Hong Kong Man Pleads Guilty to Sedition Under New National Security Law
Significant Legal Actions in Hong Kong
A Hong Kong man on Monday pleaded guilty to sedition for wearing a T-shirt with a protest slogan, becoming the first person convicted under the city's new national security law passed in March. Chu Kai-pong, 27, pleaded guilty to one count of "doing with a seditious intention an act".
Details of the Case
Under the new security law, the maximum sentence for the offence has been expanded from two years to seven years in prison and could even go up to 10 years if "collusion with foreign forces" is involved. Chu was arrested on June 12 at an MTR station wearing a T-shirt with the slogan "Liberate Hong Kong, revolution of our times" and a yellow mask printed with "FDNOL"—the shorthand of another slogan "five demands, not one less".
Broader Implications of the New National Security Law
Both slogans were frequently chanted in the huge, sometimes violent pro-democracy protests in 2019, and June 12 was a key kick-off day of the months-long unrest. Chu told police that he wore the T-shirt to remind people of the protests, the court heard. Chief Magistrate Victor So, handpicked by the city leader John Lee to hear national security cases, has adjourned the case to Thursday for sentencing.
Hong Kong was returned from Britain to China in 1997 under Beijing's promise of guaranteeing its freedoms, including freedom of speech, under a "one country, two systems" formula. However, the imposition of the national security law in 2020, punishing secession, subversion, terrorism, or collusion with foreign forces with up to life in prison, has raised questions about these guarantees.
In March 2024, Hong Kong passed a second new security law—a home-grown ordinance also known as "Article 23" according to its parent provision in the city's mini constitution, the Basic Law. Critics, including the U.S. government, have expressed concerns over the new security law, stating that vaguely defined provisions regarding "sedition" could be used to curb dissent. Hong Kong and Chinese officials have argued that the law was necessary to address "loopholes" in the national security regime.
This article was prepared using information from open sources in accordance with the principles of Ethical Policy. The editorial team is not responsible for absolute accuracy, as it relies on data from the sources referenced.