As expected, Joshua Wong Chi-fung pleaded guilty to the charge of “collusion with foreign forces”. Again, this raises questions about how Hong Kong’s criminal justice system has evolved. Meeting with foreign officials and politicians can potentially be construed as “collusion”. Just as in mainland China, anyone who attempts to tell their stories to foreign journalists or politicians could face lengthy prison sentences. China, a powerful authoritarian regime, appears to be so threatened by a 29-year-old former student leader and aspiring young politician that even his international advocacy has been treated as a matter of national security.

Judges in Hong Kong no longer appear to give sufficient consideration to the significance of the evidence presented in these cases. How could the prosecution prove beyond reasonable doubt that Joshua Wong committed the offence of “collusion with foreign forces”? This is the prosecution’s usual burden of proof in criminal proceedings in common-law jurisdictions.

What constitutes the offence is so arbitrary, and its definition so broad, that it is effectively left to the judge to determine its scope. Moreover, the reasoning given by the courts in the national-security cases heard so far has failed to demonstrate that the provisions of the National Security Law (NSL) are compatible with the international standards set out in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).

Talking to the media and foreign politicians have been deemed to be highly risky. People who work on human rights advocacy would need to exercise self-censorship of what they can talk about and who they can meet before they can do their........

© E-International