[People News] Hong Kong pro-democracy activist Guo Feng-yi, now overseas, had her father Guo Xiansheng charged by the HKSAR government with the “offense of attempting to deal with a fugitive’s property” for handling her insurance policy matters. On February 11, the West Kowloon Magistrates’ Courts found him guilty, and he will be sentenced on February 26. This case is the first in which the family member of a Hong Kong person wanted overseas has been charged with violating “Article 23.” It is yet another clear proof of the CCP’s abuse of Article 23 to persecute Hong Kong people.

The crux of this case lies in the word “attempting” in the charge — it turns out the National Security Law contains such a bizarre offense. It is not “dealing with a fugitive’s property,” but merely “attempting” to deal with it that already constitutes a crime. What counts as attempting to deal with it? It means no actual dealing has taken place; one merely intends to deal with it, and that already makes one guilty.

In ancient China there was the so-called “attack-the-heart doctrine,” meaning one does not target a concrete act or offense, but instead targets the motive, intent, or state of mind behind an act — and deems that alone a crime. Guo Xiansheng had not even begun handling his daughter’s insurance matters; he was only preparing to do so. If the insurance company or the authorities did not permit him to handle it, they could simply refuse. After that, Guo Xiansheng would have had no way to do anything at all — so where is the criminal fact?

The CCP’s Article 23 means that regardless of whether Hong Kong people have done anything, as long as you want to do something, you are already committing a crime. This kind of “attack-the-heart” reasoning is something only the cruel officials and emperors of the feudal era would do to torment the people. The Party that calls itself “great, glorious, and correct” turns out to be “great” in exactly this way.

Whether Guo Xiansheng has the right to handle his daughter’s insurance policy is a contractual matter between the insurance company and Guo Xiansheng. If the contract allows it, he has the right; if it violates the contract, the insurance company has the right to refuse. After that, Guo Xiansheng has no way to intervene in that policy matter. The insurance company does not need to report to the government, nor does the government have any right to interfere.

Moreover, according to reports, Guo Feng-yi never signed a policy transfer. That is to say, the policy is still under Guo Xiansheng’s name. Since it is still in his name, of course he has the right to handle it. Whether he has the right or not is between Guo Xiansheng and the insurance company, and has not the slightest thing to do with the government.

And even if Guo Feng-yi is a person wanted by the government, whether Guo Xiansheng’s handling of the policy is related to Guo Feng-yi’s “criminal activities” is the key that the court should face squarely. First, the money was not remitted to Guo Feng-yi, and in fact none of the procedures were completed — it was only an intention to submit an application. Second, even if Guo Xiansheng obtained the money, how could the government determine that he would transfer that money to his daughter? Couldn’t he take it to travel for pleasure? Third, even if the money were transferred to his daughter, how could the government determine that the money would be used for anti-CCP purposes? As a father, if he worries that his daughter is living in difficulty and, out of family affection, remits some money to help her through a tight spot, isn’t that perfectly normal? The government must prove that after Guo Feng-yi received the money, she used it for activities that violate Article 23; otherwise, where does the crime come from?

This is a case that fundamentally cannot stand. There are no criminal facts, and the criminal motive cannot be determined either. The so-called “offense of attempting to deal with a fugitive’s property” is not a finding of criminal fact, but a finding of criminal motive. The government has no right, on the basis of its own subjective speculation about “motive,” to frame someone with a trumped-up charge. By this bandit logic, if the government wants to deal harshly with anyone, it can fabricate an “attempt,” pin it on someone, and then throw them into prison anytime, anywhere?

In a word, this is the HKSAR government, acting on the CCP’s intent, punishing Guo Xiansheng with a baseless charge in order to inflict psychological pain on Guo Feng-yi and thereby intimidate Hong Kong people. The means are despicable, the motive is vile, and the psychology is twisted — none of this is something a normal government should have.

When one person “commits a crime,” and guilt is extended to the nine kin groups, history calls it “implication” or “collective punishment.” It is a harsh feudal-era penalty inherited from the ancient “joint liability” system, meaning that one person’s crime spreads like intertwined tree roots to family members or related persons. This inhuman evil law was thoroughly abolished as early as the late Qing dynasty — yet the Party so “great, glorious, and correct” actually rummages it out of history’s trash heap and picks up the stale spittle of feudal emperors to “glorify” its own household!

In democratic countries, the law is used to protect citizens’ rights and restrain the government’s power. In authoritarian countries, the law is used to safeguard the government’s power and strip citizens of their rights. In today’s Hong Kong under CCP rule, legislation is the CCP, the judiciary is also the CCP, and law enforcement is even more the CCP. The CCP toys with the law and does as it pleases. As long as Hong Kong people refuse to submit to CCP rule, the CCP can use the law as a weapon to trample Hong Kong people at will — arrest when it wants, convict when it wants. What kind of world is this? This is a demonic, perverse way!

The CCP’s unlawful punishment of Mr. Guo Xiansheng is “wielding a sword at Xiang Zhuang while aiming at Liu Bang” — the real target is to inflict pain on Ms. Guo Feng-yi. Everyone knows this. Ms. Guo Feng-yi has accused the CCP’s evil acts overseas and has sparked strong reactions in democratic countries. The CCP both loathes this deeply and is helpless to stop it, so it can only vent its inner resentment by punishing Ms. Guo’s father. This psychological distortion and perversity is precisely the congenital defect of the CCP as a stubborn peasant party.

The CCP commits this evil act against an innocent citizen, and its purpose is also to intimidate Hong Kong people — implying that anyone who becomes an enemy of the CCP will bear endless physical and mental pain; not only the individual, but friends and relatives will not be spared. As for how severe the implicated charges and penalties are, that lies entirely within the CCP’s whims, and has not the slightest thing to do with any so-called law. This is the essence of the CCP’s so-called rule of law, and the true face of how the CCP roams the world with barbarity and brutality.

In traditional Chinese culture, rulers of successive dynasties were distinguished between benevolent governance and harsh governance. Benevolent governance loves the people as its children; harsh governance treats the people as enemies. The ancients said harsh governance is more fierce than a tiger. What the CCP practices in China today is harsh governance, taking trampling the people as its business. With power in hand, it uses it to the fullest, treating legal principle and human ethics as nothing. It has tools of dictatorship in its hands, and of course it can do all the evil it wants — but man acts while Heaven watches, and in the end Heaven will judge right and wrong for the human world.

Using the name of law to carry out the reality of collective punishment, hiding a dark heart under the guise of law enforcement — this is the substance of the Guo Xiansheng case. Understand this, and you will understand what the CCP’s “socialism with Chinese characteristics” is; you will understand what the “one country, two systems” trick is; you will understand that a regime that makes enemies of the people will, in the end, be overthrown by the people.

Reposted from (the author’s Facebook) △