On Nov 19, 45 defendants were sentenced by the Court of First Instance to terms of imprisonment of four to 10 years for conspiracy to commit subversion. Whereas 31 had pleaded guilty and 14 were convicted after trial, the evidence showed they had plotted to take control of the legislature and force the authorities to agree to their political agenda, although there was far more to it than that.
Whereas they held an unofficial “primary election” in July 2020 to select candidates for the Legislative Council elections planned for that September (but subsequently postponed), the three-judge panel concluded they intended to “undermine, destroy or overthrow” the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region government and create constitutional mayhem.
The court described the academic, Benny Tai Yiu-ting, as the “mastermind” with good reason. Having been a central figure in the “Occupy Central” chaos in 2014, he hatched a dastardly plan in 2019 that could have destroyed Hong Kong’s “one country, two systems” governing policy. While the insurrection was underway, he devised his “10 steps to mutual destruction” (or laam chau) strategy, which was why the court said he had “in essence, advocated for a revolution”.
Although Tai had not intended to stand in the “primary election”, he hoped that a meltdown in the legislature could supplement the violence on the streets. If the anti-China forces had secured a majority in the legislature, they could have indiscriminately blocked the budget (regardless of its merits), paralyzed the work of the administration, and forced the government to resign.
This would then have had wider consequences. That was why the prosecution, borrowing Tai’s words, described the “primary election” as a plot to turn the legislature into a “constitutional weapon of mass destruction” against the government (and, they could have added, against the “one country, two systems” policy itself).
Tai had said he envisaged the legislature becoming a “lethal constitutional weapon” that could be used to compel the government to accede to various demands. These included amnesty for those arrested in 2019, whether arsonists, bomb makers or rioters; an inquiry into “police brutality”; the reclassification of riots as nonriots, and universal suffrage for the election of both the legislature and the chief executive. What was envisaged, therefore, was blackmail in all but name, but it was more than that.
The conspiracy violated the Basic Law, which every legislator swears to uphold. Whereas Article 73 requires the legislators to “examine and approve” government spending plans, Article 104 requires them to abide by their oath of office. Many participants in the “primary election” must have known this, including then-legislative councilors Alvin Yeung Ngok-kiu, Claudia Mo Man-ching and Lam Cheuk-ting. They nonetheless joined the plot, with their eyes open.
Not content with destroying the local government, Tai’s “10 steps” also envisaged a confrontation with the central authorities. How a law professor could have imagined anything positive could emerge from such a strategy beggars belief. However, people who should have known better, including Civic Party politicians, eagerly joined in, and are now paying the price.
The timing of the “primary election” was significant. It took place in July 2020, just after the National Security Law for Hong Kong (NSL) was enacted the previous month, and not every participant was aware of its illegality. The plotters could previously have got away with the subversive tactics Tai envisaged, which was precisely why the NSL was so necessary. Tai himself did not explain to those who signed up that the plot endangered national security, and the court gave small sentencing discounts to those defendants who were genuinely ignorant of the law.
Lawful or not, they must have known what Tai planned, so they can lay little claim to sympathy. If the annual budget had been blocked in the legislature and the chief executive had resigned, the government would come to a standstill and public services would grind to a halt for lack of funding. At this point, Tai’s plan envisaged that Beijing would declare a state of emergency, apply its national security law to Hong Kong, dissolve the legislature, and replace it with a provisional body.
After that, a chief executive would be chosen after local consultations, and leaders of the “pro-democracy” movement would be detained. Street protests would erupt, the authorities would order a clampdown, and the plot would enter its final stages. Tai prophesied that “the suppression will be very bloody, Hong Kongers will launch a general strike on three fronts (suspension of work, classes and markets), which will lead Hong Kong society to a standstill”.
The West, Tai reasoned, would hold Beijing responsible for the situation. Western countries would “impose political and economic sanctions on the Chinese Communist Party”, such being a key objective of the conspiracy.
Therefore, the main characteristics of Tai’s plot were chaos, intimidation, strikes, violence and punitive sanctions. Had he and his confederates succeeded, it is hard to see how the “one country, two systems” policy could have survived, and China would have been harmed. Everybody who cares for the country will be grateful that the NSL has enabled the plotters to be held to account, and that the dangers they posed to Hong Kong’s capitalist system and way of life have been neutralized.
The “one country, two systems” paradigm has survived, and the city is now set fair. The truth invariably trumps disinformation, and no amount of foreign propaganda can deflect Hong Kong from upholding its way of life
However, this is not how the outcome has been represented in those Western countries, which see political advantage in diminishing Hong Kong and maligning China. Indeed, a comparison of their responses suggests they were carefully coordinated, if not by the United States, then by the United Kingdom.
The US State Department’s spokesman, Matthew Miller, said the US “strongly condemns” the “politically motivated prosecutions”. It deplored the sentences of imprisonment imposed upon the defendants “for their peaceful participation in political activities”. If, as might be expected, the US consul general in Hong Kong, Gregory May, had explained the enormity of Tai’s “10 steps” to his superiors (including the violence), they chose to ignore him, for reasons of their own.
It may be that the US relishes another opportunity to harm Hong Kong (slapping it with sanctions and canceling its trade preferences in 2020). Miller announced that the “Department of State is taking steps to impose new visa restrictions on multiple Hong Kong officials responsible for implementation of the NSL”. Once again, the US has demeaned itself, and demonstrated that it still does not understand that Hong Kong will never buckle to its bully-boy tactics, let alone dance to its tune.
Mimicking the US, the European Union decried the “politically motivated prosecution” of the defendants “for peaceful political activity”.
In a particularly bizarre twist, the Australian foreign minister, Penny Wong, having said she was “gravely concerned” by the sentences, called for the “repeal of the National Security Law in Hong Kong”. Dream on.
However, perhaps the most disappointing response came from the UK’s Catherine West, a junior Foreign Office minister who recently visited Hong Kong. She described the sentences as “a clear demonstration of the Hong Kong authorities’ use of the National Security Law to criminalize political dissent”. She claimed the defendants “were exercising their right to freedom of speech, of assembly and of political participation”. Strangely, like Miller, she did not mention Tai’s laam chau strategy, although the UK consul general in Hong Kong, Brian Davidson, must have explained it to her.
However, nobody should be deceived by the West’s platitudes about peaceful political activity and democratic legitimacy. The 45 defendants have been convicted of conspiring to subvert State power — conduct that reasonable people everywhere rightly regard as despicable. It is to their credit that 31 defendants, including Tai, acknowledged their guilt, and this has been recognized in their sentencing discounts.
With the sentencing complete, the curtain has finally come down upon an ugly (if sophisticated) attempt at regime change that was supported by many in the West and could have had devastating consequences for Hong Kong. The “one country, two systems” paradigm has survived, and the city is now set fair. The truth invariably trumps disinformation, and no amount of foreign propaganda can deflect Hong Kong from upholding its way of life.
The author is a senior counsel and law professor, and was previously the director of public prosecutions of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region.
The views do not necessarily reflect those of China Daily.
