Hong Kong court recently ruled that the Alliance’s slogan “ending one-party rule” constituted “inciting subversion of state power,” sparking international outcry as the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) has never acknowledged itself as a one-party rule.
Experts believe that this case is actually a trial of the CCP, asserting that the ruling indirectly judges the CCP as a one-party rule. The judges also left a “trap” in the verdict to maintain “self-defense space” for future changes.
The pro-democracy group, the Hong Kong Alliance in Support of Patriotic Democratic Movements of China, founded in 1989 and forced to disband in September 2021, along with its last three leaders — Lee Cheuk-yan, Albert Ho, and Chow Hang-tung — were convicted of “inciting subversion” on August 21 by the Hong Kong High Court under the national security law imposed by the CCP, based on a 206-page judgment.
The prosecution argued that “end” and “overthrow” have the same meaning, so advocating to “end one-party rule” is equivalent to “overthrowing the fundamental system of the state and the central government,” and “overthrow” includes unlawful means (not necessarily involving force), thus necessarily involving “subversion of state power by unlawful means.”
According to the national security law, this charge carries a maximum sentence of 10 years. Lee Cheuk-yan, 69, and Chow Hang-tung, 41, have been detained for nearly 5 years, while Albert Ho, 74, has been in custody for over 4 years (granted temporary release due to illness).
On August 28, the court heard pleas from the three defendants regarding sentencing, and is expected to announce the verdict within two weeks. Albert Ho had previously pleaded guilty, and if he is sentenced at a lower level due to “less severe circumstances” and combined with mitigated sentencing for pleading guilty, he may be released at the time of the sentencing.
Director of the Taiwan Democratic Academy, Johnson Tsang, stated to Epoch Times that the court’s judgment on the Alliance was “very bizarre” because mainland China’s textbooks and constitutional scholars do not equate “CCP leadership” with “one-party rule” or “one-party dictatorship.” However, the court interprets “ending one-party rule” as “ending CCP leadership,” which is actually judging the CCP as a one-party rule.
The CCP has never acknowledged itself as a one-party rule, and has historically even “opposed ‘one-party rule’.” In 1945 before founding the People’s Republic of China, the CCP demanded the “immediate abolition of the Kuomintang’s one-party rule and the establishment of a democratic coalition government.”
After the founding of the PRC in 1949, the CCP claimed that the “new China” was a “people’s democratic dictatorship led by the Communist Party.” Subsequently, the CCP proposed the concept of “multi-party cooperation and political consultation under the leadership of the Chinese Communist Party,” and officially incorporated this concept into the preamble of the constitution in 1993.
The CCP constitution states that the CCP is the “highest political leadership.”
In the 2021 White Paper on China’s Democracy, the CCP explicitly states that China “has no opposition parties or parties in power rotation,” but that it is “neither a one-party rule nor a multi-party competition with rotation in power,” rather it is “led by the Communist Party and where multiple parties cooperate, with the Communist Party in power and multiple parties participating in governance.”
Johnson Tsang stated to Epoch Times, “The court’s ruling is authoritative, and it has a legal binding and political impact on how Hong Kong society views what constitutes ‘CCP leadership.’ This authoritative court ruling establishes that the current CCP leadership is a one-party rule, therefore, to end one-party rule means to overthrow CCP leadership. However, the CCP does not allow anyone to challenge its authority, thus the expression ‘ending one-party rule’ is seen as ‘overthrowing CCP leadership, overthrowing the People’s Republic of China.'”
Overseas commentator Tang Jingyuan told Epoch Times that the Hong Kong court’s ruling is reminiscent of a “Soviet-style joke.”
“If the CCP claims it is not a one-party rule system, then the Alliance’s political goal of ‘ending one-party rule’ is not unlawful,” Tang said. “Now it’s as if, with this ruling, they’ve explicitly told everyone that the CCP is indeed a one-party rule, so when the Alliance proposes to ‘end one-party rule,’ it’s directly deemed as wanting to ‘end CCP leadership,’ which is seen as ‘subverting CCP’s regime.’ Therefore, the Hong Kong court basically, through legal documents, proves or certifies the CCP as a one-party rule.”
Tang believes that behind this “absurd” ruling in the case of the Alliance, it is because the CCP has always been cunning, saying nice words while doing bad things.
“It’s clearly a one-party rule, very authoritarian, but on the surface, to deceive society and the international community, it tries every possible means to find excuses to embellish itself,” Tang said. “Xi Jinping even calls this ‘whole process democracy,’ creating a ‘logical trap’ for himself.”
Johnson Tsang also criticized that the CCP’s regime is “harsh inside but weak outside,” and “it doesn’t dare to openly oppose universal values, so it talks the talk while walking a different path, or shifts concepts, saying that China has its own ‘democratic concept,’ its own ‘concept of human rights,’ different from the West’s.”
