How the Current Hong Kong Regime Compares With its Past British Colonial Era Counterpart with Regard to Dissent

Police fire tear gas to clear pro-Democracy protesters during a demonstration on Hungry Ghost Festival day in the Sham Shui Po district in Hong Kong on Aug. 14, 2019. Anthony Kwan/Getty Images

Article 23 of the Basic Law was speedily passed despite opposition from democratic communities the world over. People look at its passage as signaling the ultimate collapse of the rule of law in Hong Kong. To voice their displeasure, the diaspora of Hongkongers around the globe spontaneously organized various protests on March 23.

Three years ago, Hong Kong “welcomed” its version of the National Security Law (NSL), which serves to wobble the foundation of Hong Kong’s rule of law. As it seems not good enough, Article 23, as claimed by the government, is there to “coordinate” and “supplement” all “shortcomings” of the NSL. However, in the eyes of most people, it will become the last nail in the coffin for the rule of law in Hong Kong.

Since the NSL implementation, Hong Kong has entered an age of harsh punishment that brings fear to everyone. Mr. Tong Ying-kit, the person charged in what is dubbed the “debutant NSL case,” was found guilty of “secession” and sentenced to nine years in prison (to be executed concurrently with another crime of “terrorist attack”) for flying a flag reading “Liberate Hong Kong, Revolution of Our Times.” Recently, in the court hearing for the case of occupying the Legislative Council on July 1, 2019, 14 people were charged with rioting and “entering or remaining in the conference hall area.”

All 14 people were handed heavy sentences, especially artist Gregory Wong Chung-yiu, and former Hong Kong University Student Union Chairperson Althea Suen Hiu-nam. Despite the fact that the two were involved in low-level participation, they were sentenced to 74 months and 57 months, respectively. Such hefty sentences (on seemingly trivial behavior) shocked the entire Hong Kong population.

Acting Magistrate Li Chi-ho, in handing down his verdict, said that the siege of the Legislative Council by more than 1,000 people was a challenge to the Hong Kong government, with the intention of weakening and overthrowing Hong Kong’s constitutional system. This behavior was, he said, extremely insulting and provocative, and the case was extremely serious, even the most serious of the riots.

Starting on May 18, 1967, for four days in a row, demonstrators outside the Hong Kong Government House shielded the walls with piles of posters as a protest. All were tolerated and brought no consequences. Courtesy of the author

Riot cases are not the sole examples; incitement cases follow the same fate. In notable cases that targeted the media, such as the “conspiracy to distribute seditious publications” case involving Apple Daily and Stand News, and the “seditious intent” case involving “Quick Bit” Tam Tak-chi, all involved were imprisoned before trial.

Lest you forget, a similar fate happened in the “47 people” case, which involved advocating for the primary elections, in which all were imprisoned for three years before trial, not to mention the messy evidence collection and trial processes in between, tainted with all sorts of controversy. There was a case involving the Hong Kong Alliance in Support of Patriotic Democratic Movements of China, which had existed legally in Hong Kong for 34 years, was accused of refusing to hand over information, which led to the arrests of its standing committee members.

During the interim period, the term “foreign agents” was applied. Evidence provided by the prosecution was blacked out, leaving the defense unable to respond accordingly.

There might be precedents available to justify the “Lo Wu Explosion” case, but it lacks persuasion in the current “Returning Valiant,” case, where they were found just to possess explosives. Another incident involving the charge against Koo Sze-yiu (a veteran freedom fighter), was even absurd by being “arrested prior to coming out for protesting.” A subsequent sentence of nine months for Mr. Koo in prison for simply having the idea of ​​protesting is further evidence of super harsh punishment.

The Hong Kong government’s harsh sentences for civil dissent, such as riots and incitement, will only make people find themselves missing the “mercy” shown by past British colonial rule in Hong Kong. This article is an attempt to let our readers make a comparison between past and present regimes by going through several cases of the 1967 riots.

The leftist riots in 1967 were a cross-border spillover of the “red terrorism” initiated by the Cultural Revolution in mainland China. From demonstrations and strikes to bombings all over the city, the riots lasted eight months, with a total of 8,074 genuine and fake bombs seized, killing 51 people. From July 12 onward, rioters began bombing civilians indiscriminately.

