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.

Jimmy Lai Arrested on Another Charge

Lai was arrested and charged with helping 12 fugitives flee

 

It was a surprise to hear Apple Daily founder Jimmy Lai Chee-ying -- who is already remanded for several charges, including breaching the national security law -- to be arrested again.

This time he was arrested for allegedly helping the 12 fugitives flee to Taiwan in August, though they were intercepted by the Guangdong coastguard.

A legal assistant allegedly helped Andy Li (above)

Early Monday morning a 29-year-old legal assistant was arrested and this morning charged for allegedly conspiring with Lai, activist Andy Li Yu-hin, and others in colluding with foreign forces.

Lai was arrested and charged under the national security law for "conspiracy to assist an offender", and "conspiracy to collude with a foreign country or with external elements to endanger national security", which has a maximum sentence of life in prison.

The legal assistant, Chan Tsz-wah was also accused of conspiring with Lai, Li and others to help Li leave Hong Kong and escape prosecution.

Prosecutors claimed Chan conspired with Lai, and the media tycoon's right-hand man, Mark Simon, Li, Lau Cho-dik and others "to request a foreign country or an institution, organization or individual outside the mainland, Hong Kong, and Macau... to impose sanctions or blockade or engage in other hostile activities against [Hong Kong] or People's Republic of China".

Simon allegedly conspired "to assist offenders"

The offense allegedly took place between last July and Monday when Chan was arrested. Simon and Lau are still wanted in connection with the case.

Last October Chan was arrested for allegedly helping the dozen fugitives flee to Taiwan, charged for one count of "conspiracy to assist an offender" in connection with Li's escape attempt. 

Did Lai really get involved in this incident? What evidence do prosecutors have?

In the meantime we may catch a glimpse of Lai again tomorrow when he appears in High Court for his bail review hearing... 

Remembering Li Wenliang, the 12 Hongkongers and Jimmy Lai

Tributes pour out for Li who warned about the coronavirus

 

Today is the one year anniversary of Wuhan ophthalmologist Li Wenliang sending a text message in a group chat with his former classmates about a mysterious virus that seemed to be life threatening.

At first he was silenced by the police, and then later he himself contracted the virus and died on February 7. 

Zhang sentenced to four years for her reports

One year later, citizen journalist and lawyer Zhang Zhan was sentenced to four years in prison for "picking quarrels and provoking trouble" when she shot videos of what she saw in Wuhan. She knew she was going into sensitive territory as police and security guards threatened to destroy her phone if she continued filming. Zhang did, revealing how much the government wanted to prevent the truth from coming out.

She is not the only person to give first-hand reports in Wuhan, but also Chen Mei, Cai Wei, Li Zehua, Chen Qiushi, and Fang Bin. They have either been arrested or detained, but we have yet to have any update on their situations.

And look where we are today, with over 82 million cases, almost 1.8 million deaths worldwide.

Meanwhile this morning in Shenzhen, the verdict came down on the 12 Hongkongers who tried to flee to Taiwan by speedboat but ended up being intercepted by the Guangdong coast guard.

The Chinese authorities claimed the trial was open, and yet none of the relatives of the 12 were in the courtroom, nor were diplomats allowed in either. 

Two under aged Hongkongers freed from China

First, two were underage and after pleading guilty, they were handed over to Hong Kong police this morning after spending four months in detention. The pair, Liu Tsz-man and Hoang Lam-phuc, refused to talk to the media about their experience.

Eight of the fugitives face seven months' in prison, but having served four months, it is expected they will be released in March.

However, Tang Kai-yin and Quinn Moon were convicted for organizing the crime of illegally crossing the border. Tang was sentenced to three years, and Quinn -- the only woman in the group -- faces two years in prison.

Reaction from their families and pro-democracy activists was that the sentences were too harsh, while mainland lawyers and pro-Beijing politicians felt the outcome was lenient.

A family-appointed mainland lawyer, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the punishments handed to Tang and Quinn were "too heavy".

The families of the 12 have had no contact

"If their role only involved buying or driving the boat as a group, it shouldn't constitute organizing the crime," he said, in a reference to Tang's role.

Barrister Chow Hang-tung could not understand why the fugitives' offences were categorized as "serious" when they were first-time offenders.

