Hong Kong court hears appeals by jailed democracy campaigners
HONG KONG: A Hong Kong court began hearing appeals on Monday (July 14) from 12 democracy campaigners who were jailed for subversion last year during the city's largest national security trial.
They were among 45 opposition figures, including some of Hong Kong's best-known democracy activists, who were sentenced in November over a 2020 informal primary election that authorities deemed a subversive plot.
Critics including the United States, Britain and the European Union said the case showed how a Beijing-imposed national security law has eroded freedoms and quashed peaceful opposition in Hong Kong.
Ex-lawmakers "Long Hair" Leung Kwok-hung, Lam Cheuk-ting, Helena Wong and Raymond Chan are among those contesting their convictions and sentences in hearings that are scheduled to last ten days.
Owen Chow, a 28-year-old activist who was sentenced to seven years and nine months in jail - the harshest penalty among the dozen - has also lodged an appeal.
Former district councillor Michael Pang withdrew his appeal application on Monday morning, leaving a total of 12 appellants.
Some of them have already spent more than four years behind bars.
Amnesty International's China director Sarah Brooks said the appeal will be a "pivotal test" for free expression in the Chinese finance hub.
"Only by overturning these convictions can Hong Kong's courts begin to restore the city's global standing as a place where rights are respected and where people are allowed to peacefully express their views without fear of arrest," Brooks said.
Dozens of police officers were deployed outside the West Kowloon court building on Monday morning as people queued to attend the hearing.
"They made a sacrifice... I hope they understand that Hongkongers have not forgotten them," said a public hospital worker in his thirties surnamed Chow.
A 66-year-old retiree surnamed Chan said the case made him feel "helpless", adding that fewer people were paying attention as court proceedings dragged on.
"I don't expect any (positive) outcome, but I still want to support them."
Prosecutors began Monday's session by challenging the acquittal of lawyer Lawrence Lau, one of two people found not guilty in May 2024 from an original group of 47 accused.
Lau's "overall conduct" showed that he was party to the conspiracy and he should be tried again because the lower court made the wrong factual finding, the prosecution argued.
Lau, representing himself, replied that the trial court's findings should not be "casually interfered" with.
"... I have never advocated for the resignation of the chief executive, I have never advocated the indiscriminate vetoing of the financial budget," Lau told the court, referring to core tenets of the alleged conspiracy.
Beijing imposed a sweeping national security law in 2020 following months of huge, and sometimes violent, pro-democracy demonstrations in Hong Kong.
Authorities arrested figures from a broad cross-section of the city's opposition in morning raids in 2021, a group later dubbed the "Hong Kong 47".
The group, aged between 27 and 69, included democratically elected lawmakers and district councillors, as well as unionists, academics and others with political stances ranging from modest reformists to radical localists.
They were accused of organising or taking part in an unofficial primary election, which aimed to improve the chances of pro-democracy parties of winning a majority in the legislature.
The activists had hoped to force the government to accede to demands such as universal suffrage by threatening to indiscriminately veto the budget.
Three senior judges handpicked by the government to try security cases said the plan would have caused a "constitutional crisis". - AFP
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New Straits Times
2 hours ago
- New Straits Times
Trump's 'America First' may fuel global currency shift
EUROPE and Asia could leverage United States President Donald Trump's "America First" strategy for their own benefit, eventually spurring the development of regional tripolar foreign exchange (forex) blocs that could erode the dominance of the US dollar and reshape global markets. The US dollar has struggled this year, especially since Trump's April 2 tariff announcement. While the currency jumped recently following the announcement of US-European Union trade deal, this short-term move doesn't change the long-term trends that could undermine the greenback's position. Economic dominance in the future could largely depend on access to affordable, efficient energy to power artificial intelligence technologies. And in the race to dominate the industries of the future, the US is arguably going in reverse. It's retreating from the renewables space, as seen in the administration's recent move to eliminate many clean energy subsidies. The president appears to be making the bet that the US can maintain energy dominance indefinitely by relying on its own fossil fuel resources. This could ultimately result in uncompetitive power costs in the future, given that China is already dominating in clean energy technologies like solar and electric vehicles. While Trump may be seeking to enhance American self-sufficiency, the administration's policies may actually be increasing the country's dependency on foreign capital. Trump's recently passed budget bill — which looks pretty ugly to fiscal watchdogs despite its name — could cement the US' position as the world's biggest capital importer by adding an expected US$3.4 trillion to the US deficit over the next decade, according to estimates by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, potentially locking in six to seven per cent budget deficits for years. The US has also been running current account deficits of roughly four per cent over the past several years, and this widened to six per cent of gross domestic product in the first quarter, according to the US Bureau of Economic Analysis. By spending beyond its means and running these twin deficits, the US will continue to require large amounts of foreign capital inflows. But this capital may soon be harder