…argued on Tuesday that calling for an end to “one-party dictatorship” in mainland China did not mean ousting the Communist Party from its leading role under the state’s constitutional framework.
“The Communist Party can hold power, but the people should be able to choose their government,” he said on the first day of his oral testimony at West Kowloon Court.
Lee also suggested that one-party rule contradicted the constitution’s preamble, which provides for “multiparty cooperation and political consultation” under the party’s leadership.
“It is our wish that by ending one-party dictatorship, people can fully exercise their rights under the constitution,” he added.
…Lee dismissed prosecutors’ contention that the alliance used “so-called democracy” as an excuse to vilify the party.
…Lee Cheuk-yan said police had never openly stated that the alliance was a threat to the country’s safety before the present case, or cited national security grounds in banning its annual vigils.
Ultimately, this all comes down to expression of an opinion. But National Security courts have government-picked judges, no jury, and a near 100% conviction rate.
Chow Hang-tung’s statement arguing for early acquittal in the HK Alliance trial. From Brian Kern’s intro…
It’s worth stressing that, having been in prison since September 2021, she has prepared her entire defense, including this statement, from inside of a prison cell, without the aid of a word processor or the internet.
…Ultimately, what Hang-tung is portraying is two almost entirely clashing world views. According to one, citizens truly are the masters of the nation and are without question free to discuss their government and constitute it as they see fit. According to the other, it is only a supreme power entirely above the law which has the authority to dictate to its subjects what is permissible to say and do in relation to matters of governance.
In this sense, it can be said that while Hang-tung’s statement is primarily intended to address the matter at hand in the trial, it can also be read as a “statement to history,” raising issues that get straight to the heart of the political status of Hong Kong as well as freedom and human rights.
…From a political and ethical perspective, Hang-tung is saying, Of course, citizens have the right to freedom of expression. This includes expression related to matters of governance. And not only that, they have the right to choose their own political leaders. So the whole premise of the prosecution’s case is absurd; in fact, it is a perversion of the rule of law.
The whole thing is worth reading, though she perhaps unnecessarily/unwisely strays into subjects like the CCP’s non-status in Hong Kong and its treatment of Uyghurs. From the conclusion…
(76) The prosecution’s entire case is riddled with holes and leaks everywhere. Regardless of what actions the defendant incited; what methods were involved; the nature and consequences of those actions; or the defendant’s intent, the prosecution either lacked any evidence or presented no coherent facts, merely jumping between the most convenient statements available at the moment. Even though I have analyzed the prosecution’s core accusation—assuming “ending one-party rule” equals “ending the leadership of the Communist Party”—the court can see that the prosecution has still failed to prove any element of a crime.
(77) Most importantly, whether it’s “ending one-party rule” or the prosecution’s use of “ending the leadership of the Communist Party,” that is a goal that every Chinese person has the right to pursue. The prosecution tried very hard to make this goal something completely unthinkable and impossible, but they simply couldn’t find any reasonable legal or evidentiary basis.
(78) Ultimately, the fact that the Party doesn’t want anyone to talk about ending one-party rule doesn’t mean the law doesn’t allow it. The prosecution has completely failed in proving that the law “doesn’t allow it.” Throughout the prosecution’s arguments, they have been constantly subtly changing the meaning to disguise the Party’s will as law. They have changed meaning to effect, opposition to violation, motive to intent, and even mainland law to Hong Kong law.
Convincing? The NatSec court didn’t think so and rejected the application for early acquittal, and that of Lee Cheuk-yan. The trial continues today.
This is not a NatSec case, so who knows – he might not end up in prison. Or does a Wen Wei Po ‘soft resistance’ accusation tip the balance? …
Pong Yat-ming appeared at the Kowloon City Magistrates’ Courts on Thursday to stand trial for allegedly managing an unregistered school after he held a Spanish course at his bookstore, Book Punch, in April last year.
…The bookstore owner testified on Thursday that before running the Spanish course, he had researched online and come across then-education secretary Kevin Yeung’s comments in 2017 that interest classes, such as those teaching dance and acting, would not require school registration “because they are interests.”