"On the mainland, many illegal border crossing cases were not even treated as criminal cases," she said. "But for a closed-door trial, any sentences is too tough. Everyone knows this wasn't an open and fair trial. This sentences was extremely excessive -- it was meant to deter Hong Kong people from continuing with their [political] movement."

However, Tam Yiu-chung, Hong Kong's sole representative to the National People's Congress Standing Committee said the sentences were understandable.

"Some Hong Kong critics have tried to politicize this, and said mainland authorities will prosecute them on charges related to national security," he said. "But that did not happen... The only message from the court was that if you cross the border illegally, you will bear the consequences. Nothing else."

Judge says Lai is giving his personal opinion

Then in Hong Kong, a High Court judge said Apple Daily founder Jimmy Lai Chee-ying has an "arguable" case against a charge of breaking the national security law, in his explanation of why he allowed the tycoon out on bail.

While the prosecution claimed Lai's commentaries proved his collusion with foreign forces by requesting foreign governments impose sanctions on the mainland and Hong Kong, Justice Alex Lee Wan-tang said these purported requests could be seen as mere personal opinion.

The judge added the fraud case against Lai lacked enough evidence to prove he and two co-defendants had intended to deceive the landlord about subleasing space to another firm.

Justice Lee also felt the restrictions on Lai's movements and actions were reasonable, and that he would not flee Hong Kong. 

 

Vindication for Police Critics on Last Year's Protests

Riot police not wearing any kind of identification last year

A year after the dramatic siege at Polytechnic University that saw protesters rappel down to waiting motorcycles and cars, and a police officer shot in the leg by an arrow, today there was vindication for critics of the police in how they treated protesters during the months' long anti-government protests.

The High Court ruled that the system in dealing with complaints against the police is not adequate, and that officers' failure to display their identification numbers during last year's protests contravened the city's Bill of Rights.

The latter was a constant complaint especially during the latter half of the protests, when the public could not file complaints against the police because there was no identification number on their uniform, or there was only a vague indication of a unit.

Court of First Instance Judge Anderson Chow Ka-ming sided with the Hong Kong Journalists Association in its legal challenge against the government and the force. The court also ruled in favour of two other judicial review applications filed by four residents who took issue with the officers' failure to display their identification.

Complaints could not be filed without ID numbers

Chow found the Bill of Rights imposed a "positive obligation" on the government to maintain an independent mechanism capable of conducting "effective investigation" into complaints of suspected ill-treatment by police officers.

"The existing complaints mechanism involving the Complaints Against the Police Office, with oversight from the Independent Police Complaints Council, is inadequate to discharge this obligation," he said, adding the CAPO was operated under the police, and the IPCC lacked the necessary investigative powers.

Meanwhile Article 3 of the Bill of Rights states no one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

Chow wrote: "The rights protected by [Article 3 of the Bill of Rights] are absolute and non-derogable. This means that even in times of public emergencies, however serious, the rights under [Article 3] must still be respected by the government and protected by the courts."

This ruling demonstrates how the judiciary has a different view of the existing system compared to the government, as Chief Executive Carrie Lam Cheng Yuet-ngor has claimed it was capable of handling complaints due to the protests.

However, she ignored the advice of former chief justice Andrew Li Kwok-nang in setting up an independent inquiry looking into the protests, and instead insisted the IPCC's report would suffice, though it lacked the teeth to conduct a truly independent inquiry because it did not have the power to subpoena witnesses.

Chow also ruled the police commissioner's failure to maintain and effective system ensuring uniformed police officers deployed during the unrest displayed their identification numbers violated the Bill of Rights.

Lam felt the IPCC's report would be sufficient

As a result, the complaint system could not work because victims could not identify the officers in the cases of possible ill-treatment.

"An obvious measure that could and should be taken would be to require police officers each to wear and prominently display a unique identification number or mark when carrying out non-covert duties," he said.

Numerous court cases were filed last year by those who accused the police of ill-treatment, but could not file a complaint because they could not identify the officers involved.

The police force, Department of Justice, Security Bureau and the Chief Executive's Office are studying the judgment.

