An interesting argument for the NatSec court

Most people appearing in court under Hong Kong’s national security laws (incitement, subversion, sedition, collusion, etc) seem to be there for words rather than actions. But defendants or their lawyers rarely ask the judges to step back and view the alleged crimes as no more than expressions of opinion. Perhaps, given these courts’ near-100% conviction rate, it would be too provocative? We will now see. From HKFP…

Barrister Erik Shum, representing Lee Cheuk-yan, spoke before a three-judge panel on Monday as closing arguments began in the national security trial of Lee and Chow Hang-tung. Both are former leaders of the now-defunct Hong Kong Alliance in Support of Patriotic Democratic Movements of China. 

…The calls to end one-party rule – one of the group’s five tenets that also included the democratisation of China since its founding in 1989 – were demanding a change in the country’s political system rather than targeting any specific political party, Shum said.

Shum told the court on Monday that prosecutors had failed to present evidence that the Alliance sought to incite the public to revolt against the ruling Chinese Communist Party (CCP).

…Prosecutors have argued that there are no “lawful means” to end CCP rule after a 2018 constitutional amendment stipulates that the party’s leadership is the “defining feature” of China’s socialist system.

Shum argued on Monday that prosecutors presented a “tautological theory.”

“We ask: How exactly did the Alliance incite others to overthrow the CCP? And my submission is that the prosecution has always reverted to the claim that ending CCP rule is illegal,” Shum said.

Shum urged the court to draw a boundary for what is considered an acceptable political expression and what is not.

“The court must not pay lip service to human rights protections,” he said.

…The Alliance … was not exercising any power, and its calls should be considered civilian political criticism, Shum said.

In the decades since the HK Alliance was formed, did anyone in Hong Kong (or anywhere) try to end one-party rule?

Meanwhile, the government allocates another HK$5 billion to its National Security budget…

Classified as non-recurrent expenditure, the payment brings the total amount dedicated to national security spending to date to HK$18 billion.

According to official records, Financial Secretary Paul Chan Mo-po previously allocated HK$8 billion in December 2020 and a further HK$5 billion in March 2023.

Assuming the HK$13 billion committed so far has been spent in the last 65 months, they’ve burnt through HK$50 million a week.

You don’t recall any actual threat to the national security of the PRC coming out of Hong Kong during that time? Maybe that shows how effective that 50 million a week has been! 

Following Donald Trump’s visit to Beijing, the NYT looks at (VPN-equipped) Chinese netizens’ comments on overseas social media platforms…

Mr. Xi, the most powerful Chinese leader since Mao Zedong, is on the front page of the official People’s Daily nearly every day. He dominates the prime-time television news. And yet he remains a mysterious figure even to his own people. Unlike Mr. Trump, who posts constantly on social media and regularly takes questions and even unscheduled phone calls from the press, Mr. Xi is always choreographed. He reads from a script and strikes the same pose in every photograph with world leaders. 

During the summit, some social media users mocked this predictability, commenting that Mr. Xi appeared to be exactly the same height as Mr. Trump — and nearly every visiting world leader he has appeared with in photos. As a 32-year-old tutor in southern Fujian Province put it on Threads, “I’d be much more interested in seeing Yao Ming meet Xi Jinping,” referring to the former N.B.A. player who is 7 foot 6 inches tall, “just because they’d be the same height, too.”  

…Some people joked that, having listened to Mr. Xi’s speech, Mr. Trump could now appreciate what it was like to sit through Xi Jinping Thought classes in college. 

…“Is China moving backward?” [one poster] asked. “A society that is truly confident doesn’t need children chanting slogans to prove its enthusiasm. A country that is genuinely open doesn’t need to repackage diplomatic events as collective performances.” 

One astute commenter noted that the children wore ‘staged-event’ clothing from a bygone era…