Pleading guilty in a Hong Kong court is not necessarily an admission of having committed a wrong these days

Raphael Wong -- a man who's physically short in stature

but with a lot more guts than many who physically tower over him

A friend spoke at lunch today about her frustrations dealing with her "blue" (i.e., pro-Beijing) father in recent days.  In particular, after hearing the news of a number of pro-democracy activists and politicians having pleaded guilty in court, he had told her: "See?  They admit that they've done wrong!"  And when she tried to point out otherwise, he refused to believe her.  

 

Since we agreed that there are a number of people out there like her father, here's going ahead and looking some more into two recent cases where the pro-democracy defendants had pleaded guilty.  The first of these involves Andy Li and Chan Tsz-wah, who pleaded guilty this past Thursday to "colluding with foreign forces to endanger China's national security" and thus falling afoul of the national security law that China imposed on Hong Kong on June 30th, 2020.

 

Upon examining the details of the charges brought against them though, certain things start to look rather murky.  For example, the actual actions they have admitted to involve doing such as crowdfunding to take out ads in foreign newspapers (like the New York Times) calling for sanctions to be taken against the Chinese and Hong Kong governments.  Apart from the taking out of advertising in foreign newspapers not appearing to be something that would seriously endanger a major country and city's security, there's also the issue of most, if not all, of the actions they have been accused of taking that endanger national security having taken place before the national security law, which officially is not retractive, came into effect!

 

Consequently, observers such as human rights campaigner Luke de Pulford have been moved to conclude that "Andy Li has commited no crime" (and that Andy Li and Chan Tsz-wah are being used to strengthen the Hong Kong government's case against media tycoon Jimmy Lai).  In a statement released by human rights NGO Hong Kong Watch, its Policy Director, Johnny Patterson, had this to say about Andy Li's general treatment since he was apprehended (with 11 other Hong Kongers) by the Mainland Chinese coastguard while trying to flee to Taiwan by boat back in August of last year: 

It is hard to imagine what Andy Li has been through since the trumped up National Security charges were first levelled against him in August 2020.

Held for six months in arbitrary detention in mainland China, he will have almost definitely faced torture and intimidation ahead of today's plea.

His current show trial on vague and absurd charges of "collusion with foreign forces" is another dark day on Hong Kong's road to authoritarianism. The case shows that the mainlandisation of Hong Kong is seeping into the legal system. Testimonies which are likely to have come under duress should be rejected out of hand, not accepted as reliable. The guilty plea only shows that both he and Chan Tsz-Wah no longer believe you can get a fair trial in Hong Kong.

Thursday also saw Figo Chan (a former convenor of the Civil Human Rights Front), his League of Social Democrat colleagues Raphael Wong, “Long Hair” Leung Kwok-hung and Avery Ng, and fellow pro-democracy politicians Cyd Ho and Yeung Sum plead guilty in court to having organised a demonstration on October 20th, 2019 against the government's anti-mask ban (which, by the way, is still in effect -- meaning that even while Hong Kong currently has a general mask-wearing requirement as a social measure against the Wuhan coronavirus, it also simultaneously has a regulation against the wearing of masks if one is taking part in a protest!).  Chan, Leung, Cyd Ho and lawyer-politician Albert Ho pleaded guilty too to another charge of conspiring to incite others to attend an unauthorised protest on October 19th that year. 

 

The court heard mitigation pleas prior to the sentencing of the seven pro-democrats yesterday. The following are a couple of excerpts from Raphael Wong's mitigation statement ahead of his expected sentencing on September 1st: "I have nothing to be ashamed of and no remorse for what I did on that day”; and "The march in Kowloon on October 20 was certainly an opportunity to reflect public opinion. Now, by imposing heavy penalties on us, the court is only punishing public opinion… suffocating the freedom of expression"; .  He also maintained this: "The true and frequent violence is the kind of violence that ignores people’s demands, that tramples on their opinions, that deprives them of their right to express themselves."  

 

Does this sound like the words of a man who believes he's guilty of an actual crime?  My sense is that Wong believes that he is on the right side of justice and is still holding out for true justice to be served. Sadly, this probably means that he will given a harsh(er) sentence by the judge (who's a designated national security law judge -- though the case in which Wong's embroiled is -- thank goodness for small mercies -- not a national security law case).  At the same time, while some might see his stubbornness as foolishness or worse, I see it as courage -- and respect him for being willing to call what he sees as a spade a spade. 

 

Still, it does upset me to know that, in contemporary Hong Kong, Raphael Wong's taking the stand that he has done means that the likelihood of his being able to be free in the near future will have significantly decreased.  But this is more of an indictment of what Hong Kong has become -- including its judicial system (see the words of Beatrice Li, Andy Li's sister on this here) -- rather than Raphael Wong and others with his convictions.