One Stand News ruling, three verdicts

By Chris Yeung —

Judging from the judicial proceedings and the verdicts of previous cases relating to the 2019 social movement, the conviction of two former chief editors of defunct outlet Stand News for sedition-related charges on Thursday (29/8) did not come as a surprise.

But the lengthy verdict given by District Court judge Kwok Wai-kin, one of the few court officials hand-picked by the Chief Executive to oversee cases under national security laws that sought to justify the conclusion, has raised more questions than answers.

His verdict on the pair, Chung Pui-kuen and Patrick Lam, is understandably controversial. His interpretation on what Stand News stood for and what the anti-extradition protests that had morphed into a city-wide social movement is no less disputable.

In a 129-page judgment, the judge analysed a list of statements, editorials and remarks made by the news outlets and the two editors to explain what he found to be the criminal mind of the defendants at the time of the publication of the 11 articles that he ruled as seditious.

“I find that Stand News’ political ideology was localism. Its position was to support and facilitate Hong Kong’s self-determination, and it became a tool for smearing and vilifying the central and SAR government during the anti-extradition bill movement,” he concluded.

Also seeking to explain his conclusion, the judge has underscored the need to consider “surrounding circumstances” and whether the offence was committed at a time when “a spark will explode a powder magazine”, a phrase borrowed from a 1909 British judgment.

He went in length, totalling 20 pages, to give his take on the city’s political situation in 2019 and 2020, citing opinion polls, the landslide victory of the democrats in the 2019 district council polls and serious cases of violence during the period.

“Everything was (political) stance-first, objective-oriented and without regard to the proper means,” he wrote. “I am certain the age of populism had descended on Hong Kong by that time.”

The court concluded society was at risk of being thrown into disorder in light of the febrile atmosphere and public’s distrust of the government.

It was against the background of the judge’s interpretation of the controversial events that he found the publication of those articles seditious.

The judge ruled people could be held liable for sedition if they intended to incite others or were being reckless about the consequences of their actions. He had held in a previous sedition case prosecutors must show a seditious remark or publication was deliberately made. The latest interpretation could better safeguard national security, he added.

His latest interpretation has broadened the scope of proof of sedition, thus making media professionals more vulnerable to a breach of the sedition law.

The judge’s conclusion on the “ideology” and “position” of Stand News and interpretation of the city’s socio-political situation when the controversial events happened have emerged as significant factors behind the Stand News ruling.

They are factors that media professionals will find it difficult to assess and control when events happen one after another under rapidly-changing circumstances as it was the case in 2019 and 2020.

Now that the authorities have repeatedly warned of hidden threats to national security, “soft resistance” and the likes of threats and risks, publication of commentary articles critical of the regime, government officials and judges has become a highly dangerous act.

Journalists have no crystal ball. It will be almost impossible for them to ascertain the consequences of the publication of an article, if any. It is not uncommon that an article has caused a big fuss after it drew a strong government rebuttal.

C.P. Scott, a British journalist and publisher, wrote in 1921 “Comment is free, but facts are sacred.” His words have been widely quoted by journalists, news organisations and government officials for the right reasons. News and views must be based on facts.

But facts are often a subject of different interpretation and fierce argument for obvious reasons. Facts are often incomplete in reality and are being blurred by half-truths and lies. The 2019 social movement is an example. A disagreement on what is deemed as facts, which is not uncommon, is a matter of opinion.

If a comment is free only when it is based on what the power-that-be deemed as facts and constructive, it marks the beginning of the end of press freedom.

This article was also published on the Green Bean Media website.