In late August 1967, a young girl and her younger brother were killed in an explosion in Ching Wah Street, North Point, and radio celebrity Lam Bun, among others, was burnt to death. At the beginning of the wave of bombing, Ming Pao published an editorial titled, “Terrorism puts everyone in danger.” The intention of the then Hong Kong pro-CCP group was to “pressure the Chinese central government to take action and take back Hong Kong early,” an act that directly jeopardized the colonial governance, forcing the British Hong Kong government to suppress it. Nearly 5,000 people were arrested during the entire riot period, and a total of 1,936 people were prosecuted. Obviously, the 1967 riots were, in many ways, a much more serious episode than the Hong Kong people’s protests in 2019, in terms of its nature, scale, and consequences, but the sentences imposed were much lighter.

Examples of Serious Crimes Followed by Lenient Sentencing are set out below.

1. Regarding the Crime of ‘Incitement’

According to a report in Ming Pao on June 16, 1967, Yu Ying-hoi, an Urban Services Department (USD) driver, was accused of threatening colleagues Chiu Lap-man, Chan Leung-wah, Ma Cheuk-chun, and Lam Chi-sang on June 5 and June 6, respectively, warning them that if they did not take part in the USD strike, they would be beaten when they went out. Mr. Yu said to Mr. Lam, “The British Hong Kong authorities have occupied Hong Kong for a hundred years and must repay their bloodshed.” He was found guilty of violating the emergency legislation by using inciting slogans.

The judge stated that the case was a serious one, and he was convicted of breaching the then emergency legislation by “quoting inciting slogans” and “speech” and was sentenced to seven months imprisonment for each count, to be served concurrently, for a total of seven months. It can be seen from this case that the judge considered the case “serious” and sentenced him to just seven months during the leftist rioting. On the contrary, “Quick Bit” Tam Tak-chi was accused of setting up street booths in various districts of Hong Kong in 2020, shouting slogans such as “Black policemen to die with their whole family,” etc. He was found guilty of 11 charges, including “delivering seditious slogans,” and was sentenced to 40 months in prison and fined HK$5,000 (US$640).

2. Regarding the Crime of ‘Illegal Confinement’

According to Ming Pao’s July 4, 1967 report, at 8 a.m. on June 1, 1967, dozens of workers at the Yau Ma Tei Government Shipyard illegally detained Assistant Marine Director Hui Yu-si and demanded him to put the once torn away “Fight the British, resist oppression” slogan back on the wall. The officer was detained in the office building until that evening, and the workers threatened that they would not stop until they were allowed to put up slogans again. In the end, 17 people were found guilty, including worker Yau Tak, who turned himself in earlier and who had once threatened to “beat Westerners to death,” but was finally exonerated and sentenced to be bound over for three years.

The judge said that illegal detention of anyone was prohibited by law, and those who committed such crimes should be severely punished. In the end, fifteen defendants were sentenced to fifteen months’ imprisonment and were ordered to pay a court fee of HK$200 (US$25). If they could not afford the fine, the sentence would be extended by two months or two years.” The allegedly “severe punishment” here only refers to 15 months’ imprisonment.

Seventeen workers at the shipyard were found guilty; seven were imprisoned for two years, and nine for 15 months. The picture shows a case report in the “Overseas Chinese Daily News” on July 4, 1967. Courtesy of author

3. Seriously Disrupting Public Order by Setting Off Bombs, Burning Tracks, and the like

According to a report in Ming Pao on July 23, 1967, 17-year-old furniture apprentice Cheung Woon-hing and 21-year-old restaurant waiter Chui Kam-tim were accused of stacking objects and burning them on the tram tracks near Southorn Playground in Wan Chai on July 20, impeding the movement of trams. The judge noted that the case was serious and sentenced the first defendant to “long-term imprisonment” of 21 months and the second defendant to 18 months in prison.

On the same day, the court also issued the following rulings:

1. Ling Chi-keung, male, aged 22, was charged with participating in a riotous assembly and was sentenced to nine months imprisonment at the Tsuen Wan Magistrates’ Court.

2. Mr. Kan, aged 15, a student of Hung Hom Workers’ Children Secondary School, was charged with throwing stones at the police and resisting arrest on July 10 and was found guilty of both crimes. The North Kowloon Juveniles’ Court sentenced him to a total fine of HK$100 (US$14) for both offenses.

3. Pang Hin-wing, aged 31, a clerk of the Guangdong Provincial Bank, was charged with possession of paint, gloves, and a sweeper with the intention of scripting slogans. He was charged and found guilty of “possession of tools capable of illegal use” at the North Kowloon Magistrates’ Court and sentenced to three months’ imprisonment.

4. Wong Ka-kuen, aged 21, a worker, was found guilty of “breaching the curfew” and “possessing two seditious leaflets” and was sentenced to six months in prison at the North Kowloon Magistrates’ Court.