…Founded in 2020, Book Punch, located in Sham Shui Po, occasionally runs talks and workshops related to social issues and current affairs.
Last year, Beijing-backed newspaper Wen Wei Po accused Book Punch and other bookstores of engaging in “soft resistance” over an independent book fair they were organising.
The term “soft resistance” has come to be used by Chinese and Hong Kong officials as a phrase referring to threats to national security, but they have not been specific about what it means.
For anyone who doesn’t know who this person is, look no further than the Standard in August 2024: ‘Andrew Tate placed under house arrest as new human trafficking allegations emerge involving minors’…
The Tate brothers, both former kickboxers and dual British-U.S. citizens, are already awaiting trial in Romania in a separate human trafficking case along with two Romanian women. Romanian prosecutors formally indicted all four last year.
In the new case, Romania’s anti-organized crime agency DIICOT said it is investigating allegations of human trafficking, including the trafficking of minors, sexual intercourse with a minor, forming an organized criminal group, money laundering, and influencing statements. The alleged crimes date between 2014 and 2024.
Romanian prosecutors for some reason eased off, and they left for the US by private jet to the US. From the Guardian in February 2025…
The pair are outspoken supporters of Donald Trump, and several members of the US president’s inner circle have spoken out publicly against their treatment, including Donald Trump Jr who described their detention as “absolute insanity”.
…one of Tate’s lawyers, Paul Ingrassia, is the White House liaison official for the US Department of Justice.
…The US vice-president, JD Vance, has appeared on a pro-Tate podcast.
The brothers are now in Hong Kong, staying in a luxury suite at the Rosewood and mingling with social-media followers in Lan Kwai Fong. People are wondering why Hong Kong authorities admitted the pair and whether they are here as part of promotional efforts (Asia’s pedophile tourist hub!). Also – why the Rosewood seems happy to have them as guests.
Andrew posted a photo of himself and Tristan on a luxury boat in Victoria Harbour on X on Sunday, while other posts showed the brothers visiting the Lan Kwai Fong nightlife district and a crab restaurant in Causeway Bay.
A video he posted a day earlier showed him singing alongside a dozen Asian women as his brother looked on.
…The Immigration Department declined to comment on individual cases
(Do you mean ‘sad-looking karaoke session with a bunch of bored Mainland hookers’? The link, if you must.)
It’s hard to imagine the Hong Kong tourism PR folk seeing any benefit by engaging with an avowedly racist and misogynist ‘influencer’ (they surely do some sort of checks when they sponsor these Instagram bores). It’s perhaps more believable that the Immigration Dept does not have the pair on its stop list. The authorities seem more fixated on national-security ‘absconders’ and foreign political and media critics. And the city’s top leadership today is perhaps not as worldly as its predecessors, and quite possibly have never heard of Tate, whose fan base largely comprises inadequate teenage boys.
The pair are wanted in the UK. Although Britain suspended its extradition treaty with Hong Kong following the passage of the NatSec Law in 2020, the city’s government could presumably still – if it wanted – deport the brothers as undesirable, on a plane to Heathrow (economy class). That would be a ‘good Hong Kong story’.
As for the Rosewood – maybe New World really needs the money.
Lingua Sinicareport on Chinese diplomats in France complaining about a Taiwanese-German play showing at a Strasbourg theatre…
When theater director Barbara Engelhardt did not respond, the deputy consul general wrote directly to the City of Strasbourg, the theater’s principal funder, demanding the show be cancelled on the grounds that it would harm Sino-French diplomatic relations.
…It employs documentary theater to simulate the opening of a Taiwanese embassy — describing Taiwan as a country whose international recognition is inversely proportional to its economic importance.
I’m sure the production is grateful for the publicity – it doesn’t exactly sound like King Lear, The Importance of Being Earnest or Death of a Salesman.
Mayor Jeanne Barseghian said she responded by reaffirming France’s protections for artistic freedom…
The Chinese government … defends it as crucial for promoting “modernisation through greater unity” and calls it the law for “Promoting Ethnic Unity and Progress”.
