‘Hypocritical’: Hong Kong hits back at criticism of Joshua Wong’s sentence

The 10 countries criticized both Wong’s 10-year sentence and the wider use of Hong Kong’s National Security Law. They said his case, along with earlier imprisonments, showed the law was being used against political expression and participation. They called for prosecutions under the law to stop and for rights protected by the Sino-British Joint Declaration to be upheld.

Hong Kong’s government gave the opposite account. It stressed that Wong pleaded guilty to conspiracy to collude with foreign forces. The government said the courts followed legal rules and procedures, and sentenced him independently, impartially and on sufficient evidence. It also said the countries had interfered with judicial power.

The dispute is therefore about both one sentence and the law’s wider meaning. Foreign governments see political repression and rights violations. Hong Kong authorities describe a lawful national-security prosecution and say foreign criticism interferes in China’s internal affairs.

Hong Kong’s National Security Law is legislation used to prosecute conduct authorities consider threatening national security. The source does not provide its full legal definition or text. It does show that the law covers charges involving subversion and alleged collusion with foreign forces, and that it has been used in several opposition-related cases.

“Conspiracy to collude with foreign forces” means Wong was accused of planning cooperation with overseas actors to create pressure against China and Hong Kong. The article connects his case to a global campaign seeking sanctions and other adverse measures against mainland and Hong Kong officials. Wong pleaded guilty to this charge.

The charge matters because the same conduct is viewed differently by opposing sides. Hong Kong says prosecution protected national security and followed due process. The 10 countries say the law is being used to punish political expression. Wong’s sentence shows the serious consequences of the charge.

The criticism came from 10 countries: the United States, Australia, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, New Zealand and the United Kingdom. Their joint statement linked Wong’s sentencing with earlier imprisonments under Hong Kong’s National Security Law. They argued that these cases showed the law targeting political expression and participation.

Wong’s new prison sentence was 10 years. The High Court said he and Nathan Law had partly contributed to sanctions and other adverse measures against mainland and Hong Kong officials. Wong had already been serving four years and eight months for conspiracy to commit subversion.

The court ordered the remaining two months and two days of that earlier sentence to run concurrently with the new term. As a result, the new sentence did not simply add the full remaining period. His expected release date was nevertheless moved to November 2036, making the case a major point of international disagreement.

The connection rests on the campaign’s purpose and timing. Wong was sentenced for his role in a global campaign seeking sanctions against mainland China and Hong Kong after the 2019 anti-government protests. The campaign therefore reached beyond local protest and involved attempts to influence foreign governments’ actions toward China and Hong Kong.

The key mechanism was alleged international pressure. The High Court ruled that Wong and Nathan Law had partly contributed to sanctions and other adverse measures against mainland and Hong Kong officials. In the authorities’ view, those measures were not merely political speech; they harmed national-security interests. Wong pleaded guilty to conspiracy to collude with foreign forces.

This remains contested. Hong Kong treats the conduct as a national-security offence and says the court relied on objective facts and sufficient evidence. The 10 countries treat the prosecution as punishment for political expression and participation. The article does not detail the campaign’s individual actions or all evidence.

The Sino-British Joint Declaration was signed in 1984 by Britain and China, according to the name and date given in the article. The source does not explain all its provisions. It does show that the 10 countries regard the declaration as an international commitment connected to Hong Kong residents’ rights and freedoms.

Their joint statement invoked the declaration while calling for an immediate end to what they described as unjust prosecutions under the National Security Law. They said China and Hong Kong should uphold international commitments and honour rights and freedoms guaranteed to Hong Kong’s people. This placed Wong’s case within a broader legal and political framework.

Hong Kong’s government rejected that interpretation. It called the statement misleading and said Hong Kong affairs are purely China’s internal affairs. The disagreement therefore concerns whether the declaration supports outside scrutiny of local prosecutions, or whether foreign governments are improperly interfering with China’s domestic matters.

National-security prosecutions can affect more than an individual defendant. They can restrict political participation by making advocacy, protest leadership or cooperation with foreign actors legally risky. The 10 countries said Hong Kong’s law was being used to target political expression and participation, while the government said it was protecting national security through lawful prosecutions.

Wong’s case illustrates the possible consequence. He received 10 years for involvement in a global sanctions campaign and had an earlier subversion sentence. Separately, three former leaders of the Hong Kong Alliance were sentenced to as much as seven years and three months for inciting subversion after calling for an end to one-party dictatorship in mainland China.

The immediate effect is imprisonment and the removal of prominent opposition figures from public life. The wider implication is a reduced space for organised opposition and public protest. The article records the dispute, but does not predict future cases or state whether the prosecutions will continue.

The arrangement is commonly described as “one country, two systems”: Hong Kong remains part of China, while it has its own institutions and legal arrangements in specified areas. The article does not fully explain the arrangement or define every division of authority. It does establish the central dispute: Hong Kong calls its affairs China’s internal matters, while foreign governments invoke international commitments and local freedoms.

That tension reaches the courts. Hong Kong’s government says judges followed legal provisions and procedures, and imposed Wong’s sentence independently and impartially. The 10 countries say the National Security Law is being used to target political expression. They therefore challenge not only the outcome, but the broader operation of the law and its effect on public participation.

Foreign criticism is contested because it can be framed in two ways. Hong Kong sees interference with judicial power and sovereignty. Critics see necessary scrutiny of rights and promised freedoms. Wong’s case makes that unresolved authority question concrete.