“Heavy imprisonments” were handed to two who interfered with the tram traffic: an apprentice got 21 months,’ and a restaurant attendant got 18 months’ imprisonment, both for setting fire on tram tracks. The picture shows a case in “Ming Pao” on July 23, 1967. Courtesy of the author

All the cases mentioned above are similar to those accused of being committed by people arrested during the anti-extradition bill movement. “Riot gatherings, throwing stones, resisting arrest, possession of leaflets or gloves, etc.” are all familiar, but the prison terms are vastly different.

4. Challenging Public Power

Starting from May 18, 1967, four days in a row, thousands of people demonstrated outside the Hong Kong Governor’s Office every day, criticizing the officers on duty and forcing the adjutant officer who met them to listen to their citation of CCP leader Mao’s quotes. Armed police and riot squads stood guard behind the bushes but did not take any action.

On July 15, 28 men and women from leftist newspapers and teachers from patriotic schools held an illegal assembly in front of the Governor’s Office at Upper Albert Road. Even during the time of the emergency order, teachers and principals gathered outside the Governor’s Office in defiance of the law and openly challenged the authority and system. The judge found them guilty of unlawful assembly. Twenty-four people were fined HK$50 (US$7); the first defendant, See Wing-wah, was additionally charged with intimidating assembly and was fined a total of HK$100 (US$14) for both crimes. The youngest of these, a nanny at the Workers’ Children School, aged only 17, was released in court because the judge did not impose a penalty in view of her young age.

The leftist faithful were also asked to adhere to the “three not’s principle” if they were arrested for their “anti-British and resist oppression” activities—not to go to the witness stand, not to hire a lawyer, not to answer a defense question, as a complete denial of the British governance of Hong Kong. It can be seen from the cases that even though they offended the “constitutional authority” of British Hong Kong, the judge still gave them a light sentence.

The picture shows the “Industrial and Commercial Daily” reporting on Aug. 12, 1967, the penalties handed down to the left-wing newspapers’ reporter and the leftist schools’ teachers, where all 24 people were fined HK$50 (US$7) Courtesy of the author

B. Extra Leniency Toward the Juvenile Offenders

Influenced by the “red ideology,” many teenagers participated in the riots in 1967, forming a unique group of “juvenile offenders.” In the past decade or so, some of these juvenile offenders became very active again by establishing their own groups and have attracted much attention from the general public by investing in movies, documentaries, stage plays, publishing books, and taking part in various social activities to demand “rehabilitation” and strive to expunge their criminal records, giving people the illusion that they were being severely punished. But these young criminals who seek justice everywhere ignore some basic facts: first, their sentences were relatively light (see attached table); second, judges at the time had given them the opportunity to receive light sentences or not to keep their criminal records, but, to implement the CCP’s “Three Vision Action” (see above), they had chosen to submit themselves to the fate of imprisonment. These include Tsang Yu-hung, who, in recent years, has been keen to seek vindication of the case of the “52 teachers and students of Heung To Middle School”.

According to past records, there were 154 juvenile offenders in total, aged between 11 to 16 years old, most of whom were sentenced with imprisonment ranging from 2 to 6 months. Their specific crimes and sentences are as follows:

Crime committed	No. of offenders	Jail terms (Max./Min.)
Riot	37	6 months/1 day
Possession of seditious posters	24	38 days/1 day
Participation in intimidating rally	24	3 months/7 days
Participates in unlawful assembly	19	6 months/7 days
Breach of curfew	12	68 days/1 day
Others	38	6 months/1 day
Total	154

The list is from the Correctional Services Dept. (CSD) archives after compilation. It records only those who had served in the CSD probation centers. Those who were under 18 at the time but were sent to serve their terms in prison due to poor conduct are not covered in this list. It is clear from the list that compared with the crimes committed and the jail terms handed down bythe former British Hong Kong judges were much more considerate. (Source: HKRS 292-2-1)

C. Commutation of Sentence and Pardon for Deportation

Apart from lenient sentences for juvenile offenders, the government proposed in October 1967 to amend the law to treat young offenders more leniently. The bill, called the “Young Offenders Act 1967”, proposed to provide more lenient treatment to young offenders. The original minimum period of detention in a reformatory school of two years was reduced to one year. Those who were handed heavy sentences had their prison terms reduced several times by the British Hong Kong government when the riots later subsided. As the riots ended, the “Prisoners’ Sentence Review Committee” implemented a soft policy again in May 1969, reducing, with the consent of the Hong Kong Governor, the original imprisonment terms of 11 prisoners from 4 to 5 years to no more than 3 years.

