Tam Yiu-chung condemns foreign criticism over HK case
Bastillepost · 3 SOURCESabout 1 hour ago2 MIN
Summary
Executive Council member Ronny Tong Ka-wah said on social media that some people in Hong Kong had long been misled by external political forces and had tried to carry out activities to subvert the state in the name of freedom of speech. He said the International Covenant on Human Rights clearly states that acts endangering national security are not protected freedoms, and argued that this is a global consensus. Tong also said Western double standards had been laid bare, citing Britain’s recent consideration of classifying demonstrations supporting Palestine as “terrorist acts” as an example. Separately, the Legislative Council strongly condemned what it called smears by Western countries, anti-China media, organisations and politicians following the court’s conviction in the Hong Kong Alliance incitement to subvert state power case.
Key Points
- The dissolved Hong Kong Alliance, former chairman Lee Cheuk-yan and former vice-chairwoman Chow Hang-tung were convicted of inciting subversion of state power.
- Tong said some Hong Kong people had long been misled by external political forces and sought to pursue subversion under the banner of free speech.
- He argued the International Covenant on Human Rights makes clear that conduct harming national security does not fall within protected freedoms.
- The Legislative Council said the court’s detailed reasoning showed the ruling was based on law and objective evidence, not defendants’ political views.
- LegCo urged outside forces to stop interfering in Hong Kong affairs and accused Western critics of using double standards against the city’s judiciary.
Why It Matters
The dispute sharpens the political and legal divide over how Hong Kong draws the line between protected expression and acts deemed to threaten national security. For Hong Kong readers, the official message is that courts and lawmakers will continue to defend national security laws against foreign criticism while insisting that rights are subject to legal limits.