Stanley Chan Kwong-chi, a Hong Kong District Court judge, was philosophical when he concluded his verdict on the trial of a former opposition lawmaker and six other men on one charge of rioting at Yuen Long MTR station on the night of July 21, 2019.

In his conclusive remarks delivered in Chinese, he said “it is accidental that this case had happened during the course of the incident (the anti-extradition protests in 2019), but (it is) inevitable in the course of history.”

According to media reports, Lam Cheuk-ting, the former lawmaker and district councillor, and some defendants reacted with a wry smile to Chan’s thought-provoking words from the dock at the courtroom.

They were not the lone ones who were not surprised by the ruling, but were intrigued by the arguments by Chan.

Chan’s arguments

Chan ruled Lam and six men had taken part in an unlawful assembly at Yuen Long MTR station on July 21, 2019. Their deeds and words were found to have provoked another group of white-clad rioters at the scene, according to him.

Rejecting Lam’s defence that his intention was to manage the conflict and protect the public there, Chan said Lam had done the opposite, acting as an instigator rather than a mediator. He claimed Lam was intended to seek political gain.

The judge cited what he accepted as evidence including three posts on his social media account, live streaming and some provocative remarks at the scene.

First came the rioting by some white-clad people, Chan said the unlawful assembly involving Lam and the other six men and others had become another riot.

The evidence cited by Chan to substantiate his ruling will be the key issue of appeal if Lam and the other convicted men decide to do so before the appeal period expires.

A typical colour revolution?

But hardline pro-Beijing politicians and pundits cannot wait to hail the ruling and, more importantly, inflate its significance.

Chairman of the leftwing Federation of Trade Unions Ng Chau-pei threw his weight behind the verdict. He said the “7.21 incident” was masterminded by elements who “oppose China and disrupt Hong Kong” together with external forces. “It is a typical colour revolution,” he added.

Bastille Post, a Chinese-language pro-establishment online platform, said in a commentary the ruling by the District Court judge meant Hong Kong courts have finally given its verdict on the “7.21 incident,” which it said, was one of the key chapters of the 2019 “black violence” incident.

(Hong Kong officials and pro-Beijing politicians and media have often used “black violence” to describe the 2019 social movement, which started with protests against a now-shelved government bill on extradition before plunged into chaos.)

Based on Chan’s ruling, what has been generally seen as an “undifferentiated” attack by a fleet of white-clad men organised by rural forces on civilians, in particular those who wore in black, at and outside the Yuen Long station, has become just part of the “7.21” story.

The ruling of another rioting by the court has been seized on by pro-Beijing figures to justify their claim that the rural forces were mobilised to defend their “home” because the black-clad protesters had already started causing troubles there a few days before July 21.

In a nutshell, the convicted rioters from both groups, dressed in white and in black respectively, were now being blamed for the ugly clashes.

The hardliners in the pro-Beijing circle have gone even further to finger at the black-clad protesters for being the first who provoked the rural forces.

Hongkongers’ own verdict

The whole story of the “7.21 incident”, of which some crucial parts remain unclear, has become muddled – and more confusing and controversial.

It is politically naive, bordering wishful thinking, that Chan’s verdict will be accepted wholeheartedly by the supporters and sympathisers of Lam, the six convicted men and many others in the society as the authoritative verdict.

Rightly or wrongly, many Hongkongers have already given their own verdict after watching the footage at and near the Yuen Long station. The right side and the wrong side have been clear.

There is no doubt that what has come to light is only part of the truth of the Yuen Long attack incident.

Given its ruling that there were two separate but also related riots, the District Court ruling has again underscored the importance of a full independent inquiry into perhaps the most shocking and damaging clash between two groups of Hong Kong people in the history of the city.

 

▌[At Large] About the Author

Chris Yeung is a veteran journalist, a founder and chief writer of the now-disbanded CitizenNews; he now runs a daily news commentary channel on Youtube. He had formerly worked with the South China Morning Post and the Hong Kong Economic Journal.