In 1973, Sir Murray MacLehose, then Hong Kong Governor, himself a diplomat, granted amnesty to the 1967 riot prisoners in batches, including those who threw bombs at a police station that injured 11 people; and those who planted bombs on Prince Edward Road, killing three and injuring 38. The perpetrators in these two serious incidents were originally sentenced to life imprisonment, but in the end, they were all pardoned by the Hong Kong Governor after serving just seven years in prison and were released in 1973.

Prisoner	Jail terms(Years)	Release date (actual in ( ))
Leung Pun	5+5+8+5 concurrently	June 9, 1973 (released 1973)
Chan Yuk-wa	10+10 concurrently	July 4, 1974 (released 1973)
Mok Siu-kui	12	Dec. 24, 1975 (released1973)
Lo Shui-yan	12	Feb. 15, 1976 (released 1973)
Lo Lun	9	March 28, 1976 (released 1973)
Ip Tak-shing	10+5+Life	(Early release in 1973)
Chu Wing-chuen	Life	(Early release in 1973)

The list is from the Correctional Services Dept. (CSD) archives after compilation. It records only those who had served in the CSD probation centers.

Those who were under 18 at the time but were sent to serve their terms in prison due to poor conduct are not covered in this list. It is clear from the list that compared with the crime committed and the jail terms the former British Hong Kong judges were much more considerate. (Source: HKRS 292-2-1)

For those who committed serious crimes during the riots or behaved arrogantly in court, many judges recommended that they be deported after serving their sentences. These people who were recommended for deportation were eventually exempted from the accompanying penalty.

D : Conclusion: Which Regime Is Worse?

It is not difficult to see from the above that the sentences imposed on rioters by the British Hong Kong government back then were much lighter than those imposed by the CCP proxy regime in Hong Kong today. Especially if one considers what the British Hong Kong government was facing back then was a leftist riot with the support of the CCP and an attempt to seize power. Today, what the proxy government faced was just mass protests demanding the withdrawal of the “Fugitive Offenders Ordinance,” which is entirely different in nature and in the degree of violence, and the severity of its impact is also different (51 people died in 1967). However, the judgments of the Hong Kong Courts were far harsher than those of the colonial era. Why is this so?

The author believes that there are three reasons. Although the Governor had monopoly power during the British Hong Kong colonial era, the courts were still relatively independent of the executive branch and did not need to speculate on the Governor’s taste in making every decision. In 1967, the courts dismissed quite a few cases filed by the prosecution. But today, the practice of “appointing judges” has made it necessary for judges to fully align with the government’s stringent policies. Especially after Xi Jinping proposed that Hong Kong should implement “cooperation among the three branches of power,” Hong Kong’s judiciary has lost its role of checking and balancing the wrong policies of the executive branch and providing relief.

Although the governor had absolute power during the colonial era, the country he reported to remained democratic. This democratic nature of the country exerted an invisible supervisory check and balance on the dictatorship of the colony. For example, the British Parliament once sent people to Hong Kong to inspect the British Hong Kong authorities’ handling of the rioters to ensure that the latter were not treated inhumanely. Since the sovereign state is a democratic political system, it also respects human rights. Under the pressure of its sovereign state, the British Hong Kong government was also forced to commute sentences and pardon prisoners. This is the second reason.

Although Hong Kong did not enjoy real democracy during the colonial period, it did enjoy full freedom, which was an effective check and balance for the upper hierarchy. It was, therefore, no surprise that councilor Elsie Tu was able to issue an open letter on the safety and well-being of the rioter prisoners; “Far Eastern Economic Review” could send its then reporter Andrew Li Kwok-nang (who became the first Chief Justice of the Court of Final Appeal after return of sovereignty in 1997) to interview ten leftist prisoner inmates, each for two to three hours, and write a feature article of more than 4,000 words, titled “Red Sun Over Stanley.” The efforts of civil society (such as Elsie Tu), and the fourth power, the media (such as Andrew Li Kwok-nang), could play the role of correcting errors and deviations in a fully free society and protect those who were being punished for inhumane treatments. This is the third reason.

Today, Jimmy Lai, Tai Yiu-ting, Kwok Ka-ki, Ho Kwai-lam, Tam Man-ho, Claudia Mo, Joshua Wong, and others have been imprisoned for three years without trial. This kind of judicial injustice is imposed for speaking out. Who is there to correct the mistakes? Who will amend the situation of Tonyee Chow Hang-tung being deprived of communicating with her loved ones even though she has not been convicted? At this time and place, reading about the 1967 riots cases is still of contemporary significance.