It lowers the status of other languages at the expense of Mandarin; encourages intermarriage between the dominant Han Chinese and other ethnicities by prohibiting moves to restrict this; requires parents to “educate and guide minors to love the Chinese Communist Party”; and, in a sweeping generalisation, prohibits any acts seen as damaging to “ethnic unity”.
…In its analysis of the new law, the China Power Project quoted Communist China’s founder Mao as saying: “We say China is a country vast in territory, rich in resources and large in population; as a matter of fact, it is the Han nationality whose population is large and the minority nationalities whose territory is vast and whose resources are rich”.
It’s true that although some minority ethnic groups, like the Uyghurs, number in millions, they are still dwarfed by the number of people recorded in the census as being Han, who make up more than 90% of Chinese citizens.
But when you look at the homelands of Tibetans, Uyghurs and Mongolians, these massive areas are rich in mineral resources and important for agriculture and they count for a significant proportion of the country’s entire land mass.
Throughout history these groups have had periods of independence from China. They live in vast border regions with exposure to foreign countries. They not only speak their own languages but have their own distinct scripts for writing.
Indeed. And, at times in history, China has had periods of independence from Mongolia and Manchuria.
The Law’s political salience is also evident in two atypical features. First, it begins with a rare narrative preamble of over 800 characters. Only three statutes now include a preamble: the closely related Regional Ethnic Autonomy Law [民族区域自治法] and the Basic Laws of Hong Kong and Macao. Second, the Law uses Party-speak drawn from the “Twelve Musts” as the headings of three core chapters (II–IV): “Building a Shared Spiritual Home,” “Facilitating Interactions, Interchanges, and Intermingling,” and “Promoting Common Prosperity and Development.” Far from being descriptive and dry, as headings typically are, they incorporate key prongs of Xi’s doctrine and organize the Law around them.
For your viewing pleasure… Shaw Brothers’ YouTube channel – lots of free, gloriously trashy movies from the golden era of Hong Kong cinema. I remember an interviewer asking Sir Run Run which – of many hundreds – of his movies was his favourite. He instantly replied, ‘the one that made the most money’.
Lee Cheuk-yan and Chow Hang-tung continue to argue for acquittal in their subversion trial…
Defence counsel Erik Shum, representing Lee, told the court on Wednesday that the prosecution must establish that calling for an end to one-party rule is tantamount to toppling or undermining the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) leadership.
For 30 years, the Alliance’s call for ending one-party rule was intertwined with its advocacy for democratisation in China, Shum said, adding that China could become a democracy in the future through further constitutional amendment.
“Even if the prosecution can prove that ending one-party rule means ending the CCP’s leadership, it does not automatically become overthrowing or undermining its leadership,” he said. “This is a quantum leap.”
He also argued that China’s top state organs, including the National People’s Congress, could still operate without the CCP’s leadership.
…Chow, a barrister representing herself in the trial, argued that the court must consider human rights protections when reviewing whether the Alliance had incited others to commit subversion.
The Alliance’s slogans fell within a Chinese citizen’s legitimate demand for choosing the country’s leadership, she told the court.
“This is a goal which every Chinese national has the right to pursue,” she said. “The prosecution is trying to make this goal an unspeakable, unthinkable, and forbidden one, but they cannot provide any legal basis.”
In response, prosecutor Ned Lai argued that even a future constitutional amendment cannot change China’s fundamental socialist system under the CCP’s leadership.
How can an abstract idea be – as Chow puts it – ‘unspeakable, unthinkable, and forbidden’? How can merely calling for a change in the constitution be illegal?
Valiant Immigration Dept sleuths arrest 20 people in a crackdown on (presumably Filipino or Indonesian) foreign domestic helpers. Among them are…
…two domestic workers and one visitor … in Central during [a] sweep of footbridges and tunnels on Sunday, a day when most domestic workers are on their weekly day off.
Fu Chit-ho, a senior immigration officer, said that the three were suspected of setting up cardboard stalls or tents to provide massages and manicure services to other domestic workers, Ming Pao reported.
