當年今日
關於我們

Crime of collusion on Tweeter|Lau Sai-leung

蘋果日報 2020/12/15 09:57


Jimmy Lai penned an article published by The New York Times in June, pointing out that The Global Times, a China’s official mouthpiece, said his tweets were “evidence of subversion”. “I have been thinking perhaps one day I would be thrown in jail for publishing a newspaper and calling for Hong Kong democracy. Yet only because few tweets allegedly pose a threat to mighty China? I would have my horizons widened.” Just as expected, Lai has not been jailed for the stance taken up by Apple Daily. He was charged on top of the previous one earlier with “colluding with foreign countries or external forces in jeopardizing national security”, the actual offence of which is a breach of Article 29 of the National Security Law(NSL): “requesting a foreign country or an institution, organization or individual outside the mainland, Hong Kong and Macao of the People’s Republic of China to impose sanctions or blockade, or engaging in other hostile activities against the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region or the People’s Republic of China”. And the evidence put forward by the police is the remarks in tweets posted by Lai on Tweeter, him interviewed by foreign media, his article published by overseas press, the English edition of Apple Daily and him following the Tweeter accounts of overseas government dignitaries such as Mike Pompeo and Tsai Ing-Wen.
The day after Lai was charged additionally, party mouthpiece The People’s Daily carried an editorial titled “HK tormented by poisonous media outlet for long”, lashing out at Hong Kong being awash with fake news leveled at the police force and the SAR government, criticizing Apple Daily for being “a poisonous apple” that “involves in shady business to oppose China and stir up trouble in Hong Kong, fabricating news in the name of freedom of the press”, and reproaching Apple Daily for “blatantly calling on the audience to request America to impose sanctions against Hong Kong, and being a quisling”. Did they understand that the accusation of colluding with foreign forces is brought against what Lai has said, but not Apple Daily?

Breeding “martyrs” every day

As expected by Lai, the charges in the accusation are overwhelmingly eye-opening. An act in collusion, by common sense, is conspiring to do something in secret, and stealthily acting on instructions given by overseas organizations or governments to jeopardize national security. Will anyone publicly announce his “shady” collusive plan with his tweets open to the public, contribution to the press and his interview? It is hardly possible for anyone to associate those remarks and acts with “collusion”. It is written clearly in Article 4 of the NSL that the rights and freedoms, including the freedoms of speech, of the press, of publication, of association, of assembly, of procession and of demonstration shall be protected”. As for following the Tweeter accounts of overseas government dignitaries being cited as evidence to support the accusation of collusion, do plenty of Hong Kong people who follow, share and leave comments on the Tweeter pages of Solomon Yue, the founder of Republican Overseas, breach Article 29? With regard to Tsai Ing-Wen, the President of Taiwan, she has had even more followers on his account.
The criteria for the law enforcement of the NSL are typically of rule by man. Citing a load of remarks on Tweeter as proof of one’s guilt has once again suggested the purpose of this political lawsuit is to set up a case in a bid to tighten up control over the freedom of speech. In Hong Kong, a public figure calling for the international community to pay close attention to Hong Kong by taking part in an interview by and contributing to foreign media is standard connection between a civilian of an international city and the world, let alone ordinary citizens following, retweeting and leaving comments on the account pages of overseas government dignitaries, which is not “collusion” at all.
In the 1960s under the colonial governance, a man called Ma Man-fai pulled together an organization to drive a political belief that advocated Hong Kong independence, but he was not known by the general public and never brought to trial by the Hong Kong British government for subversion. He delivered a speech preaching his political viewpoints every week at Hong Kong City Hall but was never denied by the staff of the Urban Services Department his renting a venue. The Hong Kong British government was perfectly aware they did not want any political prisoner, not to mention “martyr”, for it would usher in political instability.
Now Hong Kong breeds political prisoners and “martyrs” every day. Carrie Lam Cheng Yuet-ngor, who is convinced that Hong Kong can be brought back to normal with such an approach, is not only ludicrous but dim-witted.
(Lau Sai-leung, political commentator)
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,
Or search Appledaily in App Store or Google Play