Elderly woman charged with displaying seditious publications outside flat, remanded at psychiatric centre

A 61-year-old woman has been charged with displaying publications intended to incite sedition outside her home in Tin Shui Wai, Hong Kong. The defendant, Yang Chau-kei, appeared at West Kowloon Magistrates’ Courts on Monday to face the first mention of her case. Prosecutors allege that she placed materials with seditious intentions, including on her apartment door, living room window, and building corridor, between March and November 2024, with the aim of provoking hatred towards Hong Kong authorities and the state established by the Chinese Constitution.

According to the court document, Yang chose to represent herself, declining the services of a duty lawyer assigned to defendants without legal representation. Wearing a black top and face mask, she repeatedly stated in Cantonese, "I did not break the law, they framed me," when questioned by Chief Magistrate Victor So. The magistrate expressed concern about Yang's mental state and inquired whether she had a history of psychiatric treatment or sought help before.

The prosecution confirmed that Yang had no prior record of psychiatric care. After considering the matter, So adjourned the case to September 21 to allow time for the prosecution to obtain psychiatric reports to determine if Yang is fit to enter a plea. She was subsequently remanded in custody at Siu Lam Psychiatric Centre. If convicted, Yang faces up to seven years of imprisonment under the local security law, which is separate from the 2020 Beijing-enacted Safeguarding National Security Ordinance.

This law targets treason, insurrection, sabotage, external interference, sedition, theft of state secrets, and espionage. The ordinance allows for pre-charge detention of up to 16 days, with restricted access to legal counsel and potential penalties of up to life imprisonment. The new Article 23 was fast-tracked and unanimously approved in the city's opposition-free legislature in March 2024, a move criticized by rights NGOs, Western states, and the UN for its vague, broad, and regressive nature.

Authorities, however, defended the law as a response to perceived foreign interference and a constitutional duty to "close loopholes" following the 2019 protests and unrest.