Sweep of footbridges and tunnels keeps city safe from cardboard stall menace! They were charging HK$50, and the customers would be other helpers – a sight familiar to anyone who lives in Hong Kong. Now the taxpayer pays for their incarceration, their employers are massively inconvenienced – and the women themselves subject to a harrowing experience presumably culminating in deportation. Meanwhile, feel free to park your SUV on a pedestrian crossing anytime you want.
In a similar absurd vein, police arrest a man for using an electric bike – perfectly normal and legal in most cities in the world…
Officers on patrol spotted the man riding an electric mobile tool on a road and stopped him for inspection. Following a preliminary investigation, the man was arrested on four charges: “driving an unregistered vehicle,” “driving without a valid driving license,” “using a vehicle without third-party insurance,” and “riding without an approved protective helmet.”
…Police reiterated that electric mobile tools are not suitable for use on roads, pavements, or cycle tracks alongside regular vehicles…
Lee Cheuk-yan and Chow Hang-tung seek early acquittals on subversion charges relating to their role in the HK Alliance. From HKFP…
Barrister Erik Shum, representing Lee Cheuk-yan, argued on Monday that prosecutors erred in saying that there are no “lawful means” to call for an end to the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) rule.
…“If there exists a lawful method to end CCP’s leadership, then the prosecution will lose its entire basis,” Shum told the court in Cantonese.
He cited Articles 62 and 64 of the Chinese constitution, which stipulate the mechanism by which the top decision-making body, the National People’s Congress, can amend the constitution.
While the Alliance had never explicitly called for an amendment, Shum said the group also did not outline an action plan for ending one-party rule. “It was merely a slogan and never a call for action,” he said.
In today’s Hong Kong you can, of course, be sent to prison for a slogan. But this raises a broader question: at what point do NatSec laws end and freedom of expression begins? Are people allowed to discuss the possibility of CCP rule coming to an end?
Chow Hang-tung – a barrister in her own right – argued that China’s constitution does not have direct effect in Hong Kong, and that prosecutors and judges lack a full understanding of the logic of the Mainland legal system (hence her request to call an expert witness)…
…She said the prosecution had adopted a broad reading of the constitution and had erred in alleging that she had directly breached it.
The constitution “certainly is applicable to Hong Kong, but that does not mean it can be directly implemented as law,” she said in Cantonese. She called it a matter of “direct effect,” referring to a legal principle allowing a law to be directly enforced in a local jurisdiction.
…Chow said that expert testimony was needed as the prosecution had not called an expert to interpret the Chinese constitution. All issues concerning the interpretation of the constitution “remain in a state where no evidence has been given,” she said.
The Jamestown Foundation looks at Beijing’s white paper Realizing National Security Under ‘One Country, Two Systems in Hong Kong, released the day after Jimmy Lai’s sentencing a month ago…
The 2026 white paper endorses the narrative that Hong Kong posed a national security threat to the PRC well before the 2019 anti-extradition movement. …the document asserts that the origins of this threat can be traced to resistance against the proposed Article 23 national security legislation in 2003… From the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) perspective, the failure to enact that legislation created structural vulnerabilities that enabled subsequent waves of mass mobilization.
The white paper links the 2003 setback to later protest movements, including the 2012 campaign against national education, the 2014 Umbrella Movement, the 2016 “Fish Ball” unrest, and the 2019 anti-extradition bill protests.
The inclusion of this narrative signals that mainland authorities now retrospectively characterize the 2003 mass mobilization—when more than 500,000 people protested the proposed Article 23 legislation—as a threat to national security. This reinterpretation stands in tension with the fact that the protests were widely regarded at the time as a lawful exercise of freedoms of expression and political participation protected under the Basic Law.
By framing the 2003 protests as security risks, the white paper recasts Hong Kong’s long-standing democratization efforts and defense of civil liberties as destabilizing forces. Through this revisionist account of post-handover social movements, the document provides ideological justification for Beijing’s hardline turn…
The report also mentions the timing of the white paper’s release and its concerns about critics and activists among the Hong Kong diaspora overseas.
