Academics called to testify on protest slogan

Academics from Hong Kong’s universities have been brought in as expert witnesses in the first trial under the city’s new National Security Law to help ascertain the meaning and intention behind a popular slogan used by protesters in recent demonstrations.

A year ago on 1 July 2020, the same day that the National Security Law imposed by Beijing came into force in Hong Kong, Tong Ying-kit (24) allegedly rammed his motorbike into a group of police officers, which prosecutors allege is a terrorist offence. A black flag was attached to the bike with the slogan, in both English and Chinese, “Liberate Hong Kong, Revolution of our Times” – one of the most popular slogans of the 2019 protests that engulfed Hong Kong.

The government and police have repeatedly warned the public against using it and other slogans, but proving whether or not chanting or waving banners with the words imprinted on them amounts to a security offence – in this case inciting secession – could be the landmark outcome of the trial.

Local professors of journalism, political science and history were brought in by both the prosecution and defence during the hearings which began two weeks ago and which at times appeared highly academic and theoretical, drawing on the social sciences, socio-linguistics and other academic theories, as well as academic research methods.

Lawyers say the closely watched trial is major legal test case that hinges on an interpretation of the far-reaching but vaguely worded National Security Law. If the slogan can be shown to be “inciting succession”, it will have repercussions on other cases where police and prosecutors are seeking convictions on the basis of popular slogans.

It will also have a significant impact on existing notions of freedom of speech in the city and could affect many others – possibly thousands – who used the slogan, making them liable to prosecution.

Tong is being charged with terrorism, inciting secession and dangerous driving, all of which he denies. The charges could lead to a life sentence under the National Security Law.

The prosecution has argued that the defendant used his vehicle to pursue “a political agenda” that involved either coercing the government or intimidating the public.

Tong’s defence lawyers maintain that the slogan “is ambiguous and open to multiple interpretations”.

During the trial, prosecutors, backed up by an academic expert, argued that the slogan carries a static meaning involving removing Beijing’s sovereignty over Hong Kong and separating the city from China, or secession. Professors called in by the defence contend that its meaning is fluid and has changed with time and use.

The case is being heard by specially appointed national security judges, and without a jury, as is the norm in such cases in Hong Kong.

‘Pursuit of freedom’

In a report for the defence, Francis Lee, professor of journalism and communication studies at Chinese University of Hong Kong, and Eliza Lee, professor of politics at the University of Hong Kong (HKU), said the slogan did not necessarily carry a political message and could have several meanings “depending on people’s understanding and personal experiences”.

Testifying in court this week, Francis Lee said the slogan was adopted by protesters in 2019 to represent “their pursuit of freedom and democracy” rather than to advocate Hong Kong’s freedom from China or secession.

Lee pointed to a 2019 academic study he carried out which found there was a diverse range of opinions among protesters and their supporters on how it should be interpreted. He said he had used focus groups involving some 40 people of various backgrounds, each bringing their own meanings to the slogan and some said their understanding had evolved over time, he told the court.

He emphasised that the academic rigour of his findings detailing his use of questionnaires, focus groups, phone surveys and discourse analysis, taken together, showed the complex use by Hong Kong people of the slogan.

“My approach is reliable, following the standards of academic research, and relevant,” he told the court.

Examining research methodology

The court meticulously examined Lee’s research methodology which, apart from focus groups, used representative sampling, common in social science research. Lee had conducted an on-site survey during the protests in August 2019 of over 1,200 people. Around 25 million posts on an online forum popular with protesters were also analysed for a report he co-wrote with HKU’s Eliza Lee.

Eliza Lee had said earlier during the two-week trial that “no statistically significant correlation” was seen between the percentage of posts mentioning independence and those mentioning the slogan “Liberate Hong Kong, Revolution of our time”.

According to Francis Lee, some focus group participants saw the slogan as a sign that the “city has fallen” while another saw “a bit of a sense of Hong Kong independence in it”. However, he told the court this week that it was wrong to assume the slogan could have only “one true meaning”, describing the meaning as “very open and ambiguous”.

In earlier testimony, Eliza Lee quoted classical Chinese history texts to show imperial courtiers using the word ‘liberate’ to mean “bolstering a regime instead of overthrowing it”.

However, Lau Chi-pang, a professor of history and associate vice-president of Hong Kong’s Lingnan University, an expert witness for the prosecution, argued that words could not have different meanings for different people or it would be impossible to communicate.

Lau said told the court earlier this month that his understanding of the slogan was based on a historical perspective but also took into account recent events.

Words like ‘liberate’ and ‘revolution’ had retained the same meaning in China for over 1,000 years, said Lau, adding that in his opinion their usage had not changed. The most common meaning in dictionaries suggested political change.

Lau drew on an ancient Chinese dictionary as well as news footage of the 2019 protests to back his claim that the slogan was a literal call for regime change and directly advocated independence.

Lau said Chinese language dictionaries provided a “stable and accurate system concerning the meaning of words,” and that language cannot sever its connection to the past. “We must acknowledge the customary usage of words, unless there is a strong reason to force to change their meaning,” he told the court.

However, he later acknowledged that there were non-political senses of ‘revolution’ in modern use such as scientific revolution and industrial revolution.

Origins of the slogan

The protest slogan was created some years ago by activist Edward Leung who is currently in jail serving six years on rioting charges related to unrest in 2016. Leung, a member of the Hong Kong Indigenous political group, had used the slogan during a speech while campaigning for a seat on the Hong Kong legislature, or LegCo, Lau pointed out.

According to Lau it was intended to paint the Chinese government as an ‘enemy regime’. Users of the slogan saw Beijing as “unlawfully possessing the city”, he said.

Lau said anyone using the slogan could be understood as having the same political stance as Leung who saw Hong Kong as an autonomous entity.

However, Eliza Lee, whose political research focuses on relations between state and society in Hong Kong, told the court Leung had offered no concrete action plan for separating Hong Kong from China. “If he wanted to overthrow the government, he would not want to get into Legco,” she argued.

Lau also cited a police report on the use of the slogan. “This slogan is often accompanied by other chants such as ‘expel the Chinese communists’, ‘Hong Kong independence is the only way out’, as well as [committing] vandalism and other activities that break public order,” Lau noted.

Both prosecution and defence lawyers described the research the other had drawn upon as ‘unreliable’, sparking a debate about the way research is conducted, and whether focus group individuals can be relied upon to “tell the truth”. The prosecution argued that interviewers in the studies by Lee may have had a “built-in stance”.

Some 117 people have been arrested under the National Security Law over the past year since it came into effect, with more than 60 charged, including pro-democracy politicians, activists and students.