Patriotism is the hallmark for a safe legislature in any country

Ninety legislators will be sworn into office this week, 35 of whom will be taking the oath of office for the first time. It will be a combined act of patriotism, a far cry from the swearing in ceremony in 2016 when four potential lawmakers created their own oaths advocating self-determination and were subsequently disqualified from office.

The western media, including some in Hong Kong, brand “patriotism” as a bad thing for Hong Kong, inferring that there is no “opposition” in the legislature. But they are wrong. The legislators have their own mind and will vote according to their conscience.

Four pieces of legislation proposed by the government have not passed the test and were voted out while many others were heavily debated by the legislators. Regardless of what London’s Guardian newspaper and others say, Hong Kong does have a meaningful opposition.

It is unfortunate that the local Democratic Party, seen by the west as the “opposition,” did not field any candidates in the recent elections and eventually closed down. The choice was theirs and their recent actions indicate they did not intend to follow the rules of the council.

The Legislative Council is a place where lawmakers are elected to serve the people, not to use it as a platform for subversion as had happened in the past.

In 2017 four lawmakers – Long Hair Leung Kwok-hung, Nathan Law, Lau Siu-lai and Edward Yiu – were stripped of their seats for failing to take their oaths of office in a “sincere and solemn” manner. They used props and amended the oath to suit their purpose. Others followed, including student Agnes Chow who also failed taking the oath of office but later jailed on subversion charges. The quartet’s disqualification followed the highly publicized ousting of two localist lawmakers, Baggio Leung and Yau Wai-ching, whose oath-takings involved anti-China banners and usage of derogatory wartime slurs for China.

Together, the quartet had mustered 185,727 votes in the 2016 elections and their selfishness left their followers void of leadership. Their actions were that of self-interest, to achieve their own hidden goals, and not to serve the people who put them in the seats of power. They abused their positions.

Obviously foreign forces had infiltrated the legislature and political unrest ensued as attempts were being made to unseat the base of Hong Kong’s parliament. In July 2020 the government announced that the nominations for 15 candidates were declared invalid due to their objection to the national security law or were sincere in statements involving separatism. And on November 11, 2020, Dennis Kwok, a founding member of the Civic Party and a representative of the legal profession in the council, was accused of delaying the legislative proceedings and passage of bills and was subsequently disqualified along with follow lawmakers Alvin Yeung, Kwok Ka-ki and Kenneth Leung. Just hours later 15 fellow lawmakers resigned in protest.

Kwok was later charged with collusion and fled to Canada and then to the US with a HK$1 million bounty on his head.

The festering germ of dissent even spread to the local district councils who also used their positions to undermine the government.

It had to stop and in March 2021, the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress (SCNPC) approved changes to the Hong Kong’s electoral system allowing only patriots to serve the government and the people of Hong Kong.

What publications like Hong Kong Free Press, The Washington Post, London’s Financial Times etc. don’t understand is that Hong Kong is a target by the five-eyes network of spies and clandestine operators, led by the US and including Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the UK. The ultimate target is, of course, China. By crimppling Hong Kong and especially its law-making process, it can crimpple China and hamper its progressive growth.

These publications will continue to use Hong Kong “Patriots only” legislature as a slur, not as a compliment. It’s in their DNA to be anti-Hong Kong/China. They are the vehicles of the west to bring discord to Hong Kong with total disregard to fact.

But “patriots only” apply to every democracy in the world. No place could be more patriotic than the US where the stars and stripes (the US flag) hang from the porches of almost every household. And legislators in all democracies have to swear allegiances to the country and their constitution. And like Hong Kong, they are vetted to ensure their allegiances are true to the country before standing for election.

Mark Pinkstone

** The blog article is the sole responsibility of the author and does not represent the position of our company. **

The conclusion of the Jimmy Lai Chee-ying trial, which lasted 156 days, was a showcase on law and order in Hong Kong and showed that justice seen is justice done.

A panel of three judges – Esther Toh Lye-ping, Susana D’Almada Remedios and Alex Lee – delivered their verdict on Monday that Jimmy Lai was guilty of national security charges involving two counts of conspiracy to collude with foreign forces and one count of conspiracy to print seditious articles.

In their ruling, detailed in an 855-page document, the judges said Lai was the “mastermind” behind the conspiracies, with his sole intent was to “seek the downfall” of the ruling Communist Party.

The trial, which spanned two years (December 2023-2025), with breaks in between, drew international attention through a global campaign by his son, Sebastien, and his team of public relations cum legal experts, Doughty Street Chambers, of London.

They kept the story alive visiting world leaders and TV networks pleading for Lai senior’s release from custody citing poor health. And they got the sound bites they wanted, but the end result was useless. Jimmy Lai was found guilty as charged and could face life imprisonment, the maximum penalty for collusion.

Before passing sentence, the judges will hear mitigating arguments from Lai’s solicitors on January 12 as to why he should be sentenced and if so for a minimum period. They will surely use Lai’s deteriorating health as their main argument.

After the mitigating hearing, which is expected to last about a week, the judges will retire to decide Lai’s fate.

An interesting aspect of the trial is its open transparency. Although Hong Kong is rated 6th in the Asia/Pacific region and 24th out of 143 countries worldwide by the World Justice Project Rule of Law Index, the Lai lobbyists branded the High Court as a “sham court.”

The territory’s prosecuting office and the Chief Executive decided on a three-member panel of judges to hear the case instead of going for a full jury hearing. The reason is obvious: it would be difficult to find a seven- or 12-member panel of ordinary citizens who had not heard of the Jimmy Lai arrest and formed an opinion before the trial started.

The courtroom was specially configured to allow 58 seats in the public gallery and another 42 for the press in the main courtroom. Of those, 21 are allocated to local media, 14 to international outlets and seven to digital news platforms.

A group of about 16 western diplomats arrived at the court at around 8.20am on Monday morning with representatives from the UK, the US, the EU and Canada among them to hear the verdict and report back to their respective foreign ministers. Most of them attended the hearings every day to observe the fairness of the court. Never has a Hong Kong court hearing been under such intense scrutiny.

It could not be more transparent. It was open to the world. From the first day that prosecution witnesses gave their evidence to the closing remarks by the defendant, the foreign diplomats and international press were there recording every word spoken.

There is absolutely no reason for anyone to call it a “sham court” and international reaction will be interesting. Their comments could implicate their complicity in Lai’s masterplan to overthrow the Chinese government.

Speaking outside the West Kowloon Law Courts Building on Monday, shortly after the guilty verdict was delivered, Chief Superintendent Steve Li Kwai-wah of the police force’s National Security Department said Lai’s conviction was “justice served.”

Lai “exploited his media enterprise” and used his wealth and “extensive foreign political connections” to collude with foreign powers, Li said.

His views were echoed by Secretary for Security Chris Tang Ping-keung who believed that the trial illustrates how safe Hong Kong is and how we are able to interdict all the national security concerns and all the attempts to affect the national security. “I think this is a good showcase to show that Hong Kong is safe and it is safe to do investments in Hong Kong,” he said.

Indeed. The Jimmy Lai trial was a showcase on how Hong Kong’s rule of law and judicial prudence can shape the city to make it the Pearl of the Orient.