to come by, if Europe and Asia seek to keep more of it closer to home. While Europe has agreed to increase US energy purchases through the recently announced US trade deal, much of that agreement remains up in the air. Meanwhile, Asia has begun to trade more internally, as China has been focusing on export diversification. A growing regionalisation of supply chains began during the Covid-19 pandemic and appears to be accelerating as Trump seeks to drive production back to the US and all major global powers focus on securing regional raw material access (e.g., rare earths and other critical minerals) for national security purposes. This shift could eventually create the foundation for true regional forex blocs across Asia, Europe and the Americas. Within Asia, Pan Gongsheng, governor of the People's Bank of China, has recently highlighted China's interest in having the yuan play a larger role in a multi-polar currency world. While China's capital account remains closed, Asian currencies already primarily trade off the yuan rather than the US dollar. Even though China faces challenges, such as its fight against deflation, its efforts on this front — namely, boosting consumption and reining in excess supply, especially in the renewable energy space across solar, wind and batteries — could ultimately help attract more foreign capital by boosting China's growth profile and corporate earnings. In a world of currency blocs, Europe and Asia could emerge as potential winners, as they erode the US' position as the world's financial powerhouse. So while many investors may get lost in the short-term currency noise, it might be wise to instead focus on the long-term signal.
New Straits Times
2 hours ago
- New Straits Times
New York Declaration fails Gaza's reality
THE New York Declaration on the Peaceful Settlement of the Question of Palestine, issued late last month and endorsed by the Arab League, the European Union and 17 states is a masterclass in political evasion — fine words that dare not confront the central facts of the Israel-Palestine conflict. The declaration bluntly demands that Hamas relinquish power in Gaza and disarm, handing authority over to the Palestinian Authority (PA). Yet when it comes to Israel's decades-long occupation, its illegal blockade and devastating military campaign that has killed more than 60,000 Palestinians — most of them women and children — it retreats into euphemism. It is a deliberate choice to privilege political convenience over legal obligation. Under the Fourth Geneva Convention, Israel, as the occupying power, must protect the civilian population. The destruction of homes, hospitals, schools and water systems; the starvation of civilians; and the displacement of nearly two million people are not "collateral damage" but grave breaches under Articles 53 and 147, attracting individual criminal responsibility. The declaration rightly condemns Hamas' Oct 7 attacks as war crimes and crimes against humanity. But justice cannot be selective. The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court applies equally to armed groups and states. If its authors truly believe in the rule of law, then they must apply it without fear or favour. The declaration's vision for Gaza's future is equally troubling. By proposing the transfer of authority to the PA backed by an international stabilisation mission, it risks turning the PA into an unelected subcontractor for the occupation — administering Gaza without real sovereignty. History shows that transitional administrations, from Timor-Leste to Kosovo, succeeded only when paired with credible elections, clear timelines for self-governance and respect for self-determination. The declaration offers none of these guarantees. Most tellingly, it evades the root cause of Palestinian resistance: the occupation itself. The International Court of Justice's (ICJ) 2024 advisory opinion reaffirmed that Israel's occupation is illegal and must end "as rapidly as possible" while the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) Resolution 2334 demands the cessation of all settlement activity, calling it a "flagrant violation" under international law. Yet the declaration treats these binding norms as optional talking points. It says nothing of the siege imposed on Gaza since 2007, or the refugees' right of return under United Nations General Assembly Resolution 194. There is no insistence on lifting the blockade, opening humanitarian corridors or securing reparations for the destruction. In short, it offers Palestinians process without protection and symbolism without sovereignty. If the world is serious about peace, any credible agreement must meet three minimum standards: Impartial investigations into all alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity — whether committed by Hamas, Israel or any other actor — under ICC jurisdiction or an independent UN mechanism. Enforceable timelines for ending the occupation, dismantling illegal settlements and lifting the blockade, in compliance with the ICJ's opinion and existing UNSC resolutions. Guarantees of Palestinian self-determination through internationally supervised elections in Gaza and the West Bank, and constitutional processes reflecting the will of the Palestinian people — not the dictates of external powers. Without these, the declaration is not a peace plan but a blueprint for managing Palestinian submission. Some will argue that half-measures are better than none. But unjust peace is no peace. I have spoken to Palestinian children who have lost their entire families and represented them in legal proceedings. I have read the legal texts meant to protect them — and seen how those protections collapse when expedience trumps principle. The world does not need more declarations that appear balanced on paper but tilt towards power in practice. It needs the courage to hold every violator of international law accountable, and the resolve to end an occupation that is both illegal and immoral. Until then, Gaza will remain not a test case for peace, but the gravest indictment of the international system's unwillingness to enforce its own laws.
