Albert Ho: To protect Hong Kong, we need to protect the values we treasure and speak the truth

Days before seven prominent pro-democracy figures appeared in court to hear the sentences of charges against them, I talked to former pro-democracy legislator Albert Ho about how he thinks about the charges against him and his decades-long experience in fighting for democracy in Hong Kong.

Question: How do you think about the court’s decision to find all of you guilty of the charge of participating in an illegal assembly?

Albert Ho: To be honest, I’m not taken by surprise, because under the pressure of the prosecutors, the court has to deal with all the issues seriously. The judges are entitled to take a very conservative view against us, particularly about ruling against our constitutional challenge against the public order ordinance as well as making unfavorable findings of facts against us.

This is not surprising under the present political atmosphere. We are prepared to face the consequence. On the day when we decided to take this action, we realized that this is one of the possible risks that we have to face.

Question: The international community views this case as a landmark case that could lay the groundwork for similar cases in the future. How do you think this result might imply the fate of other activists facing similar charges?

Albert Ho: I must confess that there is no room for optimism nowadays in Hong Kong. In the old days, including those days under the colonial era, it was not the government’s policy to prosecute people for holding, organizing or participating in peaceful assembly.

I must say that in the procession, which we are now being charged for, it was all undertaken in a very peaceful manner. It has the function of helping people to express their strong views against the police and the Hong Kong government. At the same time, the whole march ended in a very peaceful manner.

In those days, it’s almost certain that the police wouldn’t prosecute us. There wasn’t even any police warning on the day to disperse our procession. The police even disappeared on the day, believing that we would be able to maintain peace and order. This is obviously a change of policy in trying to tighten up political and social control over the procession of protesters.

The police are now very determined to prosecute even many months after the procession and on the day after we were convicted, we were surprised to hear that the prosecutors asked the judge to consider imposing a custodial sentence.

They are very vicious in seeking to clamp down the procession in the times to come, but also trying to target political leaders who have been organizing or urging people to come out to express their views. This will most certainly lead to other cases where the prosecution will similarly press for conviction and urge the court to put the offenders in jail.

Question: You’ve been involved with Hong Kong’s fight for democracy over the last few decades. What were some of the most memorable moments that you will hold onto as you might be facing a jail sentence?

Albert Ho: The most memorable incidents are those days immediately before and shortly after the June Fourth Massacre in 1989. On many occasions, over one million people or several hundreds of thousands of people marched on the street. We didn’t have to give any notice and the police just cooperated with us. They would help to maintain the order of the crowd during the demonstration.

From time to time, they would ask us to sign something as a document to show that we were accepting notice from the police that we could go ahead with the procession. We were asked to do it during the process of the march. Not only would the police not stop us, but they would also give us the necessary facilitation, including closing down some of the roads in order to allow the crowd to pass through peacefully.

There were also many occasions over the last two decades where we gave notice to the police and invariably we would be given no notice of objection, which is the document of approval under the public order ordinance. We have never met with any difficulties in holding peaceful assemblies in the past until 2019, where there were several occasions of police and civilian confrontations leading to casualties.

In the middle of August 2019, the police began to give us objections to holding the procession. This is one of the special occasions when we were only given the approval to hold an assembly in a park. No approval was given to hold a procession outside the park. That immediately gives rise to the difficulty of a peaceful dispersion of the crowd.

The police acknowledged that the park was only big enough to accommodate about 80,000 people but they accepted our estimation that there would be over 300,000 or even half a million people prepared to attend the assembly. We got no choice but to arrange what we called the “water-flow” assembly. It meant that people would stay in the park for a while and walk outside the park on the procession to the Central where they would be dispersed.

However, the police came back and prosecuted us. There were two or three other occasions also about peaceful assembly and procession, where I together with others were responsible for organizing the processions. We did that because the police repeatedly refuse to issue the notice of no objection. People had to come out on their own.

When we urged them to come to join us peacefully and they responded. For that reason, I would be facing three other trials for illegal assembly or unlawful processions.

Question: We have been seeing a trend in Hong Kong since last year where the government and the police would intentionally pile a bunch of cases against particular individuals that they consider as having the ability to rally a big crowd to protest. Is this violating the judicial essence and spirit in Hong Kong? Do you think these are signs that Hong Kong’s judicial system is becoming more and more “mainlandized?”

Albert Ho: Unfortunately the answer must be yes. On the one hand, the police are now vigorously abusing their power to try to stifle our rights and freedom of assembly. Whenever there is any breach of the regulation, although the breach was in the form of very peaceful demonstrations, the prosecution will proceed to prosecute very vigorously, gathering all the evidence and pressing some conviction.

They would try to pursue a heavy sentence by taking the matter to appeal. They will bring the case to the appeal court to increase the sentence. That will lead to the appearance of what we called a quantum sentencing. Recently, there have been cases being taken to the high court where the prosecutors repeatedly urged the judges to impose heavier sentences for deterrence purposes.

In fact, they are trying to stifle freedom of assembly and freedom of procession. In some other cases, they even use the national security law to lock up people before trial. Many people were now locked up for almost an undetermined period of time depending on the completion of the police investigation. The reason for prosecutors to object to the application of bail is simply on the grounds that these people have been vocal and they have popular support. They showed an attitude that’s hostile towards the government.

Many activists are now being locked behind bars waiting for the completion of the police investigation. Even the charges are very shaky. Their evidence is also very flimsy. I believe the court is under tremendous pressure because there are also voices from the local pro-Beijing press that some people who can’t be sentenced under the local judicial system may face the risk of being taken back to China under the national security law.

All of this created a very chilling atmosphere. I won’t say that our judicial system has completely fallen apart because there are still judges who are professional and courageous. However, the pressure is tremendous.

Question: What would be your message to the younger generation in Hong Kong who is upholding basically the same dream and value as what you have been upholding over the last few decades?

Albert Ho: We are facing a very difficult time and the worse has yet to come. It’s something we have to realize. Hong Kong is our home and we love this place. We feel that we have the obligation to uphold the values embraced by the local society. We must stand firm on our conviction and belief and start with the basic things that we have to uphold, which is to speak the truth.

This is to allow us to live in truth and to speak truth against the power. We are not encouraging people to come out to confront the police and to deliberately breach the law by civil disobedience at every moment. We have to prepare to face certain legal consequences by speaking the truth and exercising our freedom of expression.

I know it’s difficult and I know many people will be scared. Yet, we have to protect this place and to protect the values that we treasure. Without these values, Hong Kong will no longer be the Hong Kong that we love and we have been embracing. We need to stand firm, do our duties as citizens and speak the truth and say no to whatever that we think it’s not right.

Question: For those who are already abroad or are planning to go abroad, what do you think their roles will be when a lot of the rights and freedom are disappearing in Hong Kong?

Albert Ho: I would just hope that all those people who love Hong Kong and with affection to Hong Kong will continue to have concerns over our present situation and our future. Also to speak the truth. The most important thing is to speak the truth, so people do know what is right and what is wrong. What is real and what’s false. I think that’s very basic.

There may be different ways for people to contribute or help Hong Kong people. It’s up to them to decide. We hope that we wouldn’t be left alone or completely isolated. I believe that people do care about Hong Kong and they will speak out for Hong Kong.

Part of this interview is published in Mandarin on DW’s Chinese website.