In court, lawyers for the government and police maintained both had complied with the law, and in an earlier written affirmation, Chief Inspector Kenneth Lee Yuet-lam told the court that riot officers were not required to display their numbers because of "obvious personal safety concerns". 

He was referring to concerns of doxxing, where a person's personal information is posted online and may lead to malicious intent.

While Chow understood the force's concerns about doxxing, he wrote: "However... such concern cannot of itself override the duty to maintain an adequate system to investigate suspected cases of breach of [the Bill of Rights]." 

Yeung says the police must respond to the ruling

The Hong Kong Journalists Association chairman Chris Yeung Kin-hang welcomed the court's ruling and called for an immediate response from the police.

"We hope the force will take immediate actions to rectify the situation, as revealing identities should be a basic requirement [for officers] so that the public, including journalists, can lodge a complaint against certain officers if they are unfairly treated," he said.

"I think the ruling gives a very clear instruction on what police should do, but honestly, it is beyond our control whether the force will take immediate action, as it is possible they will lodge an appeal."

There is a strong possibility the force will appeal... but the ruling based on the Bill of Rights is very compelling. Protesters will cherish this legal victory as vindication that their right were violated. 

It is a nudge in the right direction for civil society and rule of law, but how long will it last?

Back to the Sunday March

A fraction of the marchers who came out this afternoon in Wan Chai

This afternoon Hongkongers came out in droves to Victoria Park for a police-sanctioned march from Causeway Bay to Central. It seemed like a lot of people showed up, but organizers say it was 800,000.

To many this was disappointing, as they hoped a big number would make the Hong Kong government to take notice and finally get down from its ivory tower and engage with the protesters to resolve the now six-month long political crisis.

Nevertheless 800,000 is still an impressive number, but will Chief Executive Carrie Lam Cheng Yuet-ngor do anything?

A gaggle of Pepe the Frogs and LIHKG pigs hanging out

I had friends marching separately who were stuck in Causeway Bay for hours, unable to move. Meanwhile waiting for the marchers in Central were the police, armed with riot gear and rifles.

Oh by the way did you hear the police arrested 11 people and seized weapons, including a semi-automatic pistol with five ammunition magazines, three of which were loaded, along with three daggers, knives and 105 bullets.

The police claimed "radicals" planned to use the arms to "create chaos" during the anti-government march in the afternoon.

Senior superintendent Steve Li Kwai-wah said: "Intelligence showed that the radical group had taken part in an unlawful assembly on October 20, when they used a lot of petrol bombs to attack Mongkok Police Station.

"Their plan is to use the gun to create chaos during the march later today, including shooting at our officers or turning the blame on officers themselves by hurting the innocent passers-by," he said.

Li said the police had thwarted a crisis, but added the discovery of the weapon was evidence that people should stay alert during the march and rally, organized by the Civil Human Rights Front.

For the most part the protest march was peaceful

On Twitter, people criticized the timing of the news of the arrests and seizure of the weapons just before the march in a bid to scare people from turning up at 3pm in Victoria Park.

However that did not deter them at all and they came out, determined to show the government that they still want all five demands met even though only one, the extradition bill has been withdrawn.

Getting a lot of attention were people wearing large headgear featuring Pepe the frog and pigs from LIHKG. Everyone wanted to take pictures with them.

One marcher wore black, a yellow helmet and gloves and crawled on the ground, apparently to remember those protesters who had to crawl through the sewers at Hong Kong Polytechnic University to escape.

There was also a young boy who played Glory to Hong Kong on his violin over and over. Did he know he'd have to play it so many times?

Musical performance at Hong Kong protest today #GlorytoHK pic.twitter.com/n3ohNlZvp1

— Missy Lao (@missy_lao) December 8, 2019

 

By the time marchers reached Central near the Landmark,  organizers CHRF persuaded people to leave by bus, MTR, or ferry to avoid any confrontations with the police.

There were a few black-clad protesters armed with umbrellas who had a standoff with police near the Hang Seng Bank headquarters, but they decided in the end not to push their luck and slowly retreated. However, riot police seemed trigger happy using pepper spray at the bottom of D'Aguilar Street in Central to disperse people this evening.

A petrol bomb was thrown at the Court of Final Appeal

And the judicial system seems to have been the target of other protesters who threw a petrol bomb at the Court of Final Appeal and High Court. The government has already issued a statement condemning the attacks on Rule of Law.

