Lam Ting-kwok rejects foreign criticism over HK Alliance case
SingTao · 11 SOURCESabout 22 hours ago2 MIN
Summary
Hong Kong’s official response to overseas criticism of the Hong Kong Alliance in Support of Patriotic Democratic Movements of China case expanded on Saturday after the High Court’s sentencing in the incitement to subvert state power prosecution. The SAR government said attacks by several Western countries, anti-China media, overseas organisations and politicians were malicious and unfounded, while the Legislative Council publicly backed the ruling. Secretary for Justice Paul Lam Ting-kwok said he could not comment on the sentence itself because legal proceedings were not yet окончательно finished, but argued that foreign criticism amounted to slogan-like allegations. Earlier, the Hong Kong and Macao Affairs Office had also said the sentencing defended the constitutional order established by the Constitution and the Basic Law.
Key Points
- The SAR government said it strongly condemned what it called malicious attacks and smears after the court sentenced defendants in the Hong Kong Alliance incitement to subvert state power case.
- Government statements said the court handled the case strictly according to law and evidence, and that sentencing reasons set out why the case was classified as “serious”.
- Commercial Radio reported former chair Lee Cheuk-yan, former vice-chairman Albert Ho Chun-yan and Chow Hang-tung received prison terms ranging from five years and two months to seven years and three months
- Paul Lam said judicial proceedings were not yet complete, so he would not comment on the sentence, but maintained all national security cases receive fair and open trials.
- The Legislative Council said the ruling upheld the constitutional order under the Constitution and Basic Law, and rejected claims that the case undermined confidence in Hong Kong’s rule of law.
Why It Matters
For Hong Kong readers, the latest statements show a coordinated line from the executive, legislature and Beijing’s Hong Kong affairs office in defending national security judgments and rebutting foreign criticism. The case is also being framed by officials and supportive legal commentary as a reference point for where protected political expression ends and criminal incitement begins under the National Security Law.