HKU Removes the Pillar of Shame

Workers move a piece of the sculpture overnight on Thursday

Two months after heads of the University of Hong Kong ordered the Tiananmen-themed sculpture Pillar of Shame removed, late last night it was taken apart in pieces which were wrapped up and then moved to HKU's Kadoorie Centre in Yuen Long, 30km away.

The surreptitious incident happened after 10pm when yellow plastic barricades were placed around the statue by Danish artist Jens Galschiot and workers in yellow hard hats began dismantling it around 3am, and bundled the pieces into a container truck which left the campus at 6.50am.

The Pillar of Shame originally looked like this

The HKU Council confirmed the removal of the eight-metre tall sculpture in a statement after the deed was done, saying the decision to take down the Pillar of Shame was made in light of "external legal advice and risk assessment" after a meeting on Wednesday.

"Latest legal advice given to the university cautioned that the continued display of the statue would pose legal risks... based on the Crimes Ordinance enacted under the Hong Kong colonial government," the statement said.

So it's not national security law related? Or any other law not related to NSL?

The council also said it was "very concerned about the potential safety issues resulting from the fragile statue" and noted that no official approval had ever been granted for its display. It had stood on campus since June 1997.

While the statement didn't give specifics on the potential legal risks, Section 10 of the Crimes Ordinance deals with acts with a seditious intent, including publications and displays of any seditious material, deemed a crime punishable by up to two years in prison and a HK$5,000 (US$641) fine for a first offence.

The artist is threatening compensation for damage

At Wednesday's council meeting, a large majority of the members -- most of whom are external stakeholders -- voted for the statue's removal.

It seems the council was prepared to remove the statue immediately after the meeting without asking other stakeholders on campus. This drew a lot of criticism not only the act of removing the sculpture, but also how it was done.

Legal scholar Eric Cheung Tat-ming said he could not see the rationale for citing Section 10 of the Crimes Ordinance to remove the pillar.

"The section has existed for a very long time and the statue was erected at HKU for years. Why did they not think the display had a [seditious] intention in the past, while suddenly they think it will violate the law?" Cheung said.

Indeed. We are all wondering the same thing.

And many critics have also pointed out for the university to take it apart in the middle of the night days before Christmas shows how cowardly the institution is in dealing with the issue. 

Interestingly the statue's removal comes two days before council chairman Arthur Li Kwok-cheung ends his term, and is days after the recent Legislative Council election to ensure "only patriots" hold power.

The statue was moved to Yuen Long

Li claimed on Sunday that it was still unclear who was the rightful owner of the sculpture, but artist Galschiot said Thursday it was his and accused the university of "destroying" the art work, and had ignored his offer to travel to Hong Kong to take it away.

"[HKU] will not talk to me," he said in a statement. "Countries around the world have offered to receive the Pillar of Shame, and the Danish foreign minister has offered his help -- but there has been no response from [HKU] or other responsible authorities."

He added: "It is my private property and the sculpture belongs to me personally... I will claim compensation for any damage to the sculpture. It is a disgrace and an abuse and shows that Hong Kong has become a brutal place without laws and regulations such as protecting the population, the arts and private property.

"And it's even more grotesque that they use the Western holiday Christmas to carry out the destruction of the artwork."

The aftermath of the removal is empty space

What is left is the yellow plastic hoarding and white plastic sheets over the area where the pillar was. Around the hoarding are pots of poinsettias as if to give the space a festive air.

The university has taken a hard line on the statue, which sparks questions around the future of freedom of speech and expression, as well as academic freedom on campus. More importantly it shows HKU complicit in following the government's lead in removing any reminders of what happened on June 4, 1989.

Will students there wish to continue studying at HKU following this incident? How do the alumnae feel?And what does this mean in terms of remembering Tiananmen? Will students and staff still be able to commemorate it in some way? Can the topic still be taught in class?

While administrators may think they are doing the right thing, they are destroying the foundations of the university, and Hong Kong too.

Lee Cheuk-yan Stands by His Beliefs Despite Jail

Lee says he will never forget what happened in Beijing 1989

There are numerous court cases going on simultaneously, making people lose track of who is on trial, who has been convicted and who is in jail, though most people related to the anti-government protests or the national security law are remanded in custody.

One of them is former lawmaker and chairman of the Hong Kong Alliance in Support of Patriotic Democratic Movements of China Lee Cheuk-yan, who pleaded guilty to inciting others to join an unauthorized assembly at Victoria Park for the June 4 candlelight vigil.

Some people defied the police to hold a vigil

Today he gave an emotional mitigating speech in court to explain why he continued to mark the anniversary.

He explained the alliance was set up to support the democratic movement in Beijing, where students gathered in Tiananmen Square. A group of them arrived on May 30, 1989, but a few days later on June 4, he says he "heard incessant gunshots and reports that the tanks were entering, bloodily crushing protesters in Chang'an Avenue".

The next morning he recalled seeing the casualties carted away. "We had no idea how many were hurt and killed. It was a night of immense devastation that I can never forget," he wrote.

