Hong Kong national security judges on Thursday convicted 14 of the 16 opposition figures contesting subversion charges, ruling that the defendants knew, and were part of, a conspiracy with the intention to subvert.
The High Court cited as evidence the defendants’ social media posts, WhatsApp text messages, election platforms and speeches at election forums and press conferences related to their unofficial primary, with the goal of taking control of the Legislative Council and eventually overthrowing the government.
Whether the defendants signed their online declaration titled “Resolute Resistance, Inked Without Regret”, in which they pledged to veto government budgets indiscriminately to bring about a constitutional crisis, was also one of the considerations.
The judges described two activists who endorsed the declaration, Gwyneth Ho Kwai-lam and Owen Chow Ka-shing, as “radical”, while they also convicted some others who did not sign the statement.
The Post unpacks the judgment and highlights key arguments concerning the 14 defendants found guilty.
1. “Radicals” who championed the plot
Gwyneth Ho Kwai-lam
Ho, who stood as a candidate in the unofficial primary, said she had participated to encourage people to vote in a big turnout that the world could not ignore.
But the court ruled that Ho wanted “a completely new political system and structure” after repeatedly stating that the existing one was “dysfunctional” and unable to serve Hongkongers, and that she was seeking a high turnout to send her to Legco to “resist and to break the deadlock”.
The judgment also cited her statement on using the Legco election to create political tension or trigger a constitutional crisis.
“[Ho] in our view was one of those participants who held the most radical political view which was manifested by her utterances and conducts,” the written ruling read.
“She effectively wished to uproot the then existing political structure and system in Hong Kong and oppose the ‘one country, two systems’ [governing] principle.”
Owen Chow Ka-shing
Chow was deemed a “radical” as the court saw him challenging “primary” organiser Benny Tai Yiu-ting on the use of words in a coordination agreement, which was reached after meetings between participants.
“In any event, one could clearly see [Chow] hold a more radical belief or stance in his political ideology. We believed [Chow] would use every available means to force the government to respond to the five demands [of the protesters],” the judges wrote.
