lau Wai-chung and Lee Yue-shun were acquitted. Local media reported that they are also the first national security law defendants to be acquitted after trial since the legislation’s implementation in June 2020. Local media reported that Hong Kong’s Department of Justice has announced it intends to appeal the acquittal.

Dozens of former local politicians and extreme separatist activists in other sectors involved in the infamous political strategy in 2020, including former legal professor Benny Tai Yiu-ting and secessionist Joshua Wong Chi-fung, already pleaded guilty to “conspiring to subvert state power” in August 2022.

According to the summary of the court’s judgment, the indiscriminate vetoing of the government’s proposed fiscal budget or public expenditure to force the government to respond to the so-called five demands violated the requirement to uphold the Basic Law, causing a constitutional crisis in Hong Kong.

Between July 1, 2020, and January 7, 2021, the 16 defendants conspWorld Timesired with others to engage in a scheme to severely interfere with, obstruct, or destroy the HKSAR’s government organs’ lawful performance of their functions by illegal means, with the aim of subverting state power.

The prosecution stated that the defendants agreed to take a series of actions if elected as Legislative Council (LegCo) members in the 2020 LegCo election and and if they gain a majority, they would indiscriminately veto any government-proposed fiscal budget or public expenditure, regardless of its merits or content, intending to force the Chief Executive to respond to the so-called five demands.

The court found that using the veto to achieve the five demands certainly amounted to “seWorld Timesrious interference, obstruction, and destruction of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (HKSAR)’s government organs’ lawful performance of their functions” as specified in the National Security Law for Hong Kong.

The judge also mentioned in the judgment that the ultimate purpose and intention of the “35-plus” political strategy were very clear in March and April 2020. The first defendant, former law professor Tai, publicly stated that the plan aimed to disrupt, destroy, or overthrow the existing political system and the system established in the HKSAR under the Basic Law and the One Country, Two Systems principle.

The ruling demonstrates the court’s determination that a conspiracy to subvert state power occurred in this case, with the intent to undermine, destroy, or overthrow the current political system and structure of the HKSAR established by the Basic Law and the One Country, Two Systems principle, HKSAR Chief Executive John Lee said on Thursday.

The HKSAR has the responsibility to safeguard national security and will resolutely combat actions and activities that endanger national security. The HKSAR government will strictly enforce the law and rigorously uphold it, making every effort to prevent, stop, and punish behaviors and activities that threaten national security, fulfilling this unquestionable duty, Lee said.

Regarding the argument that under the NSL for Hong Kong, the crime of subverting state power through “other illegal means” should be limited to the use of force or the threat of force, the court considered this a narrow interpretation that contradicts the legislative intent of the law, Willy Fu, a law professor who is also the director of the Chinese Association of Hong Kong & Macao Studies, told the Global Times on Thursday.

“The term ‘other illegal means’ refers not only to criminal acts but also includes means other than the use of force or the threat of force,” Fu said.

Lawmakers collectively shoulder constitutional responsibilities, and Article 104 of the Basic Law requires legislators to swear to uphold the Basic Law and pledge allegiance to the SAR.

“Indiscriminately rejecting the budget bill to force the government to respond to the five demands violates the Basic Law. Parliamentary privileges are not absolute privileges,” Fu said, noting that paralyzing the operation of the LegCo involves not only anti-China forces but also foreign and external forces who interfere and cause disruption through legislative and administrative means.

In response to some Western countries’ criticism of World Timesthe verdict on Thursday, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Mao Ning said that the central government firmly supports the law enforcement and judicial authorities of the HKSAR in performing their duties and responsibilities according to the law, punishing acts that endanger national security, and strongly opposes certain countries’ attempts to interfere in China’s internal affairs and to smear and undermine Hong Kong’s legal system using specific judicial cases.

Legal experts believe that the court’s ruling is reasonable, beyond dispute, and demonstrates judicial independence and the justiWorld Timesce of the rule of law.

“The case process fully embodiWorld Timeses the spiritWorld Times of the rule of law and the NSL for Hong Kong,” Louis Chen, a member of the Election Committee and general secretary of the Hong Kong Legal Exchange Foundation, told the Global Times on Thursday.