Legal sector lawmaker Dennis Kwok Wing-hang expressed regret and whatever the motive, one should not commit such acts. But he also blamed the government as the "Number one culprit" by forcing the courts to rule on something essentially political.

So it continues, and while people have voted with their feet again since August, one wonders what the government will do next!

Decimated Pan-Democrats

Can the pan-democrats keep up the fight after all the antics they've done?

The pan-democrats really need to think hard about how they want to represent the people of Hong Kong after four lawmakers were removed from office for improper oath taking in the Legislative Council.

Last week Nathan Law Kwun-chung, Leung Kwok-hung, Edward Yiu Chung-yim and Lau Siu-lai were followed by the media as they cleared from their offices in Legco and walked out together, vowing to come back.

Nathan Law's picture of his empty office at Legco

The Hong Kong government had asked the High Court to disqualify the four from their seats, arguing they had broken Hong Kong's Oaths and Declarations Ordinance, and Judge Thomas Au agreed on July 14, referring to a controversial interpretation issued by China's National People's Congress (NPC) standing committee last November.

"Solemnity and sincerity" were qualities required retroactively by the NPC standing committee, a move that sparked protests and fears over the erosion of the city's judicial independence and political autonomy.

"The sole remaining channel for elected representatives to supervise the administration and the chief executive has now been lost," Leung said after the ruling. "This is a result that no Hong Kong person should accept."

Lawmaker Chu Hoi-dick after his appearance in court

Fast forward to yesterday, and a legal bid by a retiree to unseat another pan-democrat, Chu Hoi-dick failed due to the person's inability to pay the security cost on time to start the legal battle.

Even though Chu must have been relieved, he was still cautious afterwards outside the court.

"There is still nothing to be happy about," he said, claiming the central government had used the oath-taking issue as "an excuse to attack the Hong Kong legislature and to rewrite the result of the last Hong Kong Legislative Council elections".

As a voter in last year's elections, I am extremely disappointed that the pan-democrats have lost a crucial balance of power in Legco due to both their silliness in not respecting the oath-taking process, and for the Hong Kong government in going after them in such an aggressive legal manner.

Now the pro-establishment have the edge they need to be able to change Legco rules to limit filibusters and pass some controversial legislation, like the lease agreement at the new cross-border express rail link at the terminus in West Kowloon.

Yau Wai-ching raises eyebows with her swearing-in

The four include the other two Youngspiration lawmakers, Sixtus Baggio Leung Chung-hang and Yau Wai-ching who totally disrespected the oath by displaying a banner that read "Hong Kong is not China" and in their oaths said "Cheena" instead of "China" and using swear words.

The Hong Kong government (and Beijing) are desperate to keep their advantage in Legco, but they do not reflect public sentiment. Public opinion now -- not elected politicians -- will have to be the last resort in pushing back against the Lam administration and Sai Wan.

There will be by-elections for the four seats lost, but can the pan-democrats regain them again? Respect for them is eroding too, after all the antics we've seen since the election.

The pan-democrats will have to work extra hard to regain our trust, though the alternative is too unsavoury for many of us to swallow...

Hong Kong Landmark Ruling on Same-Sex Marriage

There is a strong gay community in Hong Kong, along with its supporters

Breaking News -- A married gay civil servant is now entitled to the same spousal benefits as a heterosexual couple in Hong Kong.

The landmark ruling came down today which could have a massive ripple effect in all sectors, as for a long time the government refused to acknowledge benefits in same-sex marriages.

The High Court refused the Civil Service Bureau's argument that it was denying benefits for same-sex spouses to protect "the integrity of the institution of marriage".

In 2014, senior immigration officer Leung Chun-kwong married his partner Scott Adams in New Zealand. But when Leung tried to change his marital status to be eligible for spousal benefits back in Hong Kong, he was refused, and so he launched a lawsuit against the secretary for the civil service and the commissioner of the Inland Revenue Department.

The High Court ruled a gay couple is entitled to benefits

While the court ruled in favour with Leung with regards to the CSB, he lost his case with the Revenue Department.

