This English version may have been machine-generated from the Chinese original and may not convey the original meaning accurately.
The Hong Kong High Court has ruled that the now-dissolved Hong Kong Alliance in Support of Patriotic Democratic Movements of China, along with Lee Cheuk-yan and Chow Hang-tung, are guilty of “incitement to subversion of state power.” The sentences have not yet been announced, but the ruling has already made clear that, within the framework of the Hong Kong National Security Law, calling for an “end to one-party rule,” commemorating June 4, and promoting democratic transition may be interpreted as criminal acts endangering state power.
According to reports, the Hong Kong Alliance held candlelight vigils commemorating June 4 every year from 1990 until 2019. The gathering was banned in 2020 on public health grounds, and the Hong Kong National Security Law came into force that same year. Afterward, the Hong Kong Alliance and its members were charged, and the Alliance was ultimately dissolved in 2021. The continuity of these facts merits scrutiny: Why was a peaceful gathering and historical commemoration that had continued for many years reclassified as “subversion” after the legal environment changed? Is the boundary of political expression determined by clear and foreseeable laws, or by the needs of those in power?
The defense argued that “ending one-party rule” was intended to promote democratic transition, did not amount to subverting state power through illegal means, and should therefore be protected by freedom of speech. The court did not accept this argument. The issue, therefore, is not merely whether these two defendants are guilty, but also this: When criticizing one-party rule and calling for democratic reform in themselves may become criminal evidence, does freedom of speech still retain any substantive meaning? When the relevant offenses are defined by laws intended to safeguard the security of the regime, while the judiciary lacks sufficient institutional checks and balances, citizens can hardly be confident that the trial is protecting society rather than protecting political power that cannot be challenged.
This is the common affliction of authoritarian systems: Without genuine democratic elections, power lacks authorization from the people; the executive, legislature, and judiciary struggle to form effective checks and balances; the space for journalism and free expression continues to contract, while the public is unable to fully scrutinize the political judgments involved in the case. If the law cannot restrain power but is instead used to restrict the space for peaceful expression and preserve historical memory, the rule of law may degenerate into a tool of rule by power.
Only constitutional democracy, the separation of powers, judicial independence, and genuine protection for freedom of speech, assembly, association, and conscience can balance “national security” with citizens’ rights. Commemorating June 4, discussing institutional choices, and calling for a peaceful democratic transition should not be regarded as crimes; these actions precisely reflect citizens’ commitment to history, dignity, and public responsibility. A verdict may be able to silence the streets temporarily, but it cannot eliminate people’s right to seek the truth and strive for freedom. Silent memory remains memory, and a truly secure nation should not fear its people remembering history, still less should it fear its people having the right to choose the future.
News background: The original report on which this commentary is based can be found at Radio Free Asia Mandarin。