Hong Kong Man Pleads Guilty to Sedition for Wearing Protest T-Shirt Under New Security Law
17th Sep 2024
Members of the League of Social Democrats, one of the few remaining opposition groups in the city, attempt to stage a protest in front of the court on May 30 as police officers intervene. (Photo by Peggy Ye/Nikkei Asia)
On Monday, a 27-year-old Hong Kong man, Chu Kai-pong, pleaded guilty to sedition charges for wearing a T-shirt with a protest slogan, marking the first conviction under Hong Kong’s new national security law, passed in March 2024. Chu admitted to “doing with a seditious intention an act,” after being arrested on June 12 for wearing a T-shirt emblazoned with “Liberate Hong Kong, revolution of our times” and a yellow mask with the slogan “five demands, not one less.”
These slogans were prominent during the pro-democracy protests of 2019, and Chu reportedly told police that his intention was to remind the public of the protests. His arrest came on the anniversary of the protests’ June 12 start, a significant date for the movement.
The new security law significantly increases penalties for sedition, raising the maximum sentence from two years to seven years, and up to 10 years if collusion with foreign forces is found. Chief Magistrate Victor So, specially selected by Hong Kong Chief Executive John Lee to handle national security cases, will sentence Chu on Thursday.
The conviction comes amid increasing concerns over Hong Kong’s diminishing freedoms. When Hong Kong was handed back to China from Britain in 1997, Beijing promised to uphold the city’s freedoms under the “one country, two systems” model. However, in 2020, Beijing imposed a national security law in response to the widespread protests, targeting actions like secession, subversion, terrorism, and foreign collusion, with penalties up to life imprisonment.
This year, Hong Kong enacted a second security law, dubbed “Article 23,” further tightening the legal framework around national security. Critics, including the U.S. government, have voiced concerns that the law’s vague definition of sedition could be used to suppress dissent.
Despite international criticism, Hong Kong and Chinese authorities argue that the laws are necessary to close security loopholes and ensure stability.
Comments