Today’s guest star: Country Joe McDonald, who died a couple of days ago. Obits aren’t mentioning it much, but in later years he was a noted authority on Florence Nightingale.
There’s nothing we like more than seeing a property speculator having to cut his asking price, preferably by a lot…
Known colloquially as the “Ten Billion Shop King” for compiling one of the city’s largest caches of street shop and retail properties over the last three decades, Lai Wing-to has agreed to sell 9-11 Staunton Street for HK$105 million ($13.4 million), according to records filed with the city’s Land Registry last month.
…Lai, who had listed the property at HK$200 million in a sale effort in January 2024, is offloading the asset at a 47.5 percent markdown.
It’s a crumbling six-floor walk-up. OK – so he still made a profit…
…Lai bought the property in 2009 for HK$71.8 million, according to Land Registry records.
But that isn’t always the case…
…Lai sold [a] six-storey 1967-vintage property at 132 Sai Yeung Choi Street South [Mongkok] for HK$62 million ($8 million), parting with the asset for nearly 40 percent less than what he paid in 2009.
(Back in the old days, before there was a Mid-Levels Escalator or a ‘Soho’, I was once strolling to the office in Central past that Staunton St building one morning when a black kite swooped down onto a window ledge and instantly soared away with a pigeon, leaving only an explosion of feathers. The adjoining building has a nunnery – half a dozen shaven-headed devotees apparently oblivious to their area’s 30-year cycle from inner-city semi-slum to mega-gentrification to an overpriced, hollowed-out mass of ‘For Rent’ signage. I pretty much ignored it myself, though I do miss the annual Worst Restaurant in Soho Awards.)
Jimmy Lai’s former right-hand man Mark Simon has some advice for the US President (or for that matter any world leader, CEO, university head or Pope who thinks China will answer all their economic or corporate problems)…
We need someone in the Trump administration to walk into the Oval Office and give it to the President straight: China doesn’t have what the U.S. needs.
Yes, the Chinese economy “pitch deck” makes mouths water. The sales narrative jumps of the page; “Global manufacturing hub,” — “1.4 billion customers,” are what the Chinese government wants President Trump to focus on. But if you actually looked at the books—the real ones, —you’d see a series of dark alleys, that while not transparent to the outside world, look suspiciously like a tailspin. Beijing just set its 2026 growth target at a humble 4.5%–5%.
…the country is filled with “ghost cities” and millions of middle-class families paying mortgages on unfinished “apartments.” When your primary asset is a hole in the ground that won’t be finished until 2029, you aren’t exactly in the mood to go out and buy U.S. beef.
…If we are waiting for a Chinese middle-class spending spree to save American agriculture, manufacturing, or even services, we are waiting for a ship that has already hit the reef.
In Japan Times, an International Women’s Day op-ed from activist Frances Hui…
Denied bail, [Chow Hang-tung] continues to challenge Hong Kong’s authorities even from prison, most recently by bringing a judicial review against a dress code that forces female inmates to wear long trousers even in brutal summer heat, while men can wear shorts. In January 2026, a male judge dismissed her legal challenge as baseless and ordered Chow to pay all costs.
The symbolism is hard to miss: Hong Kong, under Beijing’s tightening grip, insists on regulating women’s bodies, even behind bars, in ways it does not impose on men.
…When women rise to visibility, the CCP sexualizes us to undermine our competence. In 2023, the Hong Kong government put a 1 million Hong Kong dollar ($128,000) bounty on my head, along with other overseas pro-democracy activists. The Beijing-controlled authorities accused us of “inciting secession” and “collusion with foreign forces” under Hong Kong’s draconian National Security Law, a crime that can carry a sentence of life in prison.
…But there is also a deep misogyny in this assault on my liberty. As a woman activist now living abroad and targeted by the Hong Kong government, I have lost count of the comments attacking my appearance, calling me derogatory names and reducing me to sexual insinuation. The implication is clear: A woman who rises to relevance must have slept her way there and is little more than a sexual object.
