Ten Governments Criticise Joshua Wong Sentence; Hong Kong Rejects It

Hong Kong's Court of First Instance sentenced Joshua Wong, named Wong Chi-fung in official Hong Kong texts, to 10 years in prison on 5th November. According to the Hong Kong government's press release, issued at 06:08 UTC, the charge was conspiracy to commit collusion with foreign countries or with external elements to endanger national security, contrary to Article 29 of the Hong Kong National Security Law (NSL). Wong pleaded guilty on 2nd September.

What Hong Kong Says The Case Was About

The release says the facts Wong pleaded guilty to included conspiring with Law Kwun-chung, whom it describes as an absconder, and others to solicit foreign countries or external elements to impose sanctions, a blockade or other hostile activities against China, Hong Kong and their officials.

The release reports the court as ruling the offence grave, and as describing Wong and Law as the masterminds and the advocates at the forefront of calls for foreign sanctions. These are the court's findings as the government relays them.

The release also carries statements from Chief Executive John Lee and a government spokesman. The spokesman said the government will, under the law, forfeit property related to Wong's offence. The release does not say what the property is or its value.

The Ten-Nation Statement

On 6th November the UK Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office published a joint statement from the foreign ministries of Australia, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, New Zealand, the United Kingdom and the United States. The page gives a date but no time.

The ministries said the sentence came just months after leaders of the Hong Kong Alliance were convicted under the NSL, and called both further examples of how the law "is being used to target individuals for political expression and participation".

They called for "an immediate end to all unjust prosecutions" of people charged under the NSL, in their words. They also asked the Chinese and Hong Kong authorities to keep to their international commitments, including the rights and freedoms the Sino-British Joint Declaration (1984) guarantees Hong Kong people.

Hong Kong's Response

On 7th November the Hong Kong government issued a statement, at 04:25 UTC, saying it "solemnly rebuts" the joint statement. A spokesperson said the statement disregards facts, interferes with Hong Kong's judicial power and smears the NSL, and called Hong Kong matters "purely China's internal affairs".

The spokesperson said Wong pleaded guilty, and that the court acted "in strict accordance with the law and judicial procedures" and delivered the sentence "independently and impartially". Everyone is equal before the law, whatever their political stance, background or status, the spokesperson said. Describing the judgment as targeting "political expression" or "political participation" was, in the spokesperson's words, "purely political manipulation".

The government also argued that enacting national security laws is every sovereign state's right, and said the UK and the US, among other Western countries, maintain extensive national security frameworks and prosecute people on charges such as "foreign agent" and "foreign interference". It called the criticism "hypocritical double standards". The statement does not mention the Sino-British Joint Declaration.

The Legislative Council of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region had already backed the sentence on 5th November, in a notice issued at 14:35 UTC. Its spokesperson called the sentence proportionate and criticised the US Congressional-Executive Commission on China for demanding Wong's release. A further Legislative Council notice, listed by title in the government's 7th November index, condemns what it calls external forces' defamation and smears against the sentencing.

What The Records Show

The sentence, the charge, the guilty plea date and the property forfeiture statement come from the Hong Kong government's own releases. The signatories and their position come from the ten ministries' own page. Each side's characterisation of the case is its own: the ministries say the law is used against political expression, and the Hong Kong government says the judgment followed evidence and the law.