What has happened over the past few days is frightening, painful and saddening. It was as if we were watching Hong Kong being burned alive by the regime.

Joshua Wong, Ivan Lam and Agnes Chow pleaded guilty on charges related to the siege of the police headquarters on June 21 last year. The charges were inciting others to take part in an unauthorized assembly, organizing an unauthorized assembly and knowingly participating in an unauthorized assembly. On December 2, Magistrate Lily Wong laid down heavy sentences on the three. For the first charge, Wong, Lam and Chow were respectively sentenced to nine months, nine months (increased from 7.5 months because of Lam’s previous sentences for four convictions) and 7.5 months. As they pleaded guilty, the court handed Wong and Lam a sentencing discount of 22 percent, and Chow was afforded a one-third sentence reduction. This means Wong and Lam were both sentenced to seven months in jail and Chow five months for the first charge. For the second charge of which Wong was the target, he was handed a heavy sentence of 15 months in prison and got a sentencing discount of 22 percent. So the jail term for this charge is 11.5 months. For the third charge faced by Chow, she received a heavy sentence of 12 months and was given a one-third reduction to 8 months. The magistrate said the incitement and organization of and participation in the assembly did not overlap, and so Wong and Chow must serve two months of their jail terms imposed on the incitement charge consecutively with their penalty for the other charges. On the whole, Wong’s total jail term is 13.5 months, Lam seven months and Chow 10 months. The sentences are heavy without precedence, in light of the offences.

Chow had a clear record. She was 22 when the siege happened, and she pleaded guilty during her first court appearance. One of the charges she faced concerned Article 17A of the Public Order Ordinance. The 10-month jail term is obviously too heavy even taking into account the incitement charge. In her ruling, the magistrate indicated that her sentencing was based on the Court of Appeal decision related to Joshua Wong’s Civic Square case. That is manifestly unreasonable. For one thing, that case involved Article 18 of the Public Order Ordinance, which concerns unlawful assembly and involves violence. That is clearly different from Article 17A, which involves unauthorized assembly. For charges related to illegal assemblies that involve violence, the Court of Final Appeal makes it clear that eight months can be the starting point. The basis of magistrate Wong’s sentencing (as stated in paragraph 21 of the ruling) was at odds with the Court of Final Appeal’s decision and is therefore unconvincing. Besides, the starting point for sentencing for a person involved in an unlawful assembly is just eight months. How come the starting point for Wong and Chow was respectively 15 and 12 months? Second, the fact that the charges facing the trio were based on Article 17A means the offenses did not involve violence or threatening the use of violence. While the defendants pleaded guilty in accordance with Article 17A, the court sentenced them on a basis applicable only to Article 18. One cannot help wondering if the court was fair to the defendants. Third, the magistrate noted in her ruling that one major reason for the heavy sentences was that they “committed the offense under the prevailing circumstances of increasing incidents of social unrest and large-scale public protests”. But then on the day the trio committed those crimes, the said “prevailing circumstances” were not there. Imposing the heavy sentences was tantamount to an afterthought.

The entire court proceeding makes one feel that the court attached importance to the reasons for imposing heavy sentences without seeking to strike a balance of the sentencing, including taking into consideration that one defendant had a clear record. The court even refused to request a report for consideration without offering a clear reason. How come?

Under the National Security Law, scores are being settled and in a more severe way than before. The trio’s case is a good example. Meanwhile, Keith Fong of the Baptist University Student Union was arrested again for “possessing” 10 laser pens last August, even though he was previously released for the matter. Obviously, the regime wants to take revenge on young people in Hong Kong, leaving them with no breathing space. As for the younger ones, great efforts are being made to “re-educate them” so that they will not have the ability to think critically. At the same time, the regime is targeting brave journalists who report the truth, either directly or through commercial organizations. The objective is to kill press freedom. The mass layoff at Cable TV has shattered Hong Kong people’s remaining confidence. The dismissal of all 40 journalists at News Lancet prompted 16 other reporters from Cable TV’s local news department to resign. The move to sack the journalists, including some of the most brilliant in the industry, is clearly not only prompted by financial challenges but is also a matter of political cleansing.

Stifling freedom of the press and settling scores with the young will not only deprive people of their freedom of speech and right to know but will also sever the lifeline of Hong Kong’s free economy and businesses, eventually killing Hong Kong as an international, open and prosperous city.

(Margaret Ng Ngoi-yee is a barrister, writer and columnist in Hong Kong. She was a member of the Legislative Council of Hong Kong from 1995-1997; 1998-2012.)

Click here for Chinese version

We invite you to join the conversation by submitting columns to our opinion section: [email protected]

Apple Daily reserves the right to refuse, abridge, alter or edit guest opinion columns for accuracy, length, clarity, and style, and the right to withdraw and withhold columns based on the discretion of our editorial page editors.

The opinions of the writers do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the editorial board.

---------------------------------

Apple Daily’s all-new English Edition is now available on the mobile app: bit.ly/2yMMfQE

To download the latest version,

iOS: bit.ly/AD_iOS

Android: bit.ly/AD_android

Or search Appledaily in App Store or Google Play