“It deceives everyone, all based on beautiful rhetoric, but in reality, it’s one-party rule, now turning into individual dictatorship, followed by strict social control, monitoring society and the people, established through state violence and the fear of the people; hence, it’s a very hypocritical regime,” Johnson Tsang added. “The CCP’s ‘whole process democracy’ is starting at the political layout under the party’s control from the beginning.”
Tang Jingyuan added, stating that the regime sustains itself through two pillars: “violence and lies.” Based on this foundation, the CCP has formed a “very evil habit,” where it can do as it pleases, but if you speak out, you are deemed as subverting state power, threatening national security, and they can easily label you with a crime.
The CCP has introduced the “core socialist values,” with one of the values being “democracy.” However, Tang Jingyuan pointed out, “This ‘democracy’ can only be defined by the CCP. The CCP can insert the word ‘democracy’ into its so-called ‘core values,’ even post it as slogans everywhere, but if an ordinary person really takes to the streets and says ‘we want democracy,’ if you dare to say that out loud, you immediately ‘threaten national security,’ you immediately ‘suspect subverting this regime,’ this is where the CCP ‘does all bad things while talking all the good talk.'”
“The CCP not only does all bad things, but it also flips the right and wrong upside down, trying to paint a ‘great, honorable, and moral’ image for itself using this method, so the judgment of the Hong Kong court on the Alliance can be said to be a very typical example of this,” Tang Jingyuan concluded.
Since the CCP does not officially acknowledge itself as a one-party rule, Johnson Tsang believes that interpreting “ending one-party rule” directly as “ending CCP leadership” is logically not sound, as there should be a logical reasoning link. However, the 206-page judgment of the Hong Kong court did not “further explain, deduce, or argue” this point.
“This is a political judgment, and it is a decision made under the highly political will of the party-state and the Chief Executive, because if they didn’t rule in this manner, these judges would not qualify to serve as judges under the national security law in the future,” Johnson Tsang explained.
However, on the other hand, Johnson Tsang believes that under this political pressure, the judges are also “acting in self-defense.”
“This is a highly political ruling, so the judges left highly flawed and vulnerable points in the verdict. I think this is a ‘trap,’ because they did not fully argue – why does ‘one-party rule’ equal ‘CCP leadership’? And why does this link to ‘subverting state power’?” Johnson Tsang said.
“I believe these judges are also very clever, knowing how not to defy the higher authorities. But, because they are so smart, they have left these ‘traps’ in the ruling, so that if one day one-party rule ends, or the system of CCP leadership ends, and true people’s democracy, returning to constitutional governance is implemented, then the judges have this ‘trap,’ which leaves them a space for self-defense regarding the ruling today,” Johnson Tsang added.
Regarding the Alliance, Johnson Tsang pointed out that the group has always accepted the position of being ruled by the mainland in Hong Kong. He said that the CCP’s severe crackdown on the Alliance is truly heartbreaking.
Even though the Alliance was established in May 1989 to support the student democracy movement in Beijing, and held candlelight vigils at Victoria Park in Hong Kong every June 4 until 2019 to commemorate the victims of the “June 4th Massacre,” they did not oppose the 1997 “handover” of Hong Kong and “accepted the legality of being ruled by the People’s Republic of China.”
He explained, “They hoped that after the ‘handover’ of Hong Kong, they could play an active role in ‘rebuilding democracy in China,’ becoming an important force in promoting democratic progress in China. This was their expectation, hoping that the People’s Republic of China would be better, more progressive, and more civilized. Therefore, the Alliance never had the intention to subvert the government (the CCP) or to overthrow the state power.”
He pointed out that the Alliance was criticized by later Hong Kong democratic movements. “The later it got, the more criticism it received from many young generations in Hong Kong.”
“The younger generation in Hong Kong criticized the Alliance and the old guard of the Democratic Party for their idea of ‘rebuilding democracy in China,’ so in the later period, they faced a lot of criticism from the young generation in Hong Kong,” Johnson Tsang said. “Therefore, the emergence of the ‘Hong Kong Nationality Theory’ and ‘Hong Kong Independence Theory’ later on actually proved that the Alliance never intended to subvert state power, but rather to promote democratization in China, to advance human rights in China, and prevent CCP leadership from turning into CCP’s dictatorship, CCP’s tyranny. The Alliance has always viewed China’s problems in this manner.”
Heartbreakingly, Johnson Tsang stated, “For the CCP to harshly crack down on such an organization, it truly is unbearable.”
Tang Jingyuan feels that with the precedent set by the judgment against the Alliance, the people of Hong Kong will face a “very wicked political environment.”
Johnson Tsang also pessimistically believes that in the future, there may be no more party competition or Chief Executive competition in Hong Kong, and no party will strive for a majority in the Legislative Council, as the CCP will “arrange it for you,” and “the people will not have the freedom to choose, cannot select candidates, political parties, or even refuse to vote; under Hong Kong’s current system, these are all no longer possible.”