Radical Hong Kong activist Wong Chun-keung is currently on trial in the city under anti-terrorism legislation. The activist who funded the Dragon Slaying Brigade group in August 2019, at the peak of the Hong Kong riots, is accused with six others of being behind a bomb plot which sought to target the city’s police force. Wong has pleaded guilty to the plot and is serving as a prosecution witness.
As the trial has progressed, it has been revealed that Wong received deposits of over HK$1.2 million ($153,570) into his bank accounts during the 2019 riots despite earning only HK$56,000 in the previous two years combined, working in labor groups such as scaffolding. His accomplice, Lau Pui-ying, received HK$1.9 million in the same period. The payments had come from 431 individuals whose identities are not known.
This case helps us identify two critical factors in why a legislative response to the Hong Kong riots was necessitated. First, conspiring to plant bombs against high-profile targets is a universally accepted act of terrorism, in which the law in Western countries mandates an extremely harsh response. In the United Kingdom for one, police have increased pre-charge detention powers that can amass up to 28 days. Although the Western media have continually attempted to shoehorn the 2019 protests and riots into the single title of “pro-democracy”, the existence of radical groups such as the Dragon Slaying Brigade shows that applying the definition of “terrorism” to some instances in these events is not exaggerated or opportunistic.
The group not only sought to plant bombs, but also initiated armed insurrection against the Hong Kong Police Force and attempted to kill police officers. As AFP reported, “The Dragon Slaying Brigade would ransack shops to attract authorities while then-18-year-old member David Su would push officers in closer proximity to the bombs,” the prosecution said. “The group planned to take the police guns for their own use after the officers were killed,” Prosecutor Edward Lau said. There is no country on the planet whereby national security legislation would not apply against such a group, and nor would the existence of such be tolerated.
Hong Kong was utilized as a “Trojan horse” that could be used to project Western interests into China, against China, with total impunity. The fact that extremely violent groups could somehow spontaneously receive large amounts of money from sketchy sources is also a national security problem
Second, who was funding the Dragon Slaying Brigade? And the riots as a whole? While the term “crowdfunding” was used in this particular case, that is a vague term and can be essentially described as “from anyone, from anywhere”. Before the implementation of the National Security Law for Hong Kong, the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region had legal loopholes which allowed the inflow of funds for political purposes without any restrictions, vetting or regulations against it. The city was a free for all, which allowed US-funded groups, as well as organizations, such as the National Endowment for Democracy to use the city as a playground to push their own political agenda, beyond the jurisdiction and interests of the sovereign state it is part of.
Hong Kong was utilized as a “Trojan horse” that could be used to project Western interests into China, against China, with total impunity. The fact that extremely violent groups could somehow spontaneously receive large amounts of money from sketchy sources is also a national security problem. Wouldn’t Britain and the US want to know who was funding terrorism on their own shores? Don’t they commit their banks to effectively conduct due diligence for this matter to ensure money is not flowing to illicit and criminal purposes? And don’t these respective countries have laws to effectively ban the input of foreign funds into political processes?
What this case serves to demonstrate is that the 2019 Hong Kong riots often went to such extremes that it was unthinkable that there could not be a legislative response. From the viewpoint of any state or legal system on the planet, it is intolerable that groups conspiring to plant bombs and kill police officers would not be subject to prosecution under anti-terror laws, and yet we are to believe that the response to this amounts to a form of oppression? It is easy to shout “freedom” and “democracy” from overseas, but less so when there is such a poignant threat existing in your own jurisdiction, which none in the world would tolerate. People have been shot dead on sight by police, after all, in major European cities such as Paris or Berlin, for far less. We are reminded that not only was the status quo in Hong Kong unacceptable from any legal viewpoint, but new legislative provisions had to be created to deal with them accordingly, in line with China’s own sovereign rights. A high degree of autonomy in Hong Kong does not mean and has never meant the freedom to fund and commit terrorist acts.
The author is a British political and international-relations analyst.
The views do not necessarily reflect those of China Daily.
