On an emotional rollercoaster ride this past 48 hours thanks to a number of Olympic results and legal decisions

The kind of ride my emotions feel they've been on

over the past 48 hours or so 

 

Let's begin with some good news, shall we?  After fencer Edgar Cheung Ka-long's gold medal win on Monday night -- prompting the crowd assembled at a local shopping mall to watch his triumph and coronation 'live' on a big screen to break into cheers and chants of "We are Hong Kong" (the latter when The March of the Volunteers was playing over in Tokyo!) -- Hong Kong Olympic history was made again this morning; this time, when Siobhan Haughey, the first Hong Kong swimmer ever to reach an Olympic swimming final, became Hong Kong's first ever medalist in an Olympic swim event.   

 

Pipped by less than half a second in the women's 200 meter freestyle final by the gold medalist from Australia, she also has made it so that the Tokyo Olympics is the first ever Olympics at which Hong Kong has won more than one medal  And like Edgar Cheung, the swimmer also endeared herself to fellow Hong Kongers with her post-race remarks.  Specifically, people feel encouraged by Haughey's comment that "I hope [Edgar] Cheung Ka-long's and my performances this Olympics can push fellow Hong Kong athletes competing, they can add oil."  Seriously now: "persist" (Edward Cheung) and ga yau (Siobhan Haughey).  Great messages indeed for Hong Kongers, especially in the wake of recent goings on in the territory.   

 

Sadly, in between these two Olympic high points came a major legal low point: Yesterday afternoon, the three judges handpicked by Carrie Lam to preside over Hong Kong's first ever security law trial -- and deliver a verdict in lieu of the more usual (for Hong Kong) jury of one's peers -- declared Tong Ying-kit, the first individual charged under China's security law for Hong Kong, guilty of terrorism and inciting secession.  Justices Esther Toh, Anthea Pang and Wilson Chan will hear mitigation arguments tomorrow morning before deciding Tong’s sentence.  

 

We can but hope that the presiding judges will not impose the maximum sentence on Tong (who, like fencer Edgar Cheung, is only 24 years of age) but it is not unlikely that he could be sentenced to life imprisonment even though there are people who think that, at most, he should have been convicted only for dangerous driving -- another charge he initially was saddled with, only for it to be later dropped.  (And it is telling that at his trial, his lawyer pointed out that Tong had slowed down and tried to avoid hitting the police officers that his hitting is being taken as an act of terrorism.)  

 

In any case, this security law trial looks to signal the death of justice in Hong Kong -- or, at the very least, sets a very dangerous precedent -- and its verdict the end of free speech in the territory.  With regards to the former: as Timothy McLaughlin's article in The Atlantic notes, "That the rule of law in the city remains solid is [Beijing and its Hong Kong loyalists'] popular refrain, but their critics say rule by law is now more apt."  

 

With regards to the latter: as others (like Quartz's Mary Hui) have surmised, "From the verdict in [Hong Kong]'s 1st national security case, it seems the red line beyond which speech is criminalised is now the *possibility* that a word/phrase has multiple meanings, including one the govt objects to, [and] not that the word/phrase is used *solely* in an 'illegal' way".  As such, the repercussions are seriously alarming; this since, as legal analyst Eric Yan-ho Lai notes, "prosecutors and judges can now take advantage of this verdict to justify charges of promoting seditious speech against citizens and activists who merely chanted or displayed the same slogan, which would go against international standard of free expression".              

 

On the subjects of court decisions and free speech: One of the 47 democratic politicians and activists charged under the security law for having organized or taken part in democratic primaries last July and put behind bars back in late February was granted bail at her latest bail review hearing today.  Those who celebrate this decision can't help but feel a sense of injustice that she's already spent some five months in detention and the trial that she'll be tried at won't take place until late September. 

 

Also note the stiff bail conditions that have been imposed on Hospital Authority Employees Alliance founder Winnie Yu Wai-ming -- who is just the 13th defendant in the case to be granted bail.  Among them: she is required to report to the police four times a week and abide by a curfew order, and is barred from leaving Hong Kong, organizing or coordinating any elections and contacting foreign officials or lawmakers.  She also is banned from making or forwarding comments, or carrying out any acts that could breach the national security law -- which could be goodness know what given how vague as well as broad it is!  

 

A friend living abroad told me earlier this week that she actually thought that the wearing of yellow masks and use of the "Five demands, not one less" slogan is now illegal in Hong Kong.  It may seem farcical but witness such as the hoohah over Watsons Water "Hong Kong is really beautiful" bottle range and arrests of speech therapists for producing illustrated children's books like The Sheep Village Defenders.  Also recall the criticism Olympic badminton player Angus Ng Ka-long received just a few days ago from pro-Beijingers for playing in all black attire.  

 

An update re Angus Ng: the world number 9 suffered a shock defeat today to Guatemalan shuttler Kevin Cordon (currently ranked 59th in the world) and consequently bowed out of the Tokyo Olympics today.  Wearing a green and white top that apparently was less able to "breathe" than the black top he favored for his previous match (and thus ended up being soaked in sweat), Ng's performance looked to have suffered as a result.  And while the badminton player wouldn't attribute his subpar performance down to a row surrounding the black T-shirt he wore in his previous match, he admitted that he couldn't say his mood had not been affected by the saga.

 

So I'd like to ask this of the pro-Beijingers who criticized Ng previously: do you prefer that he lost while not wearing black to his winning while wearing black?  Also, isn't it interesting that pretty much every pro-democracy protestor has been happy with Hong Kong victories and medal winning at the Olympics, whatever color the attire that the athletes were in (and, for that matter, whatever color the athletes representing Hong Kong are)?  Or maybe not since, as Ryan Ho Kilpatrick's noted: "They took to the street because they love [Hong Kong] and they’re cheering our Olympians because they love [Hong Kong]. This should be so obvious but to some it isn’t."