A leader of the All-China Federation of Returned Overseas Chinese said on Monday that it would be almost impossible for members of the Democratic Party to stand in Legco elections.

Lo Man-tuen said members of the party are unlikely to get through the nomination stage for candidates, because of the party's "opposition" to the new electoral system.

In a Ming Pao article, Lo said the party has set a high threshold for backing any individual members who wish to run in December's polls and by doing this it has rejected the electoral system and therefore the Basic Law.

“The Democratic Party must review its platform, respect the Communist Party-led state system, not act against national security to meet the minimum requirements of the principle of ‘patriots ruling Hong Kong’. This is the only way it could hope to be reborn,” he said.

The Democratic Party said last month that any members who are interested in joining the Legco race would need to secure 40 nominations from the party.

Hong Kong Metropolitan University – previously the Open University – is the latest higher education institution to introduce a compulsory course covering the national security law imposed by Beijing last year.

From November, students will have to attend the relevant courses under its general education modules. They will take part in online seminars, write essays and be graded on a pass-or-fail basis, but all students must complete the courses before they graduate.

...

Asked if students would be able to express negative views on the law in their essays, \[president Paul Lam Kwan-sing] said the university “would not be able to control what students write”, but teachers should be able to discuss issues with them.

Year 4 student Elvin Lau Yu-kit, 20, external vice-president of the university’s student union, said that management had discussed the national security education plans with the union.

“It is, after all, something inevitable … This topic will be rolled out at all local universities eventually,” he said, adding that the union would gather feedback from students after the courses began.

...

Sixteen district councillors face disqualification after the government raised doubts about the oaths they took on Monday.

They were among 50 councillors from Tai Po, Sai Kung, Sha Tin and North District who pledged their allegiance before the oath administrator, Home Affairs Secretary Caspar Tsui, in the third oath-taking ceremony held by the government.

Among the 16 whose oaths were questioned and have been asked to submit additional information to Tsui is Ricky Or from Sai Kung, who's been charged with violating the national security law over the Legislative Council primaries case.

He said after the ceremony on Monday that it's his duty to take the oath.

The oath of the chairman of the Sha Tin District Council, Raymond Li, was also called into question.

He said after the ceremony that he believed he'll be disqualified, but took the oath anyway, saying it's his election pledge to serve his full four-year term.

...

Three councillors – Chan Nok-hang and Chan Pui-ming from Sha Tin, as well as Yu Tsun-ning from Sai Kung – announced their resignations ahead of Monday's ceremony.

...

...

Richard Tsoi, who was vice-chair of the now-disbanded Hong Kong Alliance in Support of Patriotic Democratic Movements of China from 2008 to 2019, said he “strongly opposed” any plans to remove the statue, which would be seen as an attempt to erase the memory of the massacre.

...

“Many of the Hong Kong people treat the Pillar of Shame as a symbol or image about June 4,” Tsoi told HKFP on Sunday. “Any removal of the Pillar of Shame will definitely give the impression that the university authorities are trying to erase all the ideas and also the image \[of] June 4 in Hong Kong.”

...

Tsoi, who has also served as vice-chair of the Democratic Party, urged the university to listen to the opinions of the student body and alumni before making any decision.

...

The Pillar of Shame, an eight-metre tall statue of twisted bodies created by Danish artist Jens Galschiøt, has stood at the university for 24 years. Students and activists traditionally carried out an annual washing of the monument to pay tribute to those who lost their lives during Beijing’s crackdown.

Tsoi said that, although the ownership of the artwork is unclear, the university had sought the Alliance’s permission and consulted with the group when the pillar was relocated within the campus ten years ago.

“The university authorities in the past basically treated the Hong Kong Alliance \[as] still retaining ownership of the Pillar of Shame,” he said.

...

...

On Tuesday, District Court judge Stanley Chan heard closing submissions from \[Ma Chun-man’s] senior defence counsel Edwin Choy and from prosecutor Laura Ng, as both sides weighed in on whether there was sufficient evidence to demonstrate that Ma’s intent was to incite others to effect secession. The defence did not dispute the evidence submitted by the prosecution, and did not ask to cross examine the prosecution’s witnesses.

