In Hong Kong, 47 people involved in organizing the July 2020 democratic primary have been charged with “conspiracy to subvert”. The case was referred to the Supreme Court in July. Judgments could come in March. The maximum penalty is life imprisonment. 29 have now pleaded guilty and 18 have pleaded not guilty.
With the reporting ban finally lifted, records of what happened during the trials are now becoming public. In it, some of the defendants ironically say, “For love of my country, I plead guilty.” Another proclaims, “I have no intention of pursuing a hopeless litigation,” and then, growing louder, “I confess, I confess, I confess!”
But there are also indications that some witnesses for the prosecution have become. They have turned against the other parties involved for a lighter sentence. I can’t quite reconcile the idea of former comrades-in-arms divulging information and collaborating with the authorities.
I thought we all knew the consequences of fighting for human rights and freedom in Hong Kong – what it means to stand up to Beijing and face reprisals and persecution from the regime. Cooperation with the Hong Kong government goes against everything we stand for.
It is quite possible that some were forced to cooperate by threats. I sincerely hope that they will cooperate involuntarily. I’ve read a lot about internal conflicts within freedom movements.
When someone turns against the others, whether voluntarily or involuntarily, trust within the groups breaks down; it pits the parties against each other. It made me angry too. But the real question is: How do we deal with it when something like this happens? How do we make sure this doesn’t undermine the movement?
It’s a classic moral dilemma. And there are no right or wrong answers. Our decisions reflect only our own values. Whether we sympathize with those who we believe are making the wrong decisions, or whether we angrily reproach them, both are fine. And precisely because there is no black and white solution, it is so frustrating.