In his 44-page judgment, Mr Justice Anderson Chow Ka-ming called the bureau's policy "indirect discrimination" and rejected its assertion that the secretary had a justifiable aim "to act in line with the prevailing marriage law of Hong Kong" and not to "undermine the integrity of the institution of marriage... hence safeguarding public order".

Chow wrote: "I am unable to see how denial of 'spousal' benefits to homosexual couples... legally married under foreign laws could or would serve the purpose of not undermining the integrity of the institution of marriage in Hong Kong, or protecting the institution of the traditional family."

Leung said the court's decision had wide-ranging implications. "The government is the biggest employer. The whole of Hong Kong will follow [this decision]."

He urged the government to review its policies and update them instead of wait for legal challenges, a process, he said was stressful, expensive and time consuming.

Rainbow-coloured lions have conservatives very worried!

"We were not asking for special treatment. We simply wanted to be treated fairly and with dignity," he said, adding that the court had "recognized and rectified a fundamental unfairness".

The bureau says it is reviewing the decision with the Justice Department, while the Equal Opportunities Commission urges the government to review its policies and extend equal rights to sexual minorities.

However, when it came to the Inland Revenue Department, Leung was unable to change his marital status to same-sex marriage because a provision in the Inland Revenue Ordinance states clearly that a marriage is between a man and a woman.

Nevertheless, we finally a decision that drags Hong Kong into the 21st century. The city is a fiscally liberal one, and so should its society. Christian conservatives are going to be terrified by this ruling -- they can't even stand having rainbow-coloured replica lions at HSBC in Central.

But this is the reality -- there are same-sex couples in Hong Kong and they deserve to be treated equally under the law. And now they do legally.

Case closed? We hope so.

Donald Tsang Trial Finally Starts

Donald Tsang arrives at High Court this morning with his wife Selina

We are finally here -- the start of former Hong Kong Chief Executive Donald Tsang Yam-kuen's trial for corruption charges.

For the occasion he wore a suit and his signature bow tie with his wife Selina Tsang Pou Siu-mei by his side and they arrived at the High Court in Admiralty at 8.15am, over an hour before his trial was supposed to start.

In court, Tsang pleaded not guilty in a firm voice in Cantonese to each of the three charges he faces related to a three-storey rental penthouse in Shenzhen.

Tsang allegedly had dealings with Bill Wong (above)

Two of the charges are for misconduct of public office and one of a chief executive accepting an advantage, which allegedly occurred during 2010 and 2012. Each charge carries a maximum sentence of seven years in jail.

The 72-year-old Tsang is the highest ranking official to ever face a criminal trial in Hong Kong's history.

In the first charge, Tsang is alleged as chief executive and head of the Executive Council, to engage in wilful misconduct by failing to disclose and conceal his dealings with businessman Bill Wong Cho-bau regarding the penthouse. Wong was a major shareholder of radio station Wave Media, which was later renamed Digital Broadcasting Corp, or DBC.

Tsang allegedly "approved in principle and formally granted" applications by Wong's company for a digital broadcasting license, the surrender of its AM radio license and the appointment of Professor Arthur Li Kwok-cheung as DBC director and board chairman without disclosing his dealings with Wong to Exco.

The second charge alleges Tsang recommended interior designer Barrie Ho Chow-lai for nomination under the city's honours and awards system between December 2010 and July 2011.

Tsang allegedly nominated Barrie Ho for a medal of honour

Under the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance, the corruption charge accuses Tsang of accepting an advantage -- namely the refurbishment and redecoration of the penthouse -- as an inducement or reward to perform an act as chief executive.

A jury of nine will decide Tsang's fate in this trial that is expected to last 20 days.

High Court Rules Localist Pair Disqualified

Yau Wai-ching holds up a copy of the High Court's ruling in front of the media

Hong Kong's High Court has decided that two localists who were democratically elected in September are disqualified from becoming legislators because of the way they took their oaths of office last month.

Yau Wai-ching and Sixtus Baggio Leung Chung-hang of Youngspiration have vowed to appeal the ruling.

Mr Justice Thomas Au Hing-cheung said the pair's conduct during the October 12 ceremony meant they declined to take their oaths and must therefore vacate their seats.

