Those Who Destabilize Hong Kong and Macao Are Doomed to Disgrace and Imprisonment!

In just two short days, courts in Hong Kong and Macao delivered consecutive rulings, passing sentences on both a Hong Kong destabilizer and a Macao agitator.

On November 5, the Court of First Instance of the High Court of Hong Kong sentenced Joshua Wong to 10 years in prison for "conspiracy to collude with foreign or external forces to endanger national security." On November 6, the Court of First Instance of the Macao Special Administrative Region issued its verdict in the criminal national security case involving Au Kam San, sentencing him to 12 years and 6 months in prison.

The successive severe sentences handed down by the courts in Hong Kong and Macao jointly send a clear and unequivocal signal: acts endangering national security will be sternly punished, and attempts at external interference are doomed to fail. No matter how lawbreakers disguise their collusion, or how external forces meddle and incite, anyone who crosses the red line of national security will inevitably pay a heavy price.

Joshua Wong and Au Kam San

Rulings in Two Cases Serve as a Powerful Deterrent

The conclusion of these national security cases marks a powerful concrete demonstration of Hong Kong and Macao refining their legal systems for national security and strictly enforcing the law. The facts in both cases are clear, the evidence conclusive, and the verdicts fully grounded in law and justice.

Strict Penalty in Hong Kong: Heavier Sentence for Recidivism

On November 5, the Court of First Instance of the High Court of Hong Kong delivered its verdict, finding Joshua Wong guilty of "conspiracy to collude with foreign or external forces to endanger national security" and sentencing him to 10 years' imprisonment.

Joshua Wong is the former secretary-general of the anti-China, Hong Kong-disrupting organization "Demosisto" and a core ringleader of the illegal "Occupy Central" movement and the 2019 extradition bill disturbances. He has long engaged in activities disrupting Hong Kong, using so-called "democracy" and "freedom" as a pretext to extensively collude with anti-China forces overseas to split the nation, subvert state power, and undermine public order in Hong Kong.

Joshua Wong

This is not Wong's first conviction for national security offenses. As early as November 2024, he was sentenced to 4 years and 8 months in prison for "conspiracy to subvert state power." In June 2025, the National Security Department of the Hong Kong Police Force re-arrested him in prison and opened an investigation into his "conspiracy to collude with foreign or external forces to endanger national security." Wong pleaded guilty in court on September 2 this year. (See also related article: "Post-90s 'Hong Kong Independence' Ringleader Brought to Justice Again!")

Receiving two convictions within two years, Wong's case stands as a landmark example of anti-China, Hong Kong-disrupting elements being held accountable under the law.

Notably, the Hong Kong court's reasons for sentence classified Wong's offense under the "grave offense" category. The court highlighted that at the time of the offense, Hong Kong was suffering severe impacts from social unrest and riots, facing acute risks to national security and the rule of law, and that the actions of Wong and his co-defendants made the situation significantly worse.

First Case in Macao: Combined Punishment for Multiple Crimes

On November 6, the Court of First Instance of the Macao SAR publicly announced its verdict in the national security case involving Au Kam San, finding him guilty on multiple counts, including "subversion of state power," "establishing ties with organizations, groups, or individuals outside the Macao SAR to commit acts endangering national security," and "breach of official confidentiality." Taking into account all offenses, he was sentenced to a total of 12 years and 6 months in prison.

This also marks the first national security case concluded since Macao revised its Law on Safeguarding National Security, signaling that Macao's national security framework has fully transitioned from statutory text into judicial practice.

Au Kam San was a former member of the Legislative Assembly of Macao. For years, operating under the banner of "supervising the government" and "striving for democracy," he held legitimate political status and access to closed-door meetings. Rather than upholding his public duties and safeguarding the SAR's security, he turned his public position in the legislature into a conduit for internal collusion with external forces.

The court established that Au had long colluded with multiple foreign anti-China organizations, supplying them with extensive false and inflammatory material. Even after Macao's revised Law on Safeguarding National Security took effect in 2023, Au showed no restraint, continuing to conspire with external forces, incite foreign countries to take hostile measures against China, and attempt to interfere with the election of Macao's sixth Chief Executive.

During his tenure as a legislator, he also leaked confidential information obtained from closed-door meetings to external forces. These acts severely compromised national security and the interests of the Macao SAR.

Au Kam San

The Sword of Law Hangs High: Red Lines Must Not Be Tested

The judgments in these two cases not only penalize offenders in accordance with the law, but also send a unmistakable signal to society in Hong Kong and Macao as well as external forces: the bottom line of national security is inviolable, the judicial authority of the SARs is unchallengeable, and no external interference or pressure can derail China's determination to safeguard its national security under the rule of law.

The Long Arm of the Law: Offenses Will Be Punished

Figures like Joshua Wong and Au Kam San are, in essence, traitors backed by foreign powers who sold out national interests. Their tactics followed a clear pattern: wrapping themselves in local public office or social stature, secretly conspiring with foreign anti-China camps, receiving external resources and directives, and persistently committing acts that endanger national security.

They vainly sought to hijack the SARs' development for personal gain, challenge central authority through disruptive means, and subvert the governance order of the SARs. Ultimately, they met total defeat before the law.

