Hong Kong Activists Defend ‘End One-Party Rule’ Slogan in Subversion Trial
Prominent pro-democracy activists Lee Cheuk-yan, Albert Ho and Chow Hang-tung are on trial in Hong Kong, accused of inciting subversion under the Beijing-imposed national security law. The case centers on the activists’ advocacy for “ending one-party rule” in China, a slogan prosecutors argue breaches the country’s constitution and constitutes incitement to subversion.
Defense Arguments Focus on Democratic Reform
Lee Cheuk-yan, testifying on Tuesday, explained that the call to end one-party rule was a desire for democratic governance, not an attempt to overthrow the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). He stated that the Alliance, of which he was a leader, opposed one-party rule because it presented an “obstacle to democracy.” He emphasized the importance of civil liberties – freedom of speech, assembly, and the press – as foundational to a functioning democracy.
“The freedom that arises [from ending one-party rule] allows people to participate in society through their own independent groups and political organizations. If you can’t even speak up, how can you talk about democracy?” Lee stated in court. He further argued that a diverse civil society is essential for determining the best political system for China.
Distinction Between Opposing One-Party Rule and Overthrowing the CCP
When questioned by Judge Alex Lee about whether he intended to suggest the CCP should not be in power, Lee clarified that his opposition was to the system of one-party rule itself, not necessarily the CCP’s leadership. He asserted that the CCP could lead if the people desired it.
Lee maintained that the Alliance’s call for an end to one-party rule did not equate to a desire to overthrow the CCP, stating, “There is absolutely no such meaning.” He likewise emphasized that the Alliance had never developed a plan to remove the CCP from power, and its name reflected its support for democratization and rights efforts in mainland China.
Legal Ambiguity in Mainland China
Responding to a question from Judge Johnny Chan regarding unlawful means to achieve an end to one-party rule, Lee acknowledged the ambiguity of legal standards within mainland China. He pointed out the unpredictable nature of the legal system, citing examples of individuals being imprisoned for seemingly minor offenses. “We don’t know what’s legal or illegal in mainland China,” he said. “The freedom of speech we take for granted could land someone in prison there.”
Nonviolent Protest and Prior Police Approval
Lee testified that the Alliance consistently employed nonviolent protest methods and that their vigils had been approved by police in the past, with the exception of 2020, when they were banned due to COVID-19 social distancing regulations. He also noted that authorities had not previously informed the Alliance that their demands violated the national security law when the vigil was banned in 2021.
Historical Context and CCP Writings
Lee Cheuk-yan referenced writings by CCP founder Mao Zedong and former Premier Zhao Ziyang, arguing that both leaders had expressed views that were not fully aligned with strict one-party rule. He cited Zhao Ziyang’s advocacy for broader participation and openness to democratic viewpoints, even while maintaining the CCP’s leadership role. Zhao Ziyang stated, “We must be open to differing views from the democratic parties and be willing to accept criticism and supervision from all quarters, so as to pool wisdom, learn from others’ strengths to make up for our own weaknesses, overcome shortcomings, and minimise errors.”
Guilty Plea and Potential Sentencing
While Lee and Chow have pleaded not guilty, Albert Ho has entered a guilty plea, potentially in hopes of receiving a reduced sentence. The defendants face a maximum penalty of 10 years’ imprisonment if convicted. The national security law has a near-100% conviction rate. The Guardian
Hong Kong Free Press reports that prosecutors have stated there are “no lawful means to end the Chinese Communist Party’s leadership.”