Hong Kong rebukes Western criticism of vigil verdict
SCMP · 1 SOURCESabout 2 hours ago2 MIN
Summary
Hong Kong authorities have forcefully rejected criticism from Western governments, politicians, organisations and the United Nations over the conviction of the now-disbanded Hong Kong Alliance in Support of Patriotic Democratic Movements of China and several of its former leaders for inciting subversion. The government said the High Court's ruling was "well-reasoned and sound" and insisted the defendants were prosecuted on the basis of law and evidence rather than their political views. The case centred on the alliance's role in the annual Tiananmen Square vigil and statements that judges found had incited hatred against the Communist Party of China and the central government under its leadership. The verdict has become another flashpoint in the continuing dispute between Hong Kong authorities and Western critics over rights, political expression and the application of national security law in the city
Key Points
- The Hong Kong government issued a strongly worded statement on Saturday condemning what it called "baseless slander and smearing" after Friday's closely watched verdict
- Three High Court judges convicted the alliance, former chairman Lee Cheuk-yan and former vice-chairwoman Chow Hang-tung of inciting subversion; Albert Ho Chun-yan had already pleaded guilty
- The judges ruled that attempts to overthrow or undermine Communist Party leadership could amount to subversion because China's constitution does not permit Western-style democracy
- The court found the defendants had incited public hatred by comparing Beijing's 1989 crackdown with Hong Kong authorities' handling of the 2019 anti-government protests
- A government spokesman said the judgment made clear the defendants were not tried for their beliefs, but on whether evidence proved the charge beyond reasonable doubt
Why It Matters
The case sharpens the divide between Hong Kong's official account of national security enforcement and criticism from Western governments and international bodies. For Hong Kong readers, it also underscores how courts and officials are defining the boundaries of political advocacy, historical commemoration and public criticism under the current legal framework