Hong Kong 47: Activist tells court he would have voted down budget if it did not address protesters' five demands

Hong Kong activist Owen Chow, one of the 47 pro-democracy figures charged with conspiracy to commit subversion, has said at a high-profile national security trial that he would vote against the government’s annual budget if it did not include content addressing the five demands put forward by protesters during the 2019 extradition bill unrest.

The 26-year-old democrat testified for the fifth day at a trial of 16 well-known politicians and activists under the Beijing-imposed national security law on Thursday, when he faced questions from his representative Kevin Chan, other defence counsels and the prosecution.

Chow is among 47 defendants accused of organising or participating in an unofficial primary election that aimed to help the pro-democracy camp select the strongest candidates and win a controlling majority in the legislature.

Prosecutors have alleged that the democrats intended to abuse their powers as lawmakers – if elected – to indiscriminately vote down government bills, paralyse government operations, cause the chief executive to dissolve the Legislative Council, and ultimately force the city’s leader to resign.

A total of 31 defendants pleaded guilty earlier and are awaiting sentencing after the trial of their 16 co-defendants is completed, with the maximum penalty being life imprisonment.

West Kowloon Law Courts Building. File photo: Candice Chau/HKFP.

Chow on Thursday was grilled over a press conference held on July 15, 2020, by a group of candidates from the self-declared resistance camp, a few days after more than 610,000 Hongkongers cast their ballots in the unofficial poll.

The activist told a panel of three designated judges that he was uncertain who organised the press conference, but it was either former student leader Joshua Wong, ex-district councillor Lester Shum or Sunny Cheung, a former spokesperson for the Hong Kong Higher Institutions International Affairs Delegation who confirmed he fled Hong Kong in September 2020.

During his testimony, multiple questions were raised in relation to Chow’s reaction to the remarks given by Shum, who said if Hong Kong had implemented the five demands, and if there was universal suffrage, he believed there was room for negotiation with the authorities.

“But if today the tyrant is still in power and the devil police still overrun the city, I believe we would veto the financial budget regardless of the content,” Shum said, according to a Chinese transcript of the press conference shown in court.

Lester Shum. Photo: Lester Shum, via Facebook.

Protesters advocated for the withdrawal of the controversial extradition bill that sparked the demonstrations, and called for an independent investigation into alleged use of excessive force by police. They also asked the authorities to retract the characterisation of the protests as “riots,” grant amnesty to those arrested during the demonstrations, and implement universal suffrage for the chief executive and legislative council elections.

Barrister Chan asked his client on Thursday whether he thought Shum was suggesting the democrats would exercise their veto power conferred to lawmakers by the Basic Law indiscriminately, the activist said no.

High Court Judge Alex Lee asked if Chow agreed with Shum that meeting the five demands was a determining factor in deciding whether or not to veto the budget. The democrat said he believed a response to the demands would be enough.

“It doesn’t have to meet all five demands,” Chow said.

September 15 china extradition — A placard said “Five demands, not one less.” Photo: May James/HKFP.

Another judge, Andrew Chan, pointed out that the full slogan related to five demands was “Five demands, not one less.” Chow responded by saying he believed the slogan did not mean to “ascent to heaven in one step” – a Chinese idiom meaning to make remarkable progress over a short period of time.

“Instead, after the government responded to one or two demands, we would keep pressing [for the rest],” Chow said.

During the cross-examination by lead prosecutor Jonathan Man Tak-ho, Chow was asked if he would veto the budget regardless of its content if “the tyrant was still in power.” Judge Johnny Chan rephrased the prosecutor’s question and asked whether Chow would veto the budget had the government and police force remained the same as that at the time of the resistance camp press conference.

“If there was no content related to the five demands, then I would cast a vote against the budget,” Chow said.

The prosecution will continue their cross-examination of Chow on Friday.

In June 2020, Beijing inserted national security legislation directly into Hong Kong’s mini-constitution – bypassing the local legislature – following a year of pro-democracy protests and unrest. It criminalised subversion, secession, collusion with foreign forces and terrorist acts, which were broadly defined to include disruption to transport and other infrastructure. The move gave police sweeping new powers, alarming democrats, civil society groups and trade partners, as such laws have been used broadly to silence and punish dissidents in China. However, the authorities say it has restored stability and peace to the city.