The Youngspiration pair have been disqualified from Legco

During the oath-taking ceremony, they had carried banners that read "Hong Kong is not China" and said "Sheena" instead of "China", which many consider to be a derogatory term the Japanese used during World War II.

The judge also ruled Legco President Andrew Leung Kwan-yuen had no right to allow Yau and Leung to retake their oaths, adding that he came to this conclusion before the National People's Congress Standing Committee made its ruling last week.

Justice Au said according to the Oaths and Declarations Ordinance, the oath must be taken solemnly and sincerely and that oath takers are "bound in conscience to perform an act faithfully and truthfully", which he believed Yau and Leung did not do, nor did they recognize "one country, two systems".

The judge says Andrew Leung cannot decide on retaking oaths

The pair's lawyers had argued that the courts had no right to intervene in the affairs of the Legislative Council, citing the UK, where the parliamentary supremacy reigns and no constitution exists.

But the judge said in Hong Kong's case, the Basic Law is "supreme" instead of the legislature.

It sounds like Justice Au was at pains to clarify he arrived at this conclusion independently of the NPC Standing Committee, but one will never know since Beijing made its decision before the High Court.

Either way it's a sad state of affairs for democratically-elected legislators in Hong Kong. There have been previous cases of the Legco President allowing people to retake their oaths.

Now suddenly it's been decided this is not possible.

We understand Beijing is clamping down on anyone suggesting independence. We also have to stress this is a very small minority of people.

But this also indicates that many people here find it hard to accept that Hong Kong is a part of China, but at the same time, it is NOT China.

There's a big difference...

Beijing's Iron Fist vs. HK's Rule of Law

Chen Zuoer thinks Hong Kong not doing enough to enforce law and order

A former Beijing official has added his two cents' worth in the debate over Hong Kong legislators who don't take their oaths seriously.

Chen Zuoer, former deputy director of Beijing's Hong Kong and Macau Affairs Office, blasted Hong Kong's prosecution and judiciary, accusing them of "not living up to people's expectations" in defending breaches of national security and making it "cost-free to oppose and commit crime against Beijing".

When asked to elaborate yesterday, Chen said: "There were a lot of cases in the last two or three years. From the storming of the PLA barracks, to the Occupy protests, the Mongkok riots, there were a series of such cases."

The judiciary refused to comment on his remarks, while the Justice Department said it would "control criminal prosecutions free from any interference" in accordance with the Basic Law.

It said it has to consider all relevant laws before prosecuting and that it handled all criminal cases in a fair, impartial and professional manner.

Almost 2,000 lawyers marched in protest on Tuesday evening

Chen also chided the city's legal profession for opposing the interpretation of the Basic Law either because it "lacked or had a different understanding or it was using the law as a tool for political struggle".

On Tuesday evening almost 2,000 lawyers silently marched from the High Court to the Court of Final Appeal in protest to Beijing's interference in interpreting Article 104 in the Basic Law regarding oath taking.

Dennis Kwok, the legal sector lawmaker, was diplomatic, saying that he welcomed a dialogue with Chen if he didn't understand his sector's traditions.

It is quite obvious things are coming to a loggerheads in Hong Kong -- Beijing is flexing its muscles in trying to get the city to conform with the rest of the country, but Hong Kong people are clinging to whatever institutions they have left.

Wang Zhenmin, legal department head of Beijing's Liaison Office and a former dean of Tsinghua University, claimed 15 Hong Kong lawmakers had "messed up" their oaths. While he did not name them, media could only come up with 14 possible names.

Wang Zhenmin says 15 lawmakers "messed up" their oaths

They include Sixtus Baggio Leung Chung-hang, Yau Wai-ching, Edward Yiu Chung-yim, Raymond Chan Chiu-chuen, Fernando Cheung Chiu-hung, Eddie Chu Hoi-dick, "Long Hair" Leung Kwok-hung and Nathan Law Kwun-chung.

If all these people are disqualified, it's Beijing's way of getting rid of any democratic voices in the legislature -- as well as neglecting the democratic process in which they were elected.

While Hong Kong is still coming to grips with accepting Hong Kong is a part of China, China is still getting used to the prickly situation it is in with regards to the city's institutions that people believe so strongly in.

