A Hong Kong appellate court will rule within six months on a bid by former Stand News editor Patrick Lam to overturn his sedition conviction, following intense debate over whether an article published by the now-defunct media outlet stoked hatred against the authorities.

Lam was found guilty alongside his predecessor Chung Pui-kuen in August 2024 – a case widely seen as a blow to press freedom in Hong Kong. The case revolved around 17 articles published by Stand News in 2020 and 2021 that authorities deemed seditious. Trial judge Kwok Wai-kin ruled that 11 of those articles were proven to be offensive as they stoked hatred against the government in the wake of the 2019 protests and unrest.

David Ma, representing Lam, told three Court of Appeal judges on Tuesday that only one of the 11 problematic articles was published under Lam’s watch as acting editor-in-chief. Ma argued that the article – a feature report marking the second anniversary of clashes between police and students on the Chinese University of Hong Kong (CUHK) campus in November 2019 – was wrongly ruled as seditious by the trial judge.

He said the article featured interviews with two former CUHK students who were granted anonymity and recalled their “subjective feelings” during the November 2019 clashes. One interviewee was quoted as saying they felt “despair” after overhearing a police officer comment: “Let it burn down.” However, the trial judge relied on “hindsight” when ruling the article problematic.

Separate from the 2020 Beijing-enacted security law, the homegrown Safeguarding National Security Ordinance targets treason, insurrection, sabotage, external interference, sedition, theft of state secrets and espionage. It allows for pre-charge detention of up to 16 days, and suspects’ access to lawyers may be restricted, with penalties involving up to life in prison. Article 23 was shelved in 2003 amid mass protests, remaining taboo for years. But, on March 23, 2024, it was enacted, having been fast-tracked and unanimously approved at the city’s opposition-free legislature.

Authorities cited perceived foreign interference and a constitutional duty to “close loopholes” after the 2019 protests and unrest. The law however has been criticised by rights NGOs, Western states and the UN as vague, broad and “regressive.”

Prime Minister Albanese has announced that Australia will provide an additional $60 million in support for Ukraine following a high-level meeting with President Volodymyr Zelenskyy on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly in New York.

During the meeting, Albanese emotionally praised Zelenskyy’s leadership, referring to him as “my friend,” and signed a 10-year bilateral security agreement. The new support package allocates $45 million in ADF defense equipment, $10 million for Ukraine’s energy support fund, and $5 million in humanitarian aid. This brings Australia’s total commitments to Ukraine to $1.9 billion since the 2022 Russian invasion. The agreement also outlines long-term security cooperation, including enhanced military training and joint production initiatives for drones, missiles, and air defense systems.

Good Hope School, a well-known subsidized girls’ school in Hong Kong, has recently sparked widespread public attention and debate due to a graduation video production guideline. The online circulated document reveals that the school stipulated all narration and dialogue could only be in English or Mandarin, explicitly stating “Cantonese strictly forbidden,” and even warning that any Cantonese audio would be muted or required to be re-recorded. Subtitles were also required to use standard written language, not colloquial Cantonese.

The guidelines quickly triggered an online backlash, with critics questioning whether the school was improperly suppressing Hong Kong’s most important everyday language. Facing public pressure, Dr. Gary Harfitt, the principal of Good Hope School, issued a public apology to parents and students late at night, clarifying that the circulated document was an “unrevised draft” containing inappropriate wording and did not represent the school’s official policy. He emphasized that the school had absolutely not banned the use of Cantonese and fully affirmed the importance of both Cantonese and Mandarin in learning and daily life.

However, some graduates and current students pointed out that this is not the first time such restrictions have been imposed; previous students were also asked to remove Cantonese content at the end of their graduation videos. The Hong Kong Education Bureau expressed serious concern and immediately contacted the school to understand the situation, requesting the school to review the relevant arrangements to ensure smooth communication between students’ rights and the campus.