Yawn, yawn — stand by for a lengthy legal saga

Geoffrey Somers says leaders must condemn those encouraging young people to advocate for separatism

Like most Hongkongers, are you sick and tired of the endless coverage the “Hong Kong National Party” is wallowing in, and looking forward to the coming court action when the government will seek to close it down, ending the ongoing joyless comic opera?

I have a strong premonition that it won’t be anything like a simple case with a swift decision being handed down. Instead I fear it will become a beanfeast for the legal profession, with the hearing likely to last for weeks if not longer.

Are you aware that a group of lawyers supporting HKNP’s convener Andy Chan Ho-tin have joined forces with members of various anti-establishment political parties and civic organizations that recently issued a joint statement condemning the government’s action to ban the HKNP, saying it threatened “freedom of association”?

Hmmmm…would the legal naysayers and their cashed-up “allies” not be likely to find a way into the legal proceedings and expound their pro-independence arguments, turning the case into a cause celebre? And propounding one anti-establishment argument after another? In my mind’s eye I can see witness after witness expounding his or her ideas about nationalism, independence and separatism, smoothly encouraged by a black-robed legal eagle.

Thus would the proceedings be drawn out at an agonisingly slow pace, unaffected by the urgings from the bench, and at great expense to taxpayers?

You might not be aware that some members of the legal profession have done extensive international research in their quest for historic precedents to cite in court. For example, they found an interesting ruling by the European Court of Human Rights that a person’s calls for secession do not comprise sufficient grounds to dissolve a politically related party.

South African legal decisions affecting personal rights have also been scoured in search of decisions that may be used to influence the outcome of this case. Described as the “Johannesburg Principles”, the findings include this important ruling — any restriction of personal rights would not be acceptable unless it was done to protect a country’s existence or its territorial integrity against the use or threat of force. Within days we shall soon learn whether any evidence regarding such overseas cases will be permitted in the hearing of the HKNP case.

Evidence to be produced in court will include 20 discs and 706 pages of transcripts and records of the HKNP’s activities since it emerged in 2016. The pictures are reported to include shots of Chan attending forums in Japan and Taiwan.

Moving on, observers find it inconceivable that this self-styled National Party has a viable place in Hong Kong. Our society is notable for its harmony, tolerance, mutual respect and co-existence of peace-loving citizens. Bluntly put, the supposed “betterment” the HKNP would almost certainly bring risks of the last thing we want to see on our streets — civic strife and chaos.

In particular some critics have questioned by what authority Chan and other leaders chose to name their organization the “Hong Kong National Party”. The Oxford Dictionary defines “nation” as a large community of people usually sharing a common history and living in a particular territory under one government. “National” is described as being of a nation common to or characteristic of a whole nation. Thus countries across the globe have their respective national flag and national anthem. And “nationalism” is “devotion to one’s own nation, patriotic feelings, principles or efforts”. Observers expecting to learn from the court proceedings by what authority the HKNP was given its name are likely to be disappointed; Chan and his cohorts almost certainly chose the title because of the patriotic feelings it automatically gives rise to.

Let us pause here to consider the implications of such a title. First and foremost it should have openly been done by the appropriate government body — but, as we are all aware, no such authority exists in Hong Kong. And, looking at the fundamentals of the situation, how on earth would the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region ever be able to grant such a dispensation since the sovereignty of the territory concerned is held by the People’s Republic of China?

On being served legal notice to account within 21 days for their political activities the HKNP leaders’ initial response was that it had anticipated such a move “from an increasingly insecure government, which even now hides behind the veneer of law and order”. It then cheekily added this defiant admonition: “Today we Hongkongers stand in opposition to our enemies” describing them as “colonizers and their puppets in the current Hong Kong government”. What is it in their mentality that drives on these naysayers to blurt out such dark statements without regard to the civic strife they risk touching off by such inflammatory remarks?

Then there is always the question of who is funding this ongoing trouble making from behind the scenes, and what is their ultimate goal? Their campaign of “civil disobedience” is far-reaching, particularly in our universities where youthful defiance of the authorities is constantly encouraged. It is imperative that all those who love Hong Kong, particularly respected community leaders, educators and responsible politicians, speak up forcefully now in their condemnation before more of our young people are led astray by their demagoguery.