This week in Hong Kong, the trial of the former leaders of the Hong Kong Alliance in Support of Patriotic Democratic Movements of China – Lee Cheuk-yan, Albert Ho, and Cheung Man-kwong, accused of “inciting subversion,” has attracted widespread attention. Last Sunday, a rally held at the June 4th Memorial Museum in Los Angeles drew hundreds of supporters. Participants pointed out that the trial of the three individuals on charges of inciting subversion is unjust legally and morally.
The rally was organized by the June 4th Memorial Museum, the Los Angeles Hong Kong Forum, and co-organized by the Democratic Party of China Western USA Branch. Many renowned scholars, artists, lawyers, leaders of the 1989 democracy movement, and former Hong Kong Legislative Council members spoke either in person or via video, openly petitioning the Hong Kong court and providing testimony that the actions of the three cannot constitute incitement to subvert state power, urging the court to handle the case objectively based on facts and law, free from political pressure.
Lee Cheuk-yan, Albert Ho, and Cheung Man-kwong, former leaders of the disbanded Hong Kong Alliance in Support of Patriotic Democratic Movements of China, were arrested on charges of inciting subversion in September 2021 and have been detained for over four years. While Cheung Man-kwong was briefly released on bail for health reasons, Albert Ho and Lee Cheuk-yan have been denied bail multiple times, with the trial being postponed several times.
The Hong Kong Alliance, established in 1989 until its dissolution in 2019, held an annual candlelight vigil in Victoria Park to mourn the victims of the Tiananmen Square massacre. Following the enactment of the National Security Law in Hong Kong in 2020, the Alliance voted to dissolve the following year. However, the three individuals were prosecuted for activities organized before the implementation of the National Security Law.
Invited speaker Professor Wu Guoguang from Stanford University was unable to attend in person but had his 3,000-plus-word statement partly read by former Hong Kong journalist Cheng Xiang. Professor Wu Guoguang argued from the perspective of the logic contained in the Chinese Constitution, stating that the charges of inciting subversion against the three individuals are baseless and prosecuting them on such grounds violates the Chinese Constitution.
In response to a Hong Kong High Court judge’s statement that “any attempts to end one-party rule are considered unconstitutional,” Wu Guoguang cited the preamble and relevant provisions of the Chinese Constitution to dispute such a claim, emphasizing that it lacks constitutional basis. He criticized the remark as a serious challenge and subversion of Hong Kong’s rule of law and the Chinese Constitution since it presupposes China’s political system as a “one-party rule.”
Wu Guoguang highlighted that the Chinese Constitution does not label China as a “one-party rule” and explicitly states that “the system of multiparty cooperation and political consultation will exist and develop for a long time.” Therefore, a judge making such statements either lacks knowledge of the Constitution or intentionally distorts and fabricates its content.
After interpreting the law, Wu Guoguang emphasized that categorizing “ending one-party dictatorship” as “inciting subversion of state power” reflects a lack of historical knowledge. He concluded that exercising judicial power based on such unconstitutional claims and actions is illegal. He further noted that the Hong Kong High Court lacks the authority to interpret the Constitution and cannot rely on statements made by Chinese National People’s Congress delegates from Hong Kong; the power to interpret the Constitution lies with the National People’s Congress and its Standing Committee.
Renowned sinologist and UC Riverside Distinguished Professor Perry Link expressed his admiration for Li Cheuk-yan and Albert Ho, although he had not met Cheung Man-kwong. Link shared four impressions of Cheung: compassion, honesty, adherence to principles without compromise, and universality in upholding values.
Link cited a statement from Cheung Man-kwong during his court defense, where she challenged: “What crime is committed by lighting a candle in the park?” and questioned how she could violate any law in a place where freedom of speech is claimed to exist. Regarding the prosecution under the National Security Law for activities organized before such laws existed, she questioned if one could break a law that did not yet exist.
