It has been coming for years, but the lights of democracy were finally extinguished in Hong Kong two weeks ago. Not only democracy, but its foundations; especially the rule of law. The dimming of the lights came with the jailing of 47 pro-democracy advocates by the new Chinese authorities.

They were charged in 2021 under the controversial National security law which had been imposed on Hong Kong by the Chinese Communist party. Two were acquitted earlier this year, but the other 45 were sentenced to imprisonment for between four and ten years. The judges, Andrew Chan, Alex Lee and Johnny Chan, had been selected by Hong Kong’s Chief Executive Officer.

The controversial national security law has been used by the authorities to punish dissent. It established four particular crimes of secession, subversion, terrorism and collusion with foreign organisations. The vague law – which was imposed by the Beijing regime – also includes as a crime any open speech, verbal support or intention that Hong Kong secede from China. The law has wide powers to allow surveillance of individuals and organisations.

The convicted group reflected a cross-section of the Hong Kong community. It includes well-known figures from the protests, student Joshua Wong and law professor Benny Tai, opposition politicians, Claudia Mo, Helena Wong, Kwok Ka-ki and Leung Kwok-hung. Others included an entrepreneur, a nurse and a journalist.

The eight women and 39 men had been accused by the regime of trying to overthrow the government by conducting an unofficial primary poll to select candidates for local Hong Kong elections. Most of the group either pleaded guilty or were convicted of conspiring to commit subversion. The group includes the Australian citizen, Gordon Ng.

While the trial of the 47 has concluded, the prosecution of entrepreneur and media owner, Jimmy Lai, continues. He was charged with treason after spending three-and-a-half years in jail. The high-profile entrepreneur and owner of the Apple Daily has already been prosecuted for ‘unauthorised assembly’ and for a trumped-up fraud allegation related to a lease violation. He was sentenced to five years in jail for the latter charge. The apparent aim of the regime appears to be to keep Lai in jail. This is standard; individuals are arrested, denied bail and imprisoned for years before a trial, the result of which is a foregone conclusion.

The regime has reversed long-standing practices, including the right to bail, trial by jury and the right to counsel of choice. Foreign lawyers have practised in Hong Kong for decades. But Lai’s British lawyers, including the KC, Timothy Owen, have been banned. The regime claims that they pose a national security risk. As well as being handpicked, the Hong Kong judges are subject to ‘interpretation’ of the law by Beijing.

The practices reflect the situation in mainland China where former insiders have revealed that a parallel party apparatus shadows the visible courts system. This shadowy party network provides the correct ideological advice to judges, lawyers and others in the legal system. Not that a so-called ‘justice system’ that insists that all legal personnel must study Xi’s Marxist ideology has any real connection with the rule of law in the West. A 98-to-100-per-cent conviction rate speaks for itself.

As one of Jimmy Lai’s British legal team, UK lawyer Jonathon Price told the BBC, ‘No properly functioning justice system should operate in an environment where there is a 100 per cent conviction rate, it can’t be right. It’s redolent of a sham democracy where a dictator claims to have 98 per cent of the popular vote.’

He says the fundamental rule of law has been extinguished in Hong Kong.

The laws purport to apply to individuals, whether they reside in Hong Kong or elsewhere. Just posting a social media comment, such as ‘I am a Hong Konger. I advocate for HK independence’, has led to convictions.

Jimmy Lai’s fate was determined when he was arrested. The 76-year-old is likely to be imprisoned for the rest of his life. He could have left Hong Kong as he has British residency rights, but chose to remain. The trial is a sham, just like the Hong Kong legal system. The political and legal rights that were meant to be guaranteed by the 1984 Treaty with the UK have been usurped by the CCP.

The events raise the issue of whether the remaining judges on the Final Court of Appeal should resign. The Court was established in 1997 to replace the Privy Council. A number of foreign judges have resigned from the body including the former Chief Justice of New South Wales, James Spigelman. More recently the British judges, Lord Robert Reid and Lord Patrick Hodge, said that they could not ‘continue to sit in Hong Kong without appearing to endorse an administration which has departed from political freedom and freedom of expression….’ That the decisions of the Court can be interpreted by the Chinese government, or even overturned by it, undermines its role. Indeed, a past secretary for justice called it a ‘semi-final court of appeal’.

The lights may continue to shine over Gloucester Road and the other major thoroughfares of the island and the shops continue to display their premium goods, but the spirit of this once vibrant city is being strangled. Some 100,000 people have departed since 2020. Many expatriates have returned home to be replaced by locals who are prepared to work under the totalitarian system.

Anyone who thinks that Taiwan would be treated any differently – should the CCP ever control the country – is deluded. The CCP under XI Jinping has a long record of breaching international and other agreements. Everything in China is subject to the strictures of the party. There is no division of power. Ultimately, power resides with Xi and his coterie who rule China.