Milan (AsiaNews) – Joshua Wong got another 10 years in prison for "colluding with foreign forces”, a sentence coming on top of four years and eight months, nearly fully served, all because he dared to organise primary elections in 2020 in order to boost the pro-democracy movement in Hong Kong.
For the 30-year-old, perhaps the best-known leader of the "Umbrella Revolution”, this was not a surprise. Indeed, everyone knew in advance that this would happen, given the farcical nature of Hong Kong’s judicial system.
It is clear that such a legal abomination, effectively a second trial for the same offence for which he had already been convicted, would inevitably lead to another conviction. The defence opted for a guilty plea, hoping at least for a more lenient sentence, but that did not happen.
Under the National Security Law, imposed by Beijing in 2020 to suppress the pro-democracy movements that had brought two million people to the streets in Hong Kong, the authorities simply deemed the "gravity of the offence" to be higher, maintaining a veneer of legality to the procedure. Thus, a possible sentence of 13 years was handed down, reduced to 10.
Thus, after going after older pro-democracy leaders like Jimmy Lai and Lee Cheuk-yan, sentencing them to spend their twilight years in prison through long sentences, the authorities set out to erase the youthful face of the protest movement as well.
They ensured that this young man (an Evangelical Christian), who, while a student at the United Christian College in Kowloon, helped launch the Demosisto movement, would remain behind bars at least until he turns 40.
In delivering the sentence, Judge William Tam justified the decision by stating that the activities of Joshua Wong and Nathan Law (the other young cofounder of Demosisto, who now lives in exile), specifically their efforts in 2019 and 2020 to call for international sanctions (in response to the crackdown on pro-democracy movements, though Judge Tam did not explicitly state this), had "exacerbated" the political crisis of that period.
“The offence took place at a time when Hong Kong was grappling with ongoing local social unrest; in order to achieve his political objectives, the defendant exacerbated that situation by colluding with foreign governments or external elements.”
The judge acknowledged that “this is a very heavy sentence for the defendant,” but added that “the punishment must be proportionate to the gravity of the crime committed.”
Fighting for democracy in Hong Kong is, therefore, considered a serious crime. Indeed, a few months ago, in the case of Lee Cheuk-yan, Albert Ho, and Chow Hang-tung, another court determined that their offence against the national security lay in their idea of a system where power might not necessarily reside in the hands of the Communist Party of China (CPC), Beijing’s one-party ruler, which is effectively the indispensable boss of every political force in Hong Kong.
In the past few days, we have just witnessed the celebration of democracy in many parts of the world. Last week, a massive turnout by Israel’s Arab citizens, 20 per cent of the population, single-handedly shifted the political landscape between Jerusalem and Tel Aviv.
Pope Leo XIV, in a small yet revolutionary gesture, cast his vote in the US midterm elections, just like any other American voter, stressing that citizens have both a right and a duty to participate in the democratic process.
In fact, the will of the voters, triggering a major shift in Washington, is set to challenge the policies adopted by the Trump administration regarding a matter as critical as war.
This raises the question: What would happen if people were truly free to vote in Beijing, or in places like Hong Kong, where the CPC has imposed its own rules?
For how much longer, in the name of realpolitik and the need to safeguard business interests, will we continue to believe that a young person who fought for the right to express an idea about a community’s political life, and to put that idea to a vote by their fellow citizens, has, in the end, simply brought a 15-year prison sentence upon themselves?
If we wish to avoid hypocrisy, the message of today’s ruling is crystal clear: What has recently unfolded in Serbia, Israel, or the United States must, under no circumstances, be allowed to happen in China.
In Beijing, it is far better that change come from above, through initiatives like the “anti-corruption drive” or purges within the Communist Party’s Central Committee, ensuring that the person at the helm remains firmly in place, while everyone else is left to obey his laws.
Photo: Flickr / Thierry Ehrmann