An interesting account, translated from a Mainland blog, entitled ‘My Spring Festival trip back home hit differently this year’. As the intro puts it, the author….
…describes a local economy where casual work has dried up, wages feel under pressure, and many low-skilled workers face increasingly precarious ways of getting by.
She also notes the impact of the surplus of men to women…
…Last year, I didn’t hear of any weddings in the village at all—except for one cousin of mine, who married a Vietnamese wife. The bride price was something like 200,000 to 300,000 RMB [$28,996-43,494]. She is now pregnant and due soon.
…there have been cases where the [Vietnamese] woman took the bride price and disappeared. Some stayed long enough to have a child, and then still ran off. Parents grind for years, saving every last bit, and in the end, it all goes down the drain on their son.
…Even so, plenty of people are so desperate to get married that they’ll take the risk and pay anyway. Standards have dropped too: fine, if she runs, she runs—just leave a baby first to carry on the family line, and then at least the bride price won’t have been “for nothing”.
Of course, most single men who don’t have money have largely stopped expecting they’ll ever marry. The older generation has also given up hoping. Anyway, when bachelors are everywhere, it doesn’t feel shameful anymore.
That was Hunan. My Spring Festival visit was to Foshan, which was largely devoid of women, men and children, apart from delivery drivers zipping around the empty streets on mopeds. The most puzzling thing was the bathroom in the fairly decent middle-class apartment block I stayed in: toilet on left and shower on right. So far, so normal…
The national security trial of Bill Yuen and Peter Wai in the UK gets underway…
The two men, who hold dual British and Chinese nationality, are accused of agreeing to undertake information gathering, surveillance and acts of deception likely to materially assist a foreign intelligence service between December 2023 and May 2024.
…Prosecutor Duncan Atkinson KC said the defendants received requests from people connected to the Hong Kong Police and Hong Kong authorities to gather intelligence about overseas Hongkongers for whom the territory’s government had issued bounties.
Messages between the defendants show one of the surveillance targets was prominent pro-democracy activist Nathan Law, the court heard.
…The Old Bailey case concerned the defendants and their associates “taking the law into their own hands and acting as if the UK law was of no relevance”, Atkinson added.
…Atkinson said Wai and Trickett were paid for their activity directly by the Hong Kong economic and trade office.
…He told the court that the gathering of such intelligence appeared to have coincided with measures by Hong Kong police to extend their reach beyond the jurisdiction of the territory.
“The defendants engaged in shadow policing operations on behalf of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, and thereby the People’s Republic of China,” prosecutor Duncan Atkinson told the jury.
They gathered information about “persons of interest” to Hong Kong and undertook surveillance, as if they were entitled to “when no such entitlement existed”, he added.
Wai also posted information about HK protestors in a WhatsApp group called Eagle Point Human Resources Company. He discussed w/ former HK cop Eddie Ma “infiltrating” a group called “Hongkongers in the UK.” Ma referred to HKers in the UK as “cockroaches.”
…In all, evidence was presented that Yuen & Wai were tasked w/ surveilling at least 4 HKers for whom the HK natsec police issued natsec arrest warrants & bounties: Nathan Law, Christopher Mung, Finn Lau & Tony Choi. [Also mentioned: Frankie Leung, Lee Wing-tat and YouTuber Tony Choi.]
…A big question: who were the 2 former HK cops working for? [Former HK cop] George Lee was for an unspecified period “seconded to the Security Bureau of HKSAR as Government Security Officer.” Was the HK Security Bureau behind this espionage operation?
The prosecution’s case sounds… quite spicy.
Nikkei Asia (paywalled) takes a stroll around the HK Museum of History. Sounds like a must-see attraction for tourists…
A tour of it now begins in what is known as the National Security Exhibition Gallery, where groups of schoolchildren on field trips are taken through its halls. The exhibit was created to commemorate, explain and — crucially — celebrate the NSL on the fifth anniversary of its imposition. Beijing’s goal in imposing the NSL was to ensure that the 2019 protest wave would be the last of its kind. The move was, therefore, in some senses a final conquest of Hong Kong, and the exhibit is evidence of the completion of this process.
