The maintenance of law and order is a prerequisite to prevent a civilized society from falling into chaos and the most important factor in bringing this about is adequate deterrent sentences for violations. That is the basis of the “let crime pay” principle — whoever commits crime must bear the consequences to deter others from following suit. This is central to the rule of law which is the foundation of our common law system. This system ensures the protection of not just all citizens, but also the law enforcement agents themselves, who are the de-facto guardians of the rule of law.
Hence the offense committed by the anti-establishment activists Joshua Wong Chi-fung, Ivan Lam and Agnes Chow Ting in inciting and organizing an unauthorized illegal assembly, involving thousands of protesters, to lay siege to the police headquarters on June 21, 2019, is the most serious act to challenge the rule of law system in Hong Kong. They all deserve commensurate sentences to reflect the gravity of the offense. But as the leader of this unprecedented challenge to lawful authority, the 13 and half-month jail sentence meted out to Joshua Wong is patently inadequate. Considering the potential for mass casualties that could have resulted from this frenzied gathering of fired-up protesters, averted only due to the extraordinary restraint of the police force, the magistrate really should be looking at the upper end of the sentencing range of this case, which is three years’ imprisonment. Furthermore, prison inmates normally have one quarter of their sentence remitted for good behavior in prison, and taking into account his period of remand in custody pending sentence, he will be a free man again in less than 10 months!
One weakness of our judicial proceedings is that the judge normally only hears the defense’s mitigation pleas for leniency, without the prosecution’s input on the severity of the sentences to be meted out. This is contrary to international best practices where prosecution can actually recommend the appropriate sentence for the judge to consider. Just imagine what the prosecution would have said if given the opportunity to do so.
Firstly, the serious nature of the siege must be emphasized. This involved thousands of agitated protesters surrounding the city’s police headquarters for over 15 hours, During the siege, the protesters vandalized the exterior of the building by throwing eggs and scrawling graffiti. They also blocked its entrances and exits, trapping officers and civilian staff for hours. Indeed a few sick persons, including a pregnant woman, were prevented from being evacuated by the ambulances to hospitals for treatment. A number of police officers trying to leave or enter were beaten by the unruly mob. All exits were blocked with wooden planks and all CCTV cameras vandalized. Such blatant violent attacks on the police HQ of any city undoubtedly would not have been tolerated, with the attackers put down ruthlessly by superior police firepower. In fact, most of the violent protesters got off scot-free, thanks primarily to the police top management’s decision to avoid escalating the already tense situation. As such, some thought the incident has brought disgrace to our police and tarnished our international reputation. But it also demonstrated the extraordinary leniency and forbearance of our Finest in dealing with misguided violent protesters.
A number of people involved in violence at the scene were subsequently arrested and convicted of riot related crimes. One of the accused was charged with assaulting police officers, throwing eggs at the building, uttering abusive language and criminally damaged the building wall and an escalator. He was sentenced to 21 months imprisonment. So it does not make sense that Joshua Wong, the main instigator of the siege, should receive a more lenient sentence than one of his followers.
Secondly, Joshua Wong did not deserve any leniency as he has shown no remorse at all. We should recall that he instigated this serious offense only shortly after he was released from prison for serving a five-weeks jail sentence for “contempt for court”. He still has not expressed any remorse nor any public apology for the damage he had done to Hong Kong. He pleaded guilty only because he learned that the evidence against him was overwhelming and that there is no hope of an acquittal. In fact, he should have pleaded guilty much earlier together with his accomplice Agnes Chow in July. By choosing to plea just before the trial, he had wasted a significant amount of the court’s time. Thus, his plea of guilty should not be factored into any reduction of sentence.
Thirdly, he had been convicted of related offenses a number of times. In particular, he was sentenced in August 2017 to six months in jail for storming the government headquarters compound, triggering the “Occupy Central” city-wide disruption. Clearly, he is merely employing the police headquarters siege as part of his group’s political objective. Therefore, his previous convictions ought to serve as an aggravating factor in determining his sentence.
Joshua Wong’s latest imprisonment would be widely applauded in Hong Kong. Many of our citizens have long regarded him as a US puppet and traitor to his own country. When he was invited to speak at the US Congressional-Executive Commission on China, his speech was basically a regurgitation of the US official line of castigating Hong Kong and central governments. He even urged US to pass the Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act with a view to imposing a wide range of punishment and sanctions. No wonder he was regarded as a public enemy by many citizens.
There is good reason to believe that Joshua Wong might have received financial subsidy from secret sources. This case should be followed up with a thorough investigation into his source of financial support, the whereabout of the remaining fund of his now-disbanded political group Demosisto and how he could enjoy a luxurious life style all these years without income from a regular job!
No doubt his imprisonment would attract condemnation from the Western leaders and media. It is important that the SAR government and the central government release all relevant facts of the case making it difficult for others to distort the case for propaganda purpose.
Actually, it is a tragedy to see so many young people sentenced to jail in pursuit of questionable ideals through illegal means. Fired up by demagogues, they have fallen prey to the mesmerizing ideal of “The end justifies the means.” It is thus appropriate to recall an admonition from Justice Wally Yeung, Vice President of Court of Appeal and one of Hong Kong’s most respected judges: “There are some educated people who deliberately incite the younger generation to engage in illegal acts under the pretext of pursing ideals, using the oxymoronic slogan of achieving justice by breaking the law.” Let us hope that such ruthless self-serving academics who used idealistic but immature students as cannon fodder in pursuit of their own agenda will get their comeuppance one day!
The author is an Adjunct Professor of HKU Space and Council member of the Chinese Association of Hong Kong and Macao Studies.
The views do not necessarily reflect those of China Daily.