This cultural clash is probably going to escalate which is not a good thing. This lack of understanding especially from China's side and its unwillingness to compromise is not going to ease anytime soon.

Troubling Times Ahead

Yau Wai-ching's and Sixtus Leung's fates will be decided politically and legally

Hong Kong Chief Executive Leung Chun-ying seems determined to make a point that he is in charge of the city by having Beijing decide on the interpretation of the Basic Law with regards to the two localist lawmakers.

Leung was supposed to go to Beijing this week but instead will stay behind to see how the matter plays out in the High Court in the judicial review to bar Youngspiration's Sixtus Baggio Leung Chung-hang and Yau Wai-ching from taking their seats in the Legislative Council.

CY Leung is getting Beijing's decision on the two localists

The National People's Congress Standing Committee is meeting this Thursday to discuss the Hong Kong issue -- this is unprecedented because it wasn't originally on the agenda.

But the seriousness with which the NPC Standing Committee is dealing with the matter is an indication that Beijing is not happy with the independence movement in Hong Kong and things may not bode well for Sixtus Leung and Yau.

Already state media have stepped up their attacks on the young pair for saying "The People's Republic of Chee-na", mimicking the offensive term "Shina" used by Japan during World War II, and for the localists holding up banners that read "Hong Kong is not China".

Letting Beijing decide on the matter rather than waiting for the courts is not a good sign; it is a further erosion of rule of law and faith in Hong Kong's core institutions. What if the court rules one way and the NPC Standing Committee another?

The NPC Standing Committee will meet on Thursday

How does this resolve anything except boost someone's political ego and supposed superiority?

This is not what Hong Kong is about. It is about being fair and honest before the law.

Where does it say in the Basic Law that a lawmaker only has one chance to be sworn in and if they do it wrong they are barred from office?

These people were voted democratically by tens of thousands of people. Do their votes not count?

Gov't Seeks to Stop Democratically Elected Lawmakers

Sixtus Baggio Leung and Yau Wai-ching are in court this evening

BREAKING -- Just before midnight Tuesday, the court rejected the injunction application to stop Youngspiration's Yau Wai-ching and Sixtus Baggio Leung Chung-hung from retaking their oaths, but the judicial review of Legco President Andrew Leung Kwan-yuen's decision to allow the pair to retake their oaths has been allowed.

Right now a High Court judge is deciding whether to stop two lawmakers from taking their oaths again tomorrow after the Hong Kong government filed a last-minute court order.

The action was filed against Youngspiration's Yau Wai-ching and Sixtus Baggio Leung Chung-hang as defendants and interestingly controversially newly minted Legislative Council President Andrew Leung Kwan-yuen was named co-defendant.

The young lawmakers arrived at court at 8.30pm and slammed the government for not giving them enough time to get proper legal advice.

Andrew Leung is also named as a co-defendant in the case

"They have not even supplied us with the documents [before the hearing]... This goes to show the government is willing to strip us of our qualifications at any cost," said Yau.

Sixtus Leung said they would do their best to defend themselves as well as the city's dignity and interest.

Meanwhile Legco president Leung instructed his lawyer to object to the government's application for a judicial review of his decision to allow Yau and Leung to re-take their oaths on Wednesday.

This is the first time the government has sought to invalidate the status of democratically elected lawmakers.

What is going on?

Yau and Sixtus Leung had already announced they would not create anymore antics and retake the oath properly after getting a landslide of criticism for saying "the People's Republic of Chee-na" instead of "China", and Leung claiming the pronunciation was due to his "Ap Lei Chau" accent.

The court decides if the lawmakers should retake the oath

While there are questions of Andrew Leung's exact citizenship situation, what has he done wrong? Where does it say that lawmakers are not allowed to retake their oaths? Is the government claiming the pro-Beijing president is not doing his job?

Our political system is showing cracks with things that could have been resolved through discussion and compromise, now are being resolved through the courts.

Judges should not have to decide on every single matter.

How can the government decide to invalidate the votes of Hong Kong people who voted for Yau and Sixtus Leung?

This will only further galvanize the already fractious situation, creating more tension in the city and its residents wonder if anything will ever get done politically.

Can we all please move on? We've only just started this new session of the legislature and already it's a mess.