Through a video link, lawyer Chen Chuangyuan provided a defense for the three individuals. He argued that the Alliance’s call to end one-party rule does not violate the Chinese Constitution, as it outlines a “people’s democratic dictatorship” where the state power belongs to the entire populace, not solely a single party’s leadership.
Chen Chuangyuan stated that the Alliance’s advocacy against one-party rule aligns with the “people’s democratic dictatorship” without challenging socialism or subverting state power, therefore not conflicting with the fundamental principles of the Constitution. Suppressing their activities, he claimed, violates the Constitution.
He clarified that the concepts of political parties and state power are distinct in law: state power encompasses administration, legislation, the military, and more, while political parties are just one component of political engagement alongside individuals and other parties. Therefore, opposing a single party, particularly the Chinese Communist Party, does not equate to opposing state power.
Even according to the Communist Party’s assertions, its leadership position is based on the past rather than being immune from challenge or criticism. Chen Chuangyuan stressed that people can propose alternative ideas and political changes through lawful means, including constitutional elections, without conflicting with the Constitution.
Chen Chuangyuan emphasized that the Alliance, as a legal organization, should receive recognition and protection under Hong Kong law and the Chinese Constitution. He argued that their past activities, including rallies and gatherings, were exercises of the free speech and association rights outlined in the Constitution. The organization’s beliefs do not infringe on the Constitution, avoid incitement to violence, lack criminal acts or motives, and refrain from advocating for the overthrow of the current regime.
In summary, Chen Chuangyuan stated that the Hong Kong prosecution’s charges do not align with legal principles, emphasizing that any state’s punishment of citizens must be based on clear and specific legal provisions rather than broad and ambiguous legal interpretations.
Participants in the rally included leaders of the 1989 democracy movement and witnesses, including Wang Dan, Director of the June 4th Museum, Wang Chaohua, Assistant Professor at the University of Southern California, Fang Zheng, President of the China Democracy Education Foundation, and Zheng Cunzhu, Chairman of the China Democratic Party Headquarters.
They expressed gratitude for the Hong Kong Alliance’s over three decades of compassion and sense of justice demonstrated through their June 4th commemorative activities, viewing it as a natural manifestation of societal civilization and human moral sentiments.
Fang Zheng, President of the China Democracy Education Foundation, who attended the 1989 vigil in Victoria Park, highlighted the orderly conduct of the event without any violence or disturbance to public order. He noted that the annual June 4th memorial gatherings in Hong Kong have historically received official approval.
He remarked that the grounds for charging Li Cheuk-yan, Albert Ho, and Cheung Man-kwong with incitement to subvert state power lack factual basis and offered to provide testimony in court if necessary.
During his statement, Wang Dan read out his public testimonial in support of the three individuals. He emphasized the need for the court to judge based on facts and historical understanding, and not solely rely on the narrative from those in power.
Looking back at history, Wang Dan stated that he understands Hong Kong’s longstanding commemoration of June 4th not only out of sympathy for the victims but also as a firm stance against a regime that crosses the bottom line of killing people.
He affirmed that all activities of the Alliance were transparent, focusing on public discourse through speeches, writings, and assemblies, unlike secretive violent organizations. They operated in Hong Kong independently without external control, driven by the community’s intrinsic moral sentiments. Mourning the victims of June 4th is part of civilized society, he added.
Wang Dan remarked, “From what I know and have seen, such descriptions of them as foreign agents or violent organizations are unfounded.”
He stated, “I have not seen Cheung Man-kwong lead the Alliance towards violence or illegitimate actions. On the contrary, she followed a clear line of publicly preserving memories, expressing opinions as a citizen, and peacefully raising social awareness.” According to Wang Dan, these actions typify how Hong Kong has become a civic society.
He highlighted that advocating for the end of one-party rule is a legitimate and constitutional right that should be protected, emphasizing that the suppression of their activities violates the constitution.
Therefore, Wang Dan concluded by urging the court to evaluate the case fairly, listening to the perspectives of those involved in the June 4th events and understanding how history extends to Hong Kong, rather than solely hearing the authorities’ narrative.