Reference image: Protesters hold a legislative election day rally in Hong Kong. On September 6, 2020, riot police raised warning flags during anti-government protests in Hong Kong. Nearly 300 people were arrested during protests against the government&9;s decision to postpone the Legislative Council election due to the newly implemented National Security Law. (Photo by Anthony Kwan/Getty Images)
[People News] Guo Fengyi, a Hong Kong pro-democracy activist living abroad, has seen her father, Guo Xiansheng, charged by the Hong Kong government with 'attempting to handle the property of a fugitive' due to his involvement with her insurance policy. On February 11, he was found guilty by the West Kowloon Magistrates' Court and is scheduled to be sentenced on February 26. This case is the first instance of a family member of a wanted overseas Hong Kong citizen being charged with violating 'Article 23', further demonstrating the CCP's misuse of Article 23 to persecute Hong Kong residents.
The key issue in this case is the word 'attempt' in the charges. It appears that the National Security Law includes this peculiar crime. It is not about 'handling the property of a fugitive', but merely 'attempting' to handle it that constitutes a crime. What does it mean to attempt to handle? It means not actually handling it, but simply having the intention to do so, which is already considered a crime.
In ancient China, there was a concept known as 'punishing the heart', which refers to targeting the motives, intentions, or thoughts behind actions rather than specific criminal behaviours. In this case, Guo Xiansheng had not even started to deal with his daughter's insurance matters; he was merely preparing to do so. If the insurance company or government authorities did not permit him to proceed, they could simply refuse, and thereafter, Guo Xiansheng would have had no opportunity to act. So, where is the evidence of a crime?
The CCP's Article 23 disregards whether Hong Kong residents have actually done anything; it is sufficient that they intend to do something, and they are already guilty. This theory of punishing the heart is something that only the tyrannical officials and emperors of feudal times would engage in. The CCP, which claims to be a 'bright, correct, and great' party, reveals itself to be so 'great' indeed.
Is Guo Xiansheng authorised to manage his daughter's insurance matters? This is a contractual issue between him and the insurance company. If the contract permits it, Guo Xiansheng has the right to act; if it violates the contract, the insurance company can refuse. Consequently, Guo Xiansheng cannot intervene in the insurance matters afterwards; the insurance company is not required to report to the government, and the government has no authority to interfere.
Additionally, reports indicate that Guo Fengyi has never signed a policy transfer, meaning the policy remains under Guo Xiansheng's name. Since it is still in his name, he certainly has the right to manage it. The question of whether he has that right is solely between Guo Xiansheng and the insurance company, with no involvement from the government.
Moreover, even if Guo Fengyi is on the government's wanted list, the crucial issue for the court is whether Guo Xiansheng's handling of the policy is connected to Guo Fengyi's alleged 'criminal activities.' First, the money has not been sent to Guo Fengyi, and the necessary procedures have not been completed; he merely intended to submit an application. Second, even if Guo Xiansheng receives the money, how can the government ascertain that he will pass it on to his daughter? Can he not use it for personal enjoyment? Third, even if the money is transferred to his daughter, how can the government prove that it will be used for anti-communist purposes? As a father, if he is concerned about his daughter's financial struggles, is it not natural to send her some money to help her in a time of need? The government must demonstrate that Guo Fengyi used that money for activities violating Article 23; otherwise, where is the crime?
This case is fundamentally baseless, lacking any criminal facts and offering no means to ascertain a criminal motive. The so-called 'attempted handling of the property of fugitives' does not establish any criminal facts but instead focuses on alleged motives. The government has no authority to fabricate a nonexistent crime based on its own subjective assumptions about 'motive' and to frame an individual with an imaginary charge. Following this logic, the government could create any 'attempt' against anyone, allowing them to imprison that person at any time and place.
In summary, this is the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (HKSAR) government acting in accordance with the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) to punish Guo Xiansheng with unfounded charges, aiming to inflict psychological distress on Guo Fengyi and intimidate the people of Hong Kong. Their methods are despicable, their motives are reprehensible, and their mindset is twisted—none of which should be characteristic of a legitimate government.
The concept that when one person commits a crime,' the punishment extends to nine generations' is historically referred to as 'collateral punishment.' This harsh form of punishment, a remnant of the feudal era, originates from the ancient 'joint liability law,' which implies that if someone commits a crime, it will affect their family or associates like the intertwined roots of a tree. Such inhumane laws were completely abolished at the end of the Qing Dynasty in China, yet the CCP, with its self-proclaimed 'great, glorious, and correct' ideology, has the audacity to sift through historical detritus to resurrect the remnants of feudal emperors to 'enhance' its own image!
In democratic nations, laws are designed to protect citizens' rights and limit government power. Conversely, in authoritarian regimes, laws serve to uphold government authority while stripping citizens of their rights. Today, under the rule of the Chinese Communist Party, legislation, the judiciary, and law enforcement are all under the Party's control. The Party manipulates the law at will; as long as the people of Hong Kong resist its governance, the Party can wield the law as a weapon to trample on them, arresting and sentencing them at will—what kind of world is this? It is a world of evil and tyranny!
The illegal punishment of Mr Guo Xiansheng by the Chinese Communist Party is akin to a sword dance aimed at Liu Peigong, intended to inflict suffering on Miss Guo Fengyi. This is widely known. Miss Guo Fengyi has accused the Communist Party of its wrongdoings abroad, which has elicited a strong response in democratic countries. The Party is deeply angered by this but feels powerless to retaliate, so it resorts to punishing Miss Guo's father to express its inner resentment. This psychological distortion reflects a fundamental flaw of the Communist Party, a paranoid peasant party.
The Communist Party's malicious actions against an innocent citizen also serve to intimidate the people of Hong Kong, implying that anyone who opposes the Party will face endless physical and mental anguish. This fate extends not only to the individual but also to their friends and family. The severity of charges and penalties for guilt by association is entirely at the discretion of the Communist Party and has nothing to do with any legitimate legal framework. This encapsulates the essence of the Communist Party's so-called rule of law and reveals the true nature of its barbarism and tyranny that prevails globally.
In traditional Chinese culture, there is a clear distinction between benevolent governance and harsh governance among rulers throughout history. Benevolent governance treats the people as if they were its own children, while harsh governance views the populace as adversaries. The ancients even claimed that harsh governance is fiercer than a tiger. Today, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) embodies this harsh governance in China, trampling on its citizens as a means of exercising power, fully exploiting their authority, and disregarding legal principles and ethical standards. With tools of dictatorship at their disposal, they can certainly engage in numerous wrongful acts, but as the saying goes, 'Heaven sees what people do,' and ultimately, divine justice will prevail in judging right from wrong for humanity.
Under the guise of law, they implement collective punishment in practice, concealing their dark intentions behind the facade of law enforcement. This encapsulates the essence of the Guo Xiansheng case. Recognising this reality sheds light on what the CCP's socialism with Chinese characteristics truly entails, clarifies the nature of the 'one country, two systems' policy, and underscores that a regime that opposes its people will inevitably be overthrown by them.
Originally posted on (author's Facebook) △
News magazine bootstrap themes!
I like this themes, fast loading and look profesional
Thank you Carlos!
You're welcome!
Please support me with give positive rating!
Yes Sure!