Hong Kong’s riot-accused political refugees display shameful hypocrisy

I echo Mrs Regina Ip’s views as expressed in “German asylum for riot-accused an attack on Hong Kong justice system” (June 6), and will go further to express my disdain for hypocrisy.

I respect everyone who has integrity and sticks to his convictions with constancy, even if I don’t agree with their convictions. Ray Wong Toi-yeung and Alan Li Tung-sing acted with hypocritical cowardice. They faced rioting charges and would have received fair trials in Hong Kong. Occupy Central protesters could claim provocation by the police with tear gas; the Mong Kok rioters of Lunar New Year 2016 were a well-organised group not facing provocation – just a handful of policemen who had tried to keep public order when Food and Environment Department officers tried to disperse unlicensed hawkers, but who were surprised to find armed rioters hurling bricks, wielding makeshift weapons meant to inflict bodily harm, and starting fires.

Yet, Wong and Li jumped bail, fled to Germany, and sought asylum on the grounds of political persecution and unfair trial, when in truth they betrayed their principles, leaving fellow rioters to accept responsibility and go to prison. When in Hong Kong, the likes of Wong advocated Hong Kong independence and skipped June 4 vigils, but now they are attending June 4 seminars in Germany! That is hypocrisy. The same goes for those in the Bar Association who selectively defend the rule of law in Hong Kong.

Rupert Chan, Mid-Levels

‘Safeguards’ against extradition offer cold comfort

In reference to Mrs Regina Ip’s opinion piece, stating that “human rights safeguards” have been built into the extradition bill, I ask: what use or how credible is a guarantee from a country which has long rejected traditional notions of human rights as defined by the Universal Declaration? China has sought to block UN resolutions on civil society, human rights defenders and peaceful protesters. Remember detained activist Cao Shunli?

Mrs Ip says Hong Kong has a voice, and influence on the motherland. Sure it does. The recent conviction of leaders of the “umbrella movement”, disqualification of lawmakers, and the denial of a visa to Victor Mallet are events that exemplify an increasing intolerance of expressions of dissent and a decline in the freedom of speech.

Beijing is making it very clear who Hong Kong is ruled by. Top officials make regular trips to China to submit reports and receive further instructions. The liaison office has become a dominant power broker within Hong Kong, a constant reminder of Beijing’s ultimate control.

As regards the judiciary safeguarding residents in vetting extradition requests, our judges themselves have expressed concern over this. Will our judiciary have the necessary jurisdiction to conduct extensive investigations beyond checking the papers submitted by China? Local courts will have to accept extradition requests once they are satisfied there is sufficient prima facie evidence to substantiate an indictment.

The so-called safeguards – like raising the threshold for extradition to crimes punishable by seven years in jail – are poor consolations. If an extradition request is made on account of fabricated charges under the umbrella of white-collar crimes and offences that exist in virtually any jurisdiction, thereby meeting the dual criminality requirement and escaping a challenge on political grounds, how will the judiciary be able to contradict or refuse extradition?

The chief executive of Hong Kong is elected by a Beijing-dominated election committee and is deemed accountable to Beijing. Under the circumstances, if the mainland requests extradition from Hong Kong, can anybody in Hong Kong trust Carrie Lam to say “no”?

Gauri Venkitaraman, Lam Tin