Choy argued that video evidence showed Ma saying in public that his purpose for chanting slogans in public — weeks after the national security law’s enactment — was to prove that the legislation would not reduce civic freedoms and human rights in the city, as he could not be prosecuted over his slogans and speech.

In a video clip, Ma showed that he wanted “to prove the national security law was not a beast, and that the legislation continues to protect human rights and freedoms. Therefore his intent was not to incite,” Choy said.

“He wanted to be a ‘touchstone’… and wanted to tell others: ‘I’m not in trouble even for saying that.’ It may sound immature, but there was no intent to incite \[secession],” Choy said.

He then quoted from evidence, where Ma said: “Because you won’t be able to subvert the country by only using your mouth. \[Prosecuting] subversion requires real actions and evidence to support it.”

Ma’s calls for an “uprising by force” amounted to “bogus, empty talk, devoid of constructive value” as he had never made suggestions as to how that could be carried out, the defence said. “The defendant is immature in attitude… If his attitude was not to split the country, that’s not crime of secession.”

“He said: ‘I want to prove that shouting slogans is a civic freedom Hongkongers enjoy’. If this was his attitude, then I don’t think his intent was to incite secession,” Choy said.

‘LEGAL EXPERT’

However, the judge questioned whether the defendant was truly behaving immaturely as he had been arrested at least six times and chanted the slogans on at least 20 occasions. Chan also said it appeared “strange” that Ma proclaimed to know what would be considered a breach of the national security law, as if he was a legal expert.

“It was shortly after the law was promulgated, \[I] believe neither you nor a judge would dare say how the law would be implemented,” Chan told Choy. But the defence said this constituted proof that Ma was immature.

The prosecution went on to state that the evidence sufficiently proved that Ma wanted to promote “the will for independence”, which would endanger national security. The prosecutor also submitted a diary entitled “Captain America’s Diary of Resistance,” where he described meals and some public gatherings he joined, the judge said. Prosecutors did not cite the diary as evidence and its content was not disclosed in court.

...

...

Chow Hang-tung, who was head of the recently defunct Hong Kong Alliance in Support of Patriotic Democratic Movements of China, appeared in front of Magistrate Amy Chan at West Kowloon Magistrates’ Courts on Tuesday.

...

Chow, representing herself, said that she had not received the prosecution’s opening statement and the list of admitted facts.

The barrister also said that she had planned to make arguments on several issues, including whether the ban on the vigil in June was constitutional, as well as the intention of the social media posts and article she wrote.

Chow said that she would also argue against the legitimacy of her arrest and prosecution. However, the magistrate cited a Court of Final Appeal case and said that the court was not a place to debate political issues.

...

After court resumed, Chow was allowed to move from the dock to the defence’s table. The barrister then said that she could only agree to part of the list of admitted facts.

While the prosecution included details such as the Alliance’s notification to the police about holding an assembly on June 4, Chow said that the notice was not relevant to her case, and – even if it was relevant – she could not agree to how the prosecution recorded the notice in the list of admitted facts.

The court session was then paused again for around 20 minutes for Chow and the prosecution to discuss the admitted facts.

As the trial resumed for the second time, the prosecution said that they would have to prepare a written statement from a superintendent after Chow said she still disagreed with parts of the admitted facts.

The barrister, who has been remanded in custody over a national security law case, said that she would need around two weeks’ time to prepare her arguments.

A representative of the prosecution, barrister Fanny Wong, said that she would need to discuss with the Department of Justice about whether she could handle the arguments over the constitutionality of the case.

‘VINDICATE JUNE 4TH’

As Chan left the courtroom, people in the public gallery shouted “vindicate June 4th,” which Chow repeated loudly. Some people also shouted “beat the Communist Party,” as they left the room.

“Thank you for coming to listen,” said Chow, as some court-watchers shouted “hang in there” to the barrister.

...

Chief Executive Carrie Lam says her policy address on Wednesday will focus on housing and economic development, adding that it's time to map out the future for Hong Kong now the political situation has stabilised.

...

She said it would take her more than two hours to deliver the blueprint, which has a theme of "new era, new opportunities".

"This year's policy address will focus on the the future, which includes economic development and integration into the country's development plan. Both are important matters," Lam said.

"But I also fully understand the main issues that people want solved are housing and land supply."

The CE said Hong Kong is now in a good position to look ahead, as the city is back on the right track under the One Country, Two Systems principle.