Lee tried to board a plane going back to Hong Kong, but was stopped by the police and interrogated for three days. Luckily, he says, Hongkongers petitioned for his release and he came back on June 8.

Lee was in Beijing when the massacre happened 

"I thanked God in my prayers, dedicated myself to be His instrument of Justice, and committed my life to the struggle for democracy to Hong Kong and China. This is my pledge to the people of Hong Kong who rescued me and the people of Beijing who implored us to tell the truth of what happened in the Square to the world. Since then I have always engaged in the mission of the Hong Kong Alliance and attended the June Fourth candlelight vigil every year until this. In prison I continued to honour their memory by fasting for a day and by a lit match."

Later in the speech he points out that the authorities have threatened freedom of expression and assembly, and that they are depriving inmates the right to access to information, such as books, magazines and daily necessities. 

He says HK people will not forget 1989

He also observes the irony in the Hong Kong police upholding Mahatma Gandhi and his non-violent struggle, when he was actually a pioneer in civil disobedience.

"If the Police endorses the non-violent struggle led by Gandhi, why should it not respect the right of the people of Hong Kong to honour the memory of the June Fourth Massacre through a peaceful, non-violent assembly?" he asks.

Finally Lee ends his speech, saying: "If I must go to jail to affirm my will, then so be it." Applause and cheers were heard in the courtroom.

The End of Apple Daily, The End of Press Freedom

Wow Apple Daily even has a swimming pool on the rooftop!

 

As I write this, Apple Daily is putting to bed its final edition.

Earlier today it was announced the paper would continue operating until Friday, but this afternoon the board of directors issued a statement saying Apple Daily would cease to operate on Thursday morning and thanked its readers. 

It was later revealed that 1 million copies of the paper would be printed.

Might as well go out with a bang.

Right now there are supporters standing outside the Apple Daily offices in Tseung Kwan O and waving their mobile phones with their lights on and shouting, "Add oil Apple!"

Tomorrow's front page

Staffers inside and on the roof are waving back.

And there are people lining up at a newsstand in Mongkok waiting for the newspaper to arrive an hour from now at 1.30am. 

For people in Hong Kong the end of Apple Daily is the end of press freedom in Hong Kong, the end of free speech and freedom of expression.

An attack on one news outlet is an attack on all media in Hong Kong. The forced closure of Apple Daily will change the media landscape forever.

To the Apple Daily reporters past and present, thank you for your hard work and dedication to get the news out to your readers. It isn't easy to work for an organization like this, particularly in the last two years, which is why you are even more courageous.

Thank you for fighting to the end.

Conviction Rate of 2019 Protests Could Rise

More protesters could be prosecuted following new ruling

Lawfare, or using the law as a weapon, continues to thrive in Hong Kong with the latest ruling by a High Court judge who upheld prosecutors' wide power to indict suspects that even aren't physically present at an unlawful assembly or riot can face the same charges as actual participants under the legal principle of "joint enterprise".

Chief Justice of the High Court Jeremy Poon Shiu-chor acknowledged the law could be applied by prosecutors to go after all kinds of suspects ranging from a lookout or a driver of a getaway car, to a social media user who merely clicked "like" on a post promoting an illegal gathering -- depending on the strength of the evidence.

As a result this could lead to even more prosecutions and convictions of those who may have aided or abetted people who took part on the 2019 anti-government protests.

Poon: ruling applies to rioting, unlawful assembly

Poon said the common law doctrine must apply to the offences of rioting and unlawful assembly, as it was in the public interest to punish not only offenders caught at the scene, but also accomplices who were not.

"An accessory or a party to a joint enterprise is liable as the principal. This serves the public interest of maintaining the public order," Poon said. "A contrary construction which excludes the doctrine of joint enterprise... will have dire consequences for the maintenance of public order."

Poon dismissed suggestions the interpretation might lead to the "overcharging" of innocent people, saying an individual would remain safe unless he or she "crosses the line". He also rejected the notion that freedom of speech would be compromised.

"Freedom of expression is not absolute. It does not provide immunity to those who have actually, in the eyes of the criminal law, participated in an unlawful assembly or riot, such as by encouraging or promoting it, in the disguise of exercising their freedom of expression," he added.

The Department of Justice asked the appeal court to uphold the application of the common law doctrine of joint criminal enterprise, which allows all members of a group to be held liable for offences committed by an individual member, as long as they had a common purpose.

To and Tong acquitted on lack of evidence

The application was made in relation to the verdict to the first riot case related to the 2019 unrest, where three people -- student Natalie Lee Yuen-yui, and gym owners Tong Wai-hung and his wife Elaine To -- had assembled with protesters in a common purpose in Sheung Wan on July 28, 2019. The judge did not find sufficient evidence to convict them.

While the verdict on the trio will not be appealed, this latest ruling now gives prosecutors reason to prosecute and possibly convict more people future ca

Today's ruling will probably also give people another reason to leave Hong Kong if they have not done so already. The use of lawfare, or using the law as a weapon, has only started in Hong Kong and will only continue to gain momentum.