A reflection on the eve of sentencing by Man Ling Lai, Former Chairperson of the General Union of the Hong Kong Speech Therapists 

2 mins read

Man-ling Lai, the former Chairperson of the General Union of Hong Kong Speech Therapists, was sentenced to 19 month in jail after convicted of sedition over publishing children’s book.

She has prepared the below petition letter and planned to read out in the court on 10 September, 2022 before the court handed down the sentencing. The judge interrupted her speech saying the speech was a “political declaration”.


by Man-ling Lai

(Translated from the Chinese version)

Today is 7 September. Three more days until the sentencing. I would like to share my reflections on the case. The five-day trial and the 13 long months of remand have been inspiring. The whole trial can be concluded with one question: “How free is freedom of speech?”

On one hand, it asks how free we are, and whether freedom has boundaries. On the other, it asks whether free speech comes with a cost. What is the price of free speech?

The prosecution believes that national security is a prerequisite for free speech. However, is restricted freedom still freedom? The prosecution even cited extreme examples of terrorism to justify the need to restrict freedom of speech.

For me, even if there are restrictions on freedom, they should not be political red lines. I will defend your right to speak, even if I disagree with your views. Even though we come from different standpoints, and I cannot understand your point of view, we can agree to disagree – but not to silence people with a crime. Historians could have different perspectives on reading a historical event. They could have various interpretations. However, a single correct interpretation does not exist.

The children’s book uses the metaphor of sheep and wolves to illustrate facts. What is the so-called “correct view of history”? A story is meaningful when 100 readers come up with 100 interpretations, none of which is the model answer. A story fails if it has only one interpretation, because then it fails to stimulate the reader’s imagination.

You can put us on a trial, but you cannot judge what had happened in 2019.

This case today is not prosecuting just the five people standing here, but the social movement in 2019 and the core values that have supported the social movement, including democracy, human rights, and justice.

If we still believe the rule of law is not dead, and that we have chosen to debate in the court to break and push back the boundaries to free speech, we must also remember that Hong Kong’s Basic Law protects our human rights, including the freedom of speech, the freedom of the press, and the freedom from fear.

The law should be the shield to safeguard the people, not a weapon for the regime to target dissidents. When freedom of speech only applies to telling a “good” Hong Kong story but not a “true” Hong Kong story, is that really freedom of speech?

I knew my case had no chance of winning. I knew it from the day I was arrested. I could get a one-third reduction of my sentence if I plead guilty. But I have chosen not to. I firmly believe in what I said, and I am willing to pay the price of exercising my freedom of speech. I am standing firm, even as I am going to lose this case. And I lose with no regret.

《判刑前的一段感言》前香港言語治療師總工會主席 黎雯齡  

3 mins read

五名前香港言語治療師總工會成員因出版兒童繪本被控煽動罪成,於9月10日各被判囚19個月。判刑前,工會主席黎雯齡於庭上發表以下陳情,但其言論被法官指為政治宣言而遭打斷,以下為陳情信全文。 


《判刑前的一段感言》

前香港言語治療師總工會主席 黎雯齡  

今日係9月7日,仲有3日就判啦。我想講下自己對此案嘅反思同感悟,喺5日嘅審訊入面,以及13個月以來還押嘅漫長等待,令我獲益良多,有好多體會。 

總結成個審訊,係一個問題: 

“How Free is Freedom of Speech?” 

一方面指有幾自由,即有冇界限;另一方面係指係咪免費,即講完洗唔洗付出代價,控方認為言論自由嘅前提係唔能夠抵觸國家安全,但有限制嘅自由仲係咪自由呢?控方甚至引用一啲恐怖分子嘅極端例子去證明言論自由須有限制。 

於我而言,即使有限制,亦唔應該係政治紅線,即使我唔認同你嘅觀點,亦會捍衛你嘅說話權;即使立場唔同,我不能理解你嘅觀點,但和而不同,而唔係用罪名將人噤聲。 

一件歷史事件,唔同歷史學者由唔同角度切入都可以有唔同理解,但冇一個係絕對正確。 

書用羊同狼嘅比喻去演繹,都係對於事實嘅解讀,有冇所謂「正確歷史觀」呢?故事嘅意義就係100個人可以有100種解讀,冇一個標準答案。如果只有一種解讀,呢個故事係失敗嘅,唔能夠激發讀者想像。今日呢單案,檢控嘅其實唔只五個人,而係2019年嘅社會運動,同埋背後支撐嘅核心價值:民主、人權、公義等。 

你哋可以審判我哋,但你哋唔可以審判2019年曾經發生嘅事。 

如果我哋仍然相信法治未死,而選擇在庭上用思辯去擊倒言論自由嘅界限,我哋應該要記得基本法保障我哋嘅人權,包括言論自由、出版自由、免於恐懼嘅自由。 

法律應該係保護人民嘅盾牌,而唔係政權用嚟對付異見者嘅武器:言論自由只適用於講「好」香港故事,而唔適用講「真」香港故事,有選擇性嘅自由仲稱得上係自由嗎? 

即使由被捕當日起已知呢場官司喺零勝算,都唔打算認罪換1/3刑期扣減,因我確信我講嘅事係真嘅,甘願為自己行使言論自由付出代價。就算輸,都係企係到輸,我輸得問心無愧。