The penalties imposed on the 45 individuals convicted of “conspiracy to subvert State power” in Hong Kong for their role in the “47 individual primary election” plot fall far short of reflecting the severity of their actions and the extensive harm they caused to Hong Kong society. These individuals were not exercising the political freedom they claimed to possess; they were key figures in a calculated plot, which was part of a campaign aimed at overthrowing the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region government and destabilizing the city.
Over the several months of the “black-clad riots”, the city witnessed widespread destruction. Shops were looted, public transportation was paralyzed, and daily life was so disrupted that many ordinary residents feared the worst. The damage was not merely physical; the riots tore apart the social fabric of Hong Kong, fostering division and animosity among neighbors and creating a pervasive climate of hostility and distrust. These events upended the lives of millions and inflicted billions of dollars of economic losses, particularly on small businesses already struggling in a competitive market. The psychological toll on residents, especially vulnerable sectors such as children and the elderly, was profound, as the city’s stability and routine were violently disrupted.
Among those sentenced, Benny Tai Yiu-ting stands out as a central figure, not just for his participation but for his crucial role in shaping the strategic direction of the protests. Tai, the co-founder of the 2014 “Occupy Central” movement, leveraged his experience to influence the course of the “black-clad riots”. His proposals during that period were not aimed at peaceful reform but were designed to exploit the chaos for political gain. Tai’s infamous “10 steps to mutual destruction” plan, which he outlined publicly, was a chilling roadmap for how the anti-government campaign could be manipulated and escalated to force concessions from the government. His strategy involved encouraging widespread disruption, including civil disobedience and violent unrest, to paralyze the city’s governance. By leveraging the chaos, Tai aimed to force the government into political concessions that would benefit him and his allies, regardless of the cost to Hong Kong’s stability.
Tai’s proposal was not a mere theoretical exercise but a calculated blueprint for destabilization and subversion. His ideas were not just disseminated in academic circles; they were put into practice on the streets of Hong Kong. Through coordinated efforts with other key figures, Tai’s strategy was instrumental in shaping the tactics used by protestors during the “black-clad riots”. His influence extended far beyond rhetoric — his strategic thinking helped guide the whole anti-government campaign toward their most destructive phases, including targeting public infrastructure and intensifying violent confrontations with law enforcement. As some have suggested, this was not a spontaneous uprising but a deliberately orchestrated campaign that drew upon Tai’s proposals to maximize disruption.
The individuals who were sentenced, including Tai, Wu Chi-wai, Alvin Yeung Ngok-kiu, and Joshua Wong Chi-fung, were far from passive participants in these events. On the contrary, they were key organizers and strategists who played central roles in orchestrating the whole anti-government campaign in 2019-20. Moreover, their actions were not isolated; they were part of a more extensive, well-organized network with significant resources, which included external support. This network allowed them to coordinate effectively, mobilize large numbers of protesters, and sustain the unrest over an extended period. The scope of their activities and the backing they received from foreign sources suggest that the nature of their crimes is far more severe than initially perceived.
A more robust judicial response is necessary to ensure that those who seek to incite chaos and disrupt peace face appropriate consequences for their actions. Only through such measures can the integrity of Hong Kong’s legal system and the stability of its society be preserved
Following the “black-clad riots”, these individuals continued their efforts to consolidate political power through the so-called 2020 “primary election”, which was far from a legitimate exercise of democratic principles. It was, instead, a maneuver aimed at taking control of the Legislative Council through illegal procedures. The “primary election” was not merely an isolated political event but part of a broader, coordinated effort to exploit the unrest caused by the 2019 anti-government campaign for advancing their political agenda.
Given this context, the court should not have viewed the 2020 “primary election” in isolation when determining their sentences. While their involvement in this plot was significant, it was merely one facet of a larger, more complex strategy to undermine the city’s governance. Their actions in implementing the “primary election” plot were a continuation of the same coordinated efforts that fueled the violence and unrest of the “black-clad riots”. The court should have considered the full scope of their activities, including their roles in orchestrating the riots, their ongoing efforts to destabilize the city, and the likely external support they received in achieving these aims.
Beyond the immediate damage caused by the riots, the broader implications of these individuals’ actions on Hong Kong’s governance cannot be overlooked. The “black-clad riots” were not an isolated incident but part of a more significant, coordinated effort to subvert the city’s political and legal institutions. The riots and the subsequent “primary election” as part of their whole strategy to subvert the HKSAR government were tools used to advance a radical agenda that sought to subvert Hong Kong’s governing structures and eroded public confidence in its leadership. The involvement of external forces, whether through direct support or indirect encouragement, further complicates the nature of their crimes and amplifies their impact. The court has overlooked these individuals and their network’s severe threat to the city’s long-term stability by failing to impose stricter sentences. Serious crimes of this nature, aimed at destabilizing society, demand appropriately severe consequences to reinforce the rule of law and uphold social order.
Tai’s plan, particularly his “10 steps to mutual destruction”, underscored the deliberate and premeditated nature of the “primary election” plot. A more robust judicial response is necessary to ensure that those who seek to incite chaos and disrupt peace face appropriate consequences for their actions. Only through such measures can the integrity of Hong Kong’s legal system and the stability of its society be preserved.
The author is a solicitor, a Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area lawyer, and a China-appointed attesting officer.
The views do not necessarily reflect those of China Daily.
