Hong Kong judge convicts journalists for sedition

It is an interesting battle between the state and dissidents in China’s Hong Kong province. When the 99-year lease to Britain lapsed in 1998, and the island was returned to mainland China, Beijing had proposed an innovative solution: one state, two systems.

Hong Kong was to enjoy many of the democratic freedoms it had under British rule though it was legally part of China. It was inevitable that over the last quarter century, Beijing had slowly taken over the governance of Hong Kong which included introducing laws which were part of the communist system prevalent in the rest of China. So, the Hong Kong judge had delivered a judgment giving his reasons as to why he thought that journalists Chung Pui-kuen and Patrick Lam of Stand News outlet were found guilty of sedition for publishing 17 commentary pieces and reports which were against the state between July 2020 and December 2021.

It is not just the parent company, Best Pencil (Hong Kong) Ltd., but also the contributors, including Chung’s wife, were arraigned. District Court Judge Kwok Wai-kin said in his verdict, “When speech is assessed as having seditious intent, the relevant actual circumstances must have been taken into consideration, being viewed as causing potential damage to national security, (and) must be stopped.” Of course, there is a trace of the authoritarian state in the judgment when Judge Kwok accused the defendants of promoting “illegal ideologies” – all ideologies which are not communist are considered illegal in a communist state – and of inciting hatred of government in Hong Kong and in China. The reasoning is almost reflective of a liberal rule of law system which is not how the law is administered in communist states.

In a communist state, anything that is critical of the party and the state is considered treasonous, and there is no need to explain it. The maximum punishment for sedition when sentenced would be for two years. This is again a relatively moderate rule. In a typical communist state, even a whiff of sedition carries longer periods of imprisonment.

The two journalists, Chung and Lam, did not plead guilty. They did not flaunt defiance against the system in their refusal, but they offered logical reasoning as to why they believe the articles they published were not seditious but they were reflective of the democratic spirit of free speech. Chung said that they published every article they received, without suppressing them in an act of self-censorship, “to showcase the greatest extent of freedom of speech” as long as the articles did not incite violence, affect the public and cause damage. So the ‘seditious’ articles were not preaching revolution nor did they cause defamation.

They were expressing opinions which are critical of the government. And that is indeed the meaning of freedom of speech in a liberal democratic society. Lam in a letter to the court argued: “…the key to this case is press freedom and freedom of speech…the only way for journalists to defend press freedom is to report.” It is clear that the defence of freedom of speech will not stand the scrutiny of the communist state of China, but the fact that the arguments are recorded, and that the judge too tried to offer his interpretation has the semblance of due process of law.

It is an important aspect of the functioning of law. The criticism from the West will be without nuance even as the West continues its diplomatic, political and trade relations with China. Chung and Lam are the brave citizens who are standing up for their belief in democracy and freedom. They may deemed voices in the wilderness, but it is possible that their voices will prevail in the future.