…The exhibit dominates a museum that, before 2020, celebrated Hong Kong’s distinctive past and vibrant civil life. It even had the People’s Republic of China’s only museum allusion to the 1989 Tiananmen protests, through reference to local support for that struggle. In the current main exhibit, though, the focus is on a unified national history. The halls are full of artifacts — from national flags to objects from the past — presented as proving that Hong Kong was always meant to be and is now firmly integrated into China. The allusion to Tiananmen is gone, and the 2019 protests are denigrated, their suppression extolled as restoring order to a city that an allegedly foreign-backed “color revolution” had nearly destroyed.
The exhibit features film footage of street clashes, selectively showing crowd violence, never the police violence that was much more extensive. It goes into painstaking detail regarding the supposed necessity of the legislation and the new structures created to enforce it. There are instructions on plaques advising visitors to be vigilant and report suspicious activity to appropriate bodies — a bald self-advertisement of a surveillance state.
Chung Biu “Bill” Yuen, 65, and Chi Leung “Peter” Wai, 38, are alleged to have carried out surveillance on Hong Kong pro-democracy campaigners claiming asylum in the UK.
They are charged with offences under the National Security Act.
Yuen is a former Hong Kong police officer who was working for the Hong Kong Economic and Trade Office in London, while Wai was working for the UK Border Force, was a volunteer Special Constable with the City of London Police and used to work for the Metropolitan Police.
…Opening the case for the prosecution, Duncan Atkinson KC said that Wai had misused Home Office and police computer systems to conduct searches for personal gain.
This included gathering information about people from Hong Kong claiming asylum in the UK and at one point he was being paid £2,000 a month, according to the prosecution.
…Among those the pair allegedly targeted was Monica Kwong, who has been accused of fraud by her employer Tina Zou. She says the accusation is false and she had been “set up”.
According to the prosecution, Yuen and Wai “undertook surveillance on her address, as if they were a legitimate UK police operation”.
Atkinson told the jury the men decided “to force their way into Monica Kwong’s home as if they were a legitimate police operation”, at which point the UK police, who were watching, intervened.
The jury heard that Yuen holds British and Hong Kong passports. He is employed by the Hong Kong Economic and Trade Office (HKETO) in London as an office manager and is the third most senior person there.
I don’t suppose the Hong Kong authorities will rush to comment.
It’s not unusual to read about NatSec cases for two days in a row – except that these are both from the UK. In the next one, British police arrest three men on suspicion of spying for China. Two are partners of current or former Members of Parliament…
In a Commons statement, Dan Jarvis, the security minister, confirmed that the arrests related to China and said he could give no further details so as not to risk the police investigation.
“I can also confirm this relates to foreign interference targeting UK democracy,” Jarvis said. “If there is proven evidence of attempts by China to interfere with UK sovereign affairs, we will impose severe consequences and hold all actors involved to account.”
…he hinted that those arrested were connected to MPs by saying that people should realise that foreign powers would not just target politicians but those close to them.
Scottish Labour MP Joani Reid has said “I am not part of my husband’s business activities” after three men were was arrested on suspicion of spying for China.
Reid said she has “never seen anything” to make her suspect her spouse, David Taylor, has broken any law.
…”I am not part of my husband’s business activities and neither I nor my children are part of this investigation, and we should not be treated by media organisations as though we are.
“Above all I expect media organisations to respect my children’s privacy.”
Reid added that she had never been to China nor had she ever spoken on any China-related matters in the House of Commons.
“…As far as I am aware I have never met any Chinese businesses whilst I have been an MP, any Chinese diplomats or government employees, nor raised any concern with ministers or anyone else on behalf of, even coincidentally, Chinese interests.
“I am a social democrat who believes in freedom of expression, free trade unions and free elections. I am not any sort of admirer or apologist for the Chinese Communist party’s dictatorship.”
…The Met said the three arrests and subsequent search activity were supported by counter-terror police in Wales and in Scotland.