"During the consultation sessions, many people told me: 'It's time to do some work,' because we now have a stable environment that is no longer politicised and anti-government and anti-China, and we should therefore map out the future for Hong Kong."

...

Lam said the policy address won't contain measures to support people or businesses hit by the pandemic, as these initiatives have already been announced.

...

With at least 17 councillors disqualified and hundreds having resigned in recent months, \[Carrie] Lam said officials will consider the future of the councils once a territory-wide oath-taking exercise for members is completed on Friday.

"For example, some district councils will be left with only a couple district council members. They could not even have a chairman, no quorum, but at the same time they do have a lot of influence in allocating district council funds, or deciding on which district minor works should be undertaken with public money," the CE said before this week's Executive Council meeting.

Lam was asked whether the government will take away the councils' power to allocate funds.

"I am not in a position to tell you now what will happen, except to make it very clear that under the Basic Law as well as local legislation, district councils are not given power... district councils by themselves, they do not possess power to make decisions, to employ staff or to allocate money," she said.

"Out of respect and recognition of the representativeness of these members, we have allowed them to have a say on the use of the public money which is controlled by a public official, in the name of the director of home affairs... So it does not constitute any taking away of power."

Lam said district councils are only advisory bodies, to give advice when asked by the government.

...

...

The debate presented on Tuesday in front of a five-judge panel led by Chief Justice Andrew Cheung arose from two appeals by pro-democracy activists Lo Kin-man and Henry Tong. Both questioned the applicability of joint enterprise to unlawful assembly and rioting offences. The common law principle means a secondary perpetrator may be found guilty of the same charge as the principal defendant.

Lo’s appeal centred around his conviction in 2018, when he was found guilty of rioting and jailed for seven years in the same case as former localist leader Edward Leung in connection with the 2016 Mong Kok unrest.

...

Tong, on the other hand, was acquitted of rioting in July last year in relation to the 2019 anti-extradition bill protests. The ruling, however, prompted the secretary for justice to ask the Court of Appeal for clarifications. The court ruled in favour of the government in March this year by saying that joint enterprise was applicable to the two types public order offences. But Tong took issue with the appeal court’s decision, which also declared that a suspect’s presence at the crime scene was “not always necessary” for criminal liability. He did not show up on Tuesday’s hearing.

...

Representing Lo, Senior Counsel Gladys Li argued that the prosecution must identify the “constituent members” of an unlawful assembly and prove that they had a common purpose to breach peace before charging a defendant with rioting. She said it was to avoid “dragging in casual participants.”

Li said the criminal liability of an accessory should be based on his or her presence at the scene. Those who were off-site, a “mastermind” for instance, should face conventional accessorial liability rather than being indicted on the principle of joint enterprise.

“There is no identified lacuna,” Li told the judicial bench, \[...]

...

Senior Counsel Philip Dykes argued on behalf of Tong that the doctrine of joint enterprise was “self-contained” in the corporate nature of the unlawful assembly and rioting offences. He said the provisions already included the elements of people “assembling together” in a place for a common purpose.

Dykes went on to say that there was no legal lacuna in the exiting legislation, as those who acted as “masterminds,” or took on other roles, could be held accountable through “auxiliary provisions,” namely incitement and conspiracy charges.

His arguments were echoed by the top court panel. The judges challenged Acting Deputy Director of Public Prosecutions Anthony Chau, when he said that excluding the joint enterprise principle from unlawful assembly and rioting offences would create a “lacuna” and “render the law ineffective against enterprise formed in advance.”

Prosecutors had to rely on the doctrine, Chau said, when they faced “evidential and situational uncertainty” in identifying the principal and secondary perpetrators. But the top court bench questioned how the prosecution may prove a suspect had prior agreement, when they struggled to gather evidence to show the defendant’s participation.

“Invoking the doctrine would not lessen your difficulty, if any, in terms of evidence,” the chief justice said, adding that the “masterminds” may be “taken care of” with the existing accessorial liability.

...

Li disagreed with Chau’s submission: “\[Joint enterprise] is not a band aid to apply when there is insufficient evidence… \[we] cannot use joint enterprise to fill evidential holes.”

...

The hearing set for two days concluded early on Tuesday afternoon. The chief justice said they would deliver the judgement later.