Edward Leung Tin-kei, one of the chief culprits of the Mong Kok Riot in the night of the Lunar Chinese New Year two years ago, was sentenced to six years in prison at the High Court yesterday. Two other defendants in the same case were given jail terms of seven years and three and a half years respectively. These are the heaviest sentences handed down hitherto in trials of the Mong Kok Riot cases.
Edward Leung and Ray Wong Toi-yeung, now a fugitive in bail-jumping, both are leaders of the radical organisation - Hong Kong Indigenous. Leung played a commanding role in the Mong Kok Riot, and also took the lead to use violence. Mong Kok Riot is a large-scale unlawful assembly and violent incident rarely seen for many year in Hong Kong with law enforcers as the targets of assault. The wildness in ignoring the rule of law and damaging public order during the riot is very shocking. Therefore, penalties must tally with the nature of the crimes and serve as a warning against following the bad examples. The six-year-imprisonment sentence given to Edward Leung by Judge Anthea Pang Po-kam is well-founded and accurate in measurement of penalty. Leung has got his just deserts. And the penalty also must have a sufficient deterrent effect.
Nevertheless, after Leung was sentenced, the opposition has criticised in unison that "the penalty is too heavy". They assert that six years in prison are too long and far-fetch in the 1967 Incident and the riot of Vietnamese boatpeople in Whitehead detention centre in 1989. And they express their worry that the Public Order Ordinance would be used for "political suppression" from now on, and so on and so forth.
By making such reactions, the opposition ignores facts and stand facts on their heads with an aim to divert public attention and to solicit sympathy for Edward Leung and other defendants in law-breaking and violence so that they could have their prison sentences commuted or get away with it. As a matter of fact, the Mong Kok Riot is very serious in nature, and Edward Leung's criminal offences are factual. The judge has decided the penalties in accordance with the law after weighing up all testimonies and evidence, hence there is no such thing as being "too lenient" or "too heavy". In fear of losing votes, the opposition dares not to openly support unlawful violence so they have to avoid touching the nature of the case and thus can only make a fuss over the lengths of the jail terms. Such an approach is very sneaky and irresponsible.
As for their argument to relate Leung's six-year-imprisonment to the 1967 Incident, it is completely far-fetched nonsense. The 1967 Incident in essence is British colonialists' bloody crackdown on patriotic compatriots with a large number of bare-handed workers, students and clerks being killed, injured or thrown into dark jail. How can the Mong Kok Riot, which was aimed at opposing the government and obstructing universal suffrage in accordance with the law, be mentioned in the same breath with the 1967 Incident? How can Edward Leung's violent behaviour be mentioned in the same breath with that of the patriotic compatriots years ago? Have Alan Leong Kah-kit and his ilk completely lost their sense of righteousness in order to absolve Edward Leung?
As a matter of fact, Edward Leung and other young defendants in the Mong Kok Riot are not personally the "Big Evil". Some of them are from broken families and were not well fostered and cared for in their childhood; some others did not perform well in school so they had to enter into society early but could only take jobs like shop-boys or apprentices or even remain jobless; still some others are young students like Edward Leung who think in their own conceit what so-called "ideal for democracy" is above everything else and thus flout the law to go against the government and establishment. For Benny Tai-Yiu-ting and his ilk, these "babes in the woods" and young people with extremist thinking are the right objects for brain-washing and to be made use of as "sacrificial straw dogs". "Shrewd guys just talk and let foolish guy act". Benny Tai and his ilk only need to wag their tongues, and these young people would rush to the streets to Occupy Central and riot in Mong Kok and eventually end up in jail. But Benny Tai and his ilk can not only continue to lecture as professors but also earn rewards from their masters such as the U.S. National Endowment for Democracy (NED). They can reap both fame and fortune, so why not do it?
It is understandable that young people are enthusiastic and inclined to act in impulse, but it is absolutely not tolerable for and indulgent toward violent and law-breaking behaviour. Edward Leung may well use the six years behind bars to reflect on how on earth he has ever taken this wrong path of breaking the law and making trouble in Hong Kong.
12 June 2018
