The Democratic Party’s primary election verdict was announced yesterday. Among the 16 defendants who denied the charges, 14 were convicted, except for Lee Yu-sin and Liu Wai-chung. The human rights organization “Human Rights Watch” issued a statement, stating that the Hong Kong court’s conviction of 14 peaceful activists is a blatant disregard for the democratic political process and the rule of law. Amnesty International also called for the release of the 47 individuals. Australian Foreign Minister Penny Wong expressed concern over the conviction of Australian citizen Ng Ching-hang and strongly opposed the widespread use of national security laws by the Hong Kong authorities to suppress dissent.
The Acting Director of the China Division of Human Rights Watch, Wang Songlian, stated that the conviction of 14 peaceful activists by the Hong Kong court shows a complete contempt for democratic politics and the rule of law by the authorities. She believes that Hongkongers are just demanding the right to freely elect their government. Regardless of what the Chinese Communist Party and its selected national security judges say, democracy is not a crime. Wang Songlian further emphasized that universal suffrage is a commitment made by the Chinese Communist Party to the people of Hong Kong, and they should be held accountable for repeatedly violating this commitment and blatantly erasing the basic human rights protected by Hong Kong’s laws and the Basic Law.
Sarah Brooks, Director of the China Team at Amnesty International, described this unprecedented mass conviction as the most ruthless evidence to date of how the Hong Kong National Security Law is being used as a weapon to suppress dissent. The ruling in this case reveals the near-total purge of opposition by the Hong Kong government and highlights the rapid erosion of human rights in Hong Kong.
Brooks pointed out that most of the 47 individuals involved in the case were detained for up to three years before trial, describing it as a “brazen injustice.” She noted that none of the convicted individuals had committed internationally recognized crimes; they were targeted simply for exercising their freedom of speech, association, and participation in public affairs.
She believes that this conviction sends a chilling message to other opposition figures in Hong Kong: “Stay silent, or face imprisonment.” Brooks also criticized the Hong Kong government for ignoring calls from Amnesty International and other human rights organizations to drop these unjust charges, urging the international community to demand the unconditional release of all individuals convicted in this case.
On the same day, Australian Foreign Minister Penny Wong expressed concern over the verdict in the primary election case. She particularly highlighted the conviction of Australian citizen Ng Ching-hang. Wong emphasized that the Australian authorities will regularly raise human rights issues with the highest levels of the Chinese Communist Party and the Hong Kong government, including Ng Ching-hang’s case. She strongly opposed the continued extensive use of the National Security Law by the Hong Kong government to arrest and pressure democratic activists, opposition groups, media, unions, and civil society.
Wong also stated that Hong Kong’s rights, freedoms, autonomy, and democratic progress have been systematically eroded, and the Australian government urges the Hong Kong government to uphold the elements critical to Hong Kong’s success, including high degree of autonomy and the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Basic Law and the Sino-British Joint Declaration. She announced that during the regular review of China in January next year, Australia will appeal to the Chinese government to stop suppressing freedom of speech, assembly, media, and civil society, as well as to abolish the Hong Kong National Security Law based on recommendations from the Human Rights Committee and special procedures.
The overseas group “Hong Kong Human Rights Information Centre” expressed disappointment and regret, criticizing the judgment in this case as placing national security above civil liberties, including the right to participate in elections and public affairs, and confirming the concerns of United Nations human rights experts.
The Center pointed out that the case was tried by judges designated under the National Security Law, and the Department of Justice actively applied for trial without a jury composed of members of the public. Such arrangements deviate significantly from international human rights standards and the fair trial and judicial justice expected by the public.
Quoting UN Special Rapporteurs on the independence of judges and lawyers, the Center mentioned that in April last year, they expressed concerns to the Chinese and Hong Kong governments about the designated judges under the National Security Law and the exclusion of juries from the trial, reminding the authorities of their obligation to uphold the right to a fair and public trial under Article 10 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and Article 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
The Center believes that the court’s judgment “just confirms the concerns of United Nations human rights experts.” Over the past four years, at least ten times, various UN human rights experts have written to both the Chinese and Hong Kong governments expressing concerns about issues related to the National Security Law, such as fair trials, freedom of speech and assembly, police investigative powers, torture, and inhumane treatment.
The Hong Kong Human Rights Information Centre called on the Hong Kong government to follow the recommendations of the UN Human Rights Committee and immediately abolish the National Security Law, ensuring that any newly enacted law conforms to the requirements of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Until the National Security Law is repealed, its use should be suspended, and individuals should not be arrested or prosecuted under the National Security Law or incitement charges for exercising their freedom of expression.
Furthermore, the UN Human Rights Committee and the Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities recommended in 2022 that the Hong Kong government urgently abolish the National Security Law. The UN Human Rights Committee pointed out that the National Security Law lacks clarity in the definition of “national security” and inadequacy in specifying acts constituting criminal offenses, thus lacking legal certainty. ◇