These two cases fully demonstrate that anyone who betrays the country or destabilizes Hong Kong and Macao will face full legal accountability—ruin and imprisonment are their inevitable fate.

External Interference Is Doomed to Fail

The shadow of external manipulation looms behind both cases. Wong actively solicited foreign sanctions, while Au secretly transmitted classified information overseas; both functioned as proxies cultivated by external forces.

For a long time, certain foreign forces have sought to use Hong Kong and Macao as leverage to contain China's development, exerting pressure by backing proxies and manipulating public opinion in an attempt to meddle in China's internal affairs.

However, the judiciaries of Hong Kong and Macao remain independent and steadfast under the rule of law. Rooted firmly in facts and legal principles, and unswayed by external pressure, the courts completed these trials independently and in accordance with the law, thoroughly dismantling foreign attempts at intervention.

Justice will always prevail, and peace and stability remain the unstoppable trend of history.

The conclusion of these two national security cases in Hong Kong and Macao within two days marks a vital milestone in advancing the legal framework for national security in both SARs. Safeguarded by the rule of law and anchored by the strong guarantee of "One Country, Two Systems," Hong Kong and Macao will surely maintain long-term stability, move forward with confidence, and revitalize their future.

Jiu Wan Li: The High Ground

** 博客文章文責自負,不代表本公司立場 **

Former Hong Kong banker and now Yale University Law School lecturer, Stephen Roach is at it again: Hong Kong may not be over, but it is in tatters.

Roach made the comments on a podcast by Singapore’s Straits Times US bureau chief Bhagyashree Garekar at the end of October.

He claimed that the controversial headline in the Financial Times attributed to him in 2024 that Hong Kong was over was stronger than the arguments he made and that “no great city is never over, and that includes Hong Kong.”

He said that since the demonstrations of 2019 and 2020 and the “unfriendly takeover, if you want to call it that”, by the mainland Chinese, the character of Hong Kong has changed dramatically.

“The rule of law that many view as the most precious institution in Hong Kong has now been compromised by one of the most prominent foreign, former foreign judges of Hong Kong, characterized as ‘judicial patriotism’ and freedom of expression,” said Roach from his home in Canaan, Connecticut.

It appears that Roach was not in Hong Kong at the time of the handover in 1997, but it was anything but “unfriendly”. It was a time of jubilation.

He also says that it is “far fetched” to conclude that Hong Kong is the way it was in the past, claiming that its “just another Chinese city,” and that China was doing its best to support financial services in Hong Kong by directing capital flows into the Hong Kong market.

“But the idea of a free, vibrant, independent, Milton Friedman's favorite market based city, that view I think is in tatters,” so said the so-called world economist Roach. [World-renown economist, Nobel laureate and Hoover fellow Milton Friedman's view of Hong Kong was one of admiration and fascination. He regarded Hong Kong as a free-market utopia, where the variety of freebooting capitalism had been established.]

Of course Hong Kong is another Chinese city. That is a geographic and political fact, so why make a big deal of it. And it’s only natural that Beijing would use Hong Kong as its financial centre. In fact, regardless of what Roach teaches his students in Yale, Hong Kong is one of the world’s leading financial institutions.

Roach alluded to the world’s economic slow down to Hong Kong only because of its close collaboration with Beijing, adding that the outlook for the Chinese economy is not good.

“It's not collapsing,” he said, “but it remains stuck in a below target growth channel. And I think that spells problems ahead for Hong Kong's economy as well.”

Roach denied that he was not biased towards Hong Kong adding that there was a case to be made for Hong Kong’s historic resilience, but there is “not a good case to be made for a Hong Kong that runs against the grain of its masters from Beijing.” Why should Hong Kong run “against the grain” with Beijing? They live in harmony like a hand in glove. Beijing is the federal capital of Hong Kong and it has the respect of the majority of its people.

When Roach makes his frequent visits to Hong Kong he must be talking to those living in gilded cages. His outlook is typical of western mentality when he believes that whether it's the economy, the rule of law and the restrictions on freedom of expression and dissent as being raised in what “we call a normal discourse of democracy, those are out the window. And claim that these are good things because Hong Kong is enjoying the link to China is a real stretch from my point of view,” he concluded in his interview.

South Korean journalist Cho Yong Sung noted in the country’s AJP new agency that Roach’s claims reveal a failure to fully recognize the competitive reality of present-day Hong Kong and its historical development. Looking back at Hong Kong's history, he said that it has never existed in isolation from China. During the 1950s to 1970s, entrepreneurs and labor from the mainland laid the foundation for its manufacturing sector, and after the economic reforms, Hong Kong capital became a major beneficiary of China's growth by investing in Guangdong Province. Hong Kong's prosperity has always been closely linked to the vast market of China.

Cho added that Roach's mention of the Hong Kong National Security Law also requires a more nuanced evaluation. While many predicted a mass exodus of foreign capital upon its implementation, the reality has been different. The freedom of capital movement and the legal enforceability of contracts in Hong Kong remain intact. Most international banks and global asset management firms continue to maintain Hong Kong as a key hub.