The Star
4 hours ago
- The Star
World economies reel from Trump's tariffs punch
ASIA/SOUTH-EAST ASIA (AFP): Global markets reeled at the weekend after President Donald Trump's tariffs barrage against nearly all US trading partners as governments looked down the barrel of a seven-day deadline before higher duties take effect. Trump announced late Thursday that dozens of economies, including the European Union, will face new tariff rates of between 10 and 41 per cent. However, implementation will be on August 7 rather than Friday as previously announced, the White House said. This gives governments a window to rush to strike deals with Washington setting more favorable conditions. Neighboring Canada, one of the biggest US trade partners, was hit with 35 percent levies, up from 25 percent, effective Friday -- but with wide-ranging, current exemptions remaining in place. The tariffs are a demonstration of raw economic power that Trump sees putting US exporters in a stronger position, while encouraging domestic manufacturing by keeping out foreign imports. But the muscular approach has raised fears of inflation and other economic fallout in the world's biggest economy. Stock markets in Hong Kong, London and New York slumped as they digested the turmoil, while weak US employment data added to worries. Trump's actions come as debate rages over how best to steer the US economy, with the Federal Reserve this week deciding to keep interest rates unchanged, despite massive political pressure from the White House to cut. Data Friday showed US job growth missing expectations for July, while unemployment ticked up to 4.2 percent from 4.1 percent. On Wall Street, the S&P 500 dropped 1.6 percent, while the Nasdaq tumbled 2.2 percent. - Political goals - Trump raised duties on around 70 economies, from a current 10 percent level imposed in April when he unleashed "reciprocal" tariffs citing unfair trade practices. The new, steeper levels listed in an executive order vary by trading partner. Any goods "transshipped" through other jurisdictions to avoid US duties would be hit with an additional 40 percent tariff, the order said. But Trump's duties also have a distinctly political flavor, with the president using separate tariffs to pressure Brazil to drop the trial of his far-right ally, former president Jair Bolsonaro. He also warned of trade consequences for Canada, which faces a different set of duties, after Prime Minister Mark Carney announced plans to recognize a Palestinian state at the UN General Assembly in September. In targeting Canada, the White House cited its failure to "cooperate in curbing the ongoing flood of fentanyl and other illicit drugs" -- although Canada is not a major source of illegal narcotics. By contrast, Trump gave more time to Mexico, delaying for 90 days a threat to increase its tariffs from 25 percent to 30 percent. But exemptions remain for a wide range of Canadian and Mexican goods entering the United States under an existing North American trade pact. Carney said his government was "disappointed" with the latest rates hike but noted that with exclusions the US average tariff on Canadian goods remains one of the lowest among US trading partners. - 'Tears up' rule book - With questions hanging over the effectiveness of bilateral trade deals struck -- including with the EU and Japan -- the outcome of Trump's overall plan remains uncertain. "No doubt about it -- the executive order and related agreements concluded over the past few months tears up the trade rule book that has governed international trade since World War II," said Wendy Cutler, senior vice president of the Asia Society Policy Institute. On Friday, Trump said he would consider distributing a tariff "dividend" to Americans. Notably excluded from Friday's drama was China, which is in the midst of negotiations with the United States. Washington and Beijing at one point brought tit-for-tat tariffs to triple-digit levels, but have agreed to temporarily lower these duties and are working to extend their truce. Those who managed to strike deals with Washington to avert steeper threatened levies included Vietnam, Japan, Indonesia, the Philippines, South Korea and the European Union. Among other tariff levels adjusted in Trump's latest order, Switzerland now faces a higher 39 per cent duty. - AFP
