Here are the key moments of the trial’s Day 13:

  • The prosecution’s reading of a protest slogan was based on a rigid and untenable approach, according to a journalism and communication studies professor.
  • The professor explained his research methods under cross-examination.

An academic testifying in defence of Hong Kong’s first national security suspect confidently declared on Wednesday that his research methods were more reliable than that of the police, citing multiple techniques he used to understand a disputed protest slogan.

Journalism scholar Francis Lee detailed his use of questionnaires, focus groups, phone surveys and discourse analysis — in effect giving the High Court an introductory lecture on social sciences. Taken together, his research showed complexities in Hongkongers’ use of the slogan “Liberate Hong Kong, Revolution of Our Times”, Lee said.

“My approach is reliable, following the standards of academic research, and relevant,” said Lee, director of the School of Journalism and Communication at the Chinese University of Hong Kong.

The defence team is using Lee’s studies to support its position that the slogan is “ambiguous and open to multiple interpretations” and, contrary to the prosecution’s case, not necessarily a call for Hong Kong independence.

Lawyers and university professors from both sides have debated the slogan’s exact meaning for more than a week at the trial of Tong Ying-kit, the first defendant under Hong Kong’s national security laws. About a year ago, Tong, 24, allegedly rammed his motorcycle into police while flying a flag with the slogan in question.

Tong denies charges of terrorism, inciting secession and dangerous driving, offences that can land him in prison for life. His case is heard by national security judges Anthea Pang, Esther Toh and Wilson Chan without a jury.

Journalism professor says his history counterpart has an inflexible understanding of language.

On Wednesday, Lee took issue with the theoretical basis of the prosecution’s case. The prosecutors’ expert witness, Lingnan University history professor Lau Chi-pang, had argued that words could not have different meanings for different people or it would be impossible to communicate. 

“I honestly have to say it is an untenable understanding of meaning and communication,” he said. “One fundamental problem is that it is somehow grounded in a theory of communication and meaning that is way too rigid.”

The journalism scholar also felt that Lau had an oversimplified understanding of the customary meaning of words, and did not pay enough attention to rhetoric. The Chinese phrase for revolution, gak ming (革命), could broadly indicate a big change instead of the ousting of a regime, he said by way of example.

“You have the customary meaning of the word, but you use it metaphorically in a different context,” Lee said. 

Lau’s key hypothesis was that the slogan had a singular meaning which was understood by everyone, but his argument was not supported by empirical evidence, Lee continued. Protest slogans had many dimensions and did not necessarily articulate a policy demand, he added.

Pressed to give an answer on the historian’s narrower interpretation of the slogan, Lee said he personally did not understand it that way. But he stopped short of saying his opposite number was mistaken.

“It is an open and ambiguous slogan. By definition, there is no single correct interpretation,” Lee said. “The question is not about correctness.”

The court gets a crash course on social sciences research methodology.

Lee’s research methods were subjected to the prosecution’s dissection for much of the day. Lead prosecutor Anthony Chau dug up an earlier instance of Lee providing expert evidence on public surveys in a separate protest-related case where the court eventually attached no weight to his findings.

Chau, acting deputy director of public prosecutions, suggested that a research report compiled by the police, which also used empirical methods to analyse the usage of the “Liberate Hong Kong” slogan, was in fact more reliable.

Lee laughed, saying: “Of course not.” That report had tallied the slogan’s appearances at protests and drawn a link to unlawful activities going on at the time, but “co-occurrence” was not conclusive proof of anything, he said. “I’m not saying the police don’t know how to count… The challenge I’m posing is about what the data really shows us.”

The court spent time looking into Lee’s methodology of employing focus groups, which divided 40 people into small groups and asked simple, open-ended questions about the slogan. 

Chau said he was concerned about researchers asking leading questions and pointed to a set of written guidelines co-authored by Lee. The scholar replied that Hong Kong independence was not a mandatory topic in the focus groups. That topic might come up naturally, or it might be introduced via a question posed by the discussion leader depending on the flow of the conversation, Lee added.

He admitted that some focus group participants drew a connection between the slogan and separatism. One said the catchphrase was a sign that “the city has fallen”, while another said it “indeed had a bit of a sense of Hong Kong independence in it”. Even so, the journalism scholar advised against jumping to conclusions. “Pardon my academic insistence on the complexity of language, but this is a very nuanced use of words,” he said. 

Lee’s other methods included representative sampling — which was applied to an on-site protest survey of more than 1,200 people on August 4, 2019 — and discourse analysis of around 25 million posts from the online forum LIHKG. The multiple research methods, both quantitative and qualitative, served as a form of “triangulation” to strengthen his position, he concluded.

The trial will continue on Thursday, which is expected to be its penultimate day.

Separately, the Court of Appeal ruled against Tong on Wednesday in his application to be compensated for legal costs incurred at the appeal stage of his failed judicial review. Tong’s challenge of the government’s decision to try him without a jury was “plainly unarguable” and should not be subsidised by the public, Judge Jeremy Poon wrote.

By Holmes Chan

 

Day 1: Hong Kong’s first national security suspect Tong Ying-kit goes on trial
Day 2: Police fired pepper balls at Tong Ying-kit’s speeding motorbike, court hears
Day 3: Role of police arm shield in Tong Ying-kit crash under question in court
Day 4: ‘I had a feeling’ Tong Ying-kit meant to flee after crashing, says injured policeman
Day 5: Tong Ying-kit’s slogan is about ‘taking back Hong Kong from enemy’, professor tells court
Day 6: Slogan creator Edward Leung wanted to ‘build a nation for Hongkongers’, court told
Day 7: Trial debates Tong Ying-kit’s perception of ‘Liberate Hong Kong’ slogan
Day 8: Lawyers caught unawares as slogan evidence can’t be found in middle of hearing
Day 9: Tong Ying-kit purposely avoided hitting police with motorbike: defence
Day 10: ‘Liberate Hong Kong’ slogan was about uniting freedom-loving people, political scientist testifies
Day 11: Hong Kong protesters flaunted colonial flag in 2010s. What does it mean today? court asks
Day 12: National security judges sceptical of using group discussions to interpret slogan