當年今日
關於我們

Politicization of political offenders | Kay Lam

蘋果日報 2020/12/13 09:30


Ted Hui left for Denmark then subsequently announced his exile to the U.K. However, during a television interview, Hong Kong’s Commissioner of Police Chris Tang accused Ted Hui “of being indebted to those young people he had incited to break the law and should feel ashamed.” Tang’s remark once again proved that Hong Kong’s self-proclaimed “professional” law enforcement team has become obliviously involved in politics, and then lost memory of their own words and actions, complaining that the public does not believe in their “neutrality” and “impartiality”, which is laughable.
The SAR government has repeatedly accused others of “politicization,” but it has taken it upon itself to tell the public what politicization means. Who did Ted Hui “incite” to break the law? The young people of Hong Kong cannot help but laugh when they hear such quality remarks. It turns out that the Democratic Party in Hong Kong is so well supported by young people that they are capable of “inciting” them to break the law? From this sentence of the police commissioner, we should know that the subsequent remarks are to set the tone in the way of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), and then to fabricate charges. The police also stated that they will follow up to find out if Hui was involved in other illegal activities, such as false statements and whether he had violated the law by initiating a crowdfunding campaign, and would not rule out additional charges.
Sure enough, shortly later that evening, the police said that they were “pursuing suspected violations of the national security law and money laundering,” and announced that Ted Hui is wanted and his bank account with HK$850,000 (US$110,000) has been frozen. That same night, Hui said that he briefly regained partial access to his HSBC account, whilst the freeze on his family’s HSBC accounts had been removed, all only to be frozen again the next day. The public questioned why the police and the bank went back and forth, to which the police “clarified” its position on the same afternoon, claiming that the move was made under the suspicion that Hui had misappropriated and processed the HK$850,000 from a crowdfunding campaign. But didn’t they say “money laundering”? Why is it downgraded to “embezzlement”? The donations from the legitimate income of the public have been slandered by the government as “dirty money” and smeared as illegal proceeds. Is it really a “fantasy” to expect an apology for making the wrong statement?
What is even more ludicrous is that Ted Hui responded that the money from the crowdfunding campaign had always been handled through a law firm’s bank account, and he was able to produce an audit report. From Financial Secretary Paul Chan to Chief Executive Carrie Lam, the responses were “no comment on individual incidents” and “cannot disclose too much about the investigation.” Nonetheless, even though the facts cannot be discussed, Carrie Lam continued to make “political comments,” saying that one should consider “a person’s prior doings” before trusting what that person says. Should we laugh at Carrie Lam’s accusations of other people’s “prior doings,” claiming that she “speaks only of facts and evidence”?
Hong Kong people certainly remember how Carrie Lam lied and said that Hong Kong would become a “fugitives’ paradise” if the extradition law was not amended. As a result, many developed and democratic free countries around the world have halted their extradition treaties with Hong Kong, turning the city into a true “paradise for fugitives.” Has Carrie Lam ever come out to admit her mistake and apologize?
Carrie Lam pointed out that in the case of Chan Tong-kai, Hong Kong cannot legislate to deal with matters in the Taiwan jurisdiction. Now the national security law can all of a sudden interfere with the internal affairs of other countries to deal with the speech and thoughts of Ted Hui, who is in Europe, and incriminate him for his words. You cannot sue a murderer, but you can sue a person who is in another country for what he or she says. Hong Kong’s prosecution mechanism really “can do what no one else can do.”
According to what senior superintendent Steve Li of the National Security Division told the press, the comments made by Ted Hui after he left Hong Kong has violated the national security law, including “expanding the international front with others, which is believed to seek sanctions.” Li then claimed to have prima facie evidence to “suspect” Hui of committing the crime of “colluding with foreign countries or with external elements to endanger national security” under Article 29 of the national security law.
From the “international front” to calling for international sanctions against Hong Kong, the logic has jumped a hundred thousand miles and truly opened the eyes of Hong Kong people to the so-called “freedom of speech.” It is not even “criminalizing speech” but “criminalizing pure thoughts.” As long as national security “suspects” or “believes” you are having “criminal thoughts,” you have broken the law and will become wanted internationally. The “rule of law” demonstrated in Hong Kong is so advanced that it has surpassed the U.K. and the U.S., and unmatched by no other countries. It is no wonder that all countries in Europe and North America are rescinding their extradition treaties with Hong Kong, making the city a true haven for fugitives.
While crowdfunding innovation is allowed in foreign countries, in Hong Kong, it has become a criminal offense, and often becomes the universal key to “dirty money.” For example, the police welfare fund collects large amounts of “anonymous” donations and even large sums of money. It has “sincerely declined” donations from some controversial persons, but since the police are always legal, how can it be “money laundering”? On the contrary, why did the police never take any action against Hui’s crowdfunding, only to “suddenly discover” that he had violated the law, and then closed his account after he went into exile? Since the account did not involve “national security” and was unrelated to his absconding, but was purely a matter of “crowdfunding,” why did the police not find out earlier? Was it because of police dereliction of duty?
In today’s Hong Kong, people’s trust in the government has long been shattered. At any moment, comments can violate “national security,” businesses can become “frauds,” public fundraisings can become “money laundering,” and people can be guilty by association, then have their bank accounts “frozen” because of family and friends. The public is no longer discussing “whether” to emigrate, but “when” to emigrate. Who will believe in such “one country, two systems”?
(Kay Lam, 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