Joephy Chan says the judgment in this extremely important case should prompt society to reflect on the importance of national security

On Thursday, the High Court of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region sentenced former Hong Kong Demosisto secretary-general Joshua Wong Chi-fung to 10 years in prison for conspiracy to collude with foreign or external forces to endanger national security. Wong, who is already serving a sentence of four years and eight months for his role in the conspiracy to subvert State power in the “35+ primary election” case, has now received a further lengthy prison term for another national security offense.

The verdict affirmed the legal principle: Justice must be upheld and acts endangering national security must be dealt with in accordance with the law. Wong’s sentence is a lawful response to his continued acts endangering national security and a necessary affirmation of justice in society.

Following the establishment of Demosisto, Wong and his associates, including Nathan Law Kwun-chung, actively pursued what they called an “international front” lobbying campaign, repeatedly approaching foreign politicians and officials to solicit sanctions and other hostile measures against the Chinese mainland and Hong Kong. In November 2016, Wong traveled to the United States to meet then-US House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and then-senator Marco Rubio, urging Washington to push forward the so-called Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act. During the social unrest in 2019, he went further by urging the US to reconsider Hong Kong’s status as a special trade and customs zone. The legislation was subsequently enacted and signed into law in November that year.

READ MORE: HK activist Joshua Wong sentenced to 10 years behind bars

Even after the Hong Kong SAR National Security Law (NSL) came into force in June 2020, Wong did not abandon his efforts to collude with external forces. According to the facts presented in court, between July and November 2020, he continued to conspire with Law and other individuals to support and promote foreign hostile measures against the mainland and Hong Kong, including sanctions, blockades and other hostile actions. While Law continued his lobbying activities overseas, Wong disseminated information and shared related content in Hong Kong through social media, overseas media articles and other channels, lending support to the campaign. Their respective roles differed, yet both played significant parts in the conspiracy.

People are entitled to hold different political views and express their discontent through lawful channels. However, persistently conspiring to enlist foreign forces to impose sanctions and take hostile action against one’s homeland crosses a fundamental boundary of national security. This was particularly serious given the severe social turmoil Hong Kong was experiencing and the considerable challenges facing its national security and rule of law. Seeking external intervention to exert pressure on the country and the SAR government under such circumstances posed risks to the interests of society as a whole that cannot be taken lightly.

From overseas lobbying in earlier years, to pushing foreign governments to enact legislation targeting Hong Kong in 2019, and continuing the conspiracy after the NSL in Hong Kong took effect, Wong’s actions followed a sustained and consistent course. Even after Demosisto announced its dissolution on June 30, 2020, the individuals involved did not genuinely abandon their activities. Wong continued to make provocative statements, declaring on social media that he would not give up pursuing the so-called “international front”. He subsequently continued activities aimed at undermining Hong Kong’s interests, including calling on digital forensics company Cellebrite to stop supplying forensic software to the Hong Kong Police Force and publishing an article in the Financial Times advocating for local and overseas businesses and governments to reduce their business ties with China. His actions demonstrated a continued determination to pursue the same political agenda.

Article 29 of the NSL stipulates that a person convicted of conspiracy to collude with a foreign country or external elements to endanger national security faces imprisonment of not less than three years and not more than 10 years in cases of a less serious nature. Where the offense is of a grave nature, the penalty is from imprisonment of not less than 10 years to life imprisonment.

Having considered the circumstances of the case and the applicable legal principles, the court classified Wong’s offense as being of a grave nature and adopted 13 years’ imprisonment as the sentencing starting point. It then reduced the sentence by three years in recognition of Wong’s guilty plea, resulting in a final term of 10 years. The sentence was firmly grounded in the law commensurate with the gravity of the crime committed, reflecting the principle that offenses must be punished and legal accountability upheld. Claims that the punishment was excessive are therefore without merit.

The court stressed that the NSL does not have retrospective effect, and that Wong was not punished for his conduct or activities before the law came into force, nor for his political beliefs. His conviction was based solely on his continued conspiracy with others to commit acts endangering national security after the law took effect.

Following the announcement of the sentence, some foreign organizations and overseas media outlets were quick to criticize the ruling. Wong was portrayed as a youngster “advocating democracy”, with some even calling for his unconditional release. Others, like Human Rights Watch, seized on the case to denigrate the national security laws implemented in Hong Kong, and called on foreign governments to impose sanctions in response. Such reactions exposed glaring hypocrisy and bigotry, serving mere ideological or geopolitical ends.

ALSO READ: HK activist Joshua Wong pleads guilty to foreign collusion charge

If foreign politicians and organizations believe that national security is inviolable in their own countries, why should the same principle be interpreted differently when it comes to Hong Kong? Western governments believe they are entitled to enact laws to protect their national security and take firm action against conduct that threatens it. China likewise has the right and responsibility to safeguard national sovereignty, security and development interests. How can Western governments demand respect for their own laws while expecting the HKSAR to turn a blind eye to attempts to collude with external forces to endanger national security? Such double standards make no sense.

The judgment in Wong’s case should prompt society to reflect on the importance of national security. Safeguarding national security is not solely the responsibility of the SAR government, law enforcement agencies and the Judiciary, nor is it an issue that deserves attention only when a major incident occurs. It is the responsibility shared by every member of society, as well as the necessary condition for the city to move from stability toward prosperity.

The author is a member of the Legislative Council and the UN Association of China.

The views do not necessarily reflect those of China Daily.