The Jimmy Lai effect | Margaret Ng Ngoi-yee
International political figures spoke out in protest against the suppression of Jimmy Lai and demanded that the Hong Kong government release him immediately. However, the Secretary for Justice (SJ) Teresa Cheng countered by expressing her astonishment as to the lack of respect for the courts and judicial procedures. In fact, it is the SJ who does not respect the courts and judicial procedures, using the court as a tool for political persecution. U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said earlier that using the courts to eliminate dissent is a classic act of tyranny. A society that has been internationally renowned for its rule of law for a hundred years has degenerated into a zone of tyranny. Who do you think is more shocked.
Fortunately, the rule of law in the SAR has not completely disappeared, and the court proceedings are still open and accessible to the public and to the media. The prosecution still has to put forward the basis for prosecuting Jimmy Lai with “collusion with foreign or foreign forces to endanger national security.” The media, which has not been completely silenced, is still able to report it. The more than ten pages of “incriminating evidence” are, in a nutshell, comments made by Jimmy Lai criticizing the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and the SAR government, opposing the policies and actions of the Central Government and the SAR government that deprive Hong Kong people of their freedom, and arguing that international organizations and individuals should put pressure on the Central Government and SAR officials to stop such measures. The so-called “collusion” is a normal mode of communication and universal and normal advocacy that has become a felony of “endangering national security.” What is the rationale? Under the international human rights conventions, governments of various countries are obliged to submit reports, and civil society organizations are bound to submit reports on government actions that violate human rights and to demand pressure from human rights agencies. This internationally valued monitoring has now become “collusion” and will NGOs have to be locked up as well? It would be strange if the international community was not shocked.
According to the charge sheet, Jimmy Lai’s relevant actions do not fall outside the scope of freedom of speech, which is constitutionally protected under Article 39 of the Basic Law. Under Article 4 of the National Security Law, the rights and freedoms, including the freedoms of speech, which Hong Kong people enjoy under the Basic Law shall be protected in accordance with the law. Legal scholar Fu Hualing already expressed his opinion in early July that the National Security Law cannot override the Basic Law. Then how can Jimmy Lai be convicted? How can the DoJ prosecute people without evidence? Should the court imprison the prosecution before trial when the evidence is weak?
Of course, the above words are “pointless” to say, but they must be said. Remember that on July 4, the fourth day after the National Security Law came into effect, Chinese human rights lawyer Chen Jiangang who is in exile in the U.S. was interviewed by the Hong Kong media. He warned us not to rely on our past habits of analyzing provisions and studying cases to arrive at the scope of the law that we would be safe as long as we did not do anything prohibited by the law. “I’m telling you, it can’t be done!” He earnestly advised that the Hong Kong version of the national security law is no different from the mainland’s version. Not only can a person be incriminated on the basis of his or her words, but even those who think they are in accordance with the law may be convicted. The Jimmy Lai incident completely validated his statement.
However, Professor Johannes Chan Man-mun said that “collusion” cannot be interpreted as normal communication. Is he “too simple, sometimes naive”? I do not think so. As long as the legal profession exists, the courts will be asked to use the common law to interpret the National Security Law and regulate its boundless “powerful” provisions within the human rights laws guaranteed by the Basic Law. We may not be able to save Jimmy Lai, but it will show how justice under the law is being compromised. Jimmy Lai does not need to be rescued as he has his mission. The regime thought that the torture of such a well-known person would “serve as a warning to other people,” but in fact it has just the opposite effect. The world may not know what happened in Hong Kong if they “take down” a hundred unknown persons, but to wrong one Jimmy Lai, the whole world will know without any “collusion.”
(Margaret Ng Ngoi-yee is a barrister, writer and columnist in Hong Kong. She was a member of the Legislative Council of Hong Kong in 1995-1997 and 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/2yMMfQETo download the latest version,
Or search Appledaily in App Store or Google Play