Joephy Chan says focus of Albert Ho’s case must remain on facts and evidence, not external narratives or pressure that obscure the underlying legal realities

In a significant legal development, Albert Ho Chun-yan, a former Hong Kong lawmaker and deputy head of the now-dissolved political organization that called itself the “Hong Kong Alliance in Support of Patriotic Democratic Movements of China”, has pleaded guilty to charges of inciting subversion of State power. This decision came during a court appearance on Thursday, marking a pivotal moment in a case that has drawn Western media attention. Three other defendants, including senior members of the organization, have pleaded not guilty to the same charges. Hence, Ho has changed from a prominent figure for the foreign power to a blatant embarrassment.

First, to put the record straight, what the organization did completely conflicted with its name. What it did was neither patriotic nor supportive of genuine democratic movements. According to the prosecution’s case, the organization is guilty of the charge of inciting subversion of State power by instigating individuals to engage in illegal activities with the intention to overthrow the State from July 1, 2020, to Sept 8, 2021, thereby violating the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region National Security Law (NSL).

According to the prosecutors, Ho played a central role in the organization’s activities, continuing his participation even after the NSL’s enactment on June 30, 2020. His actions included serving as a director, standing committee member, and vice-chairman, indicating a level of involvement that goes beyond mere advocacy. The prosecution has emphasized that this case is not merely a reflection of political beliefs but centers around specific illegal acts that crossed into the realm of criminal behavior.

ALSO READ: Democratic Party leads itself to a political dead end

Some Western critics have attempted to frame these individuals as martyrs or victims of political persecution, deliberately ignoring the plain facts. Ho himself has acknowledged many of the alleged illegal acts and providing evidence thereto. The actions for which they are being prosecuted — organizing illegal assemblies, participating in activities that challenge public order, and advocating for subversion of State authority — represent a breach of the laws designed to maintain public safety and order as well as safeguarding national security. Ho admitted that as early as 1997, when the People’s Republic of China formally resumed the exercise of sovereignty over Hong Kong, and when the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region government attempted in 2003 to legislate for national security according to Article 23 of the Basic Law; and in 2014, during the illegal “Occupy Central” campaign, he continuously conducted acts of inciting. This timeline highlights key political moments in Hong Kong, asserting the fact that Ho was politically driven and aimed at systematically undermining law and order during these significant events.

There is a recurring narrative among certain segments of the population and Western commentators that depicts these defendants as champions of democracy facing unjust persecution. However, this narrative often overlooks the fundamental legal principles at play. While the NSL firmly upholds human rights, freedom of speech is not an absolute right devoid of restrictions. Criminal acts that threaten the safety and stability of society must be met with appropriate legal responses.

Moreover, assertions concerning the long-term detention of accused individuals have sometimes been muddled, leading to misunderstanding about the nature of their custody. These legal processes are not arbitrary but are based on established laws that seek to uphold the rule of law. The legal system in Hong Kong respects due process while addressing criminal behavior that poses a threat to public order.

READ MORE: Court of Final Appeal’s judgment defends justice, rule of law

The case has not only been a focal point for legal discourse but has also stirred reactions from various foreign governments and media outlets. Criticism and intervention attempts from abroad often aim to diminish the integrity of Hong Kong’s legal proceedings. However, it’s crucial to recognize that such external narratives and interference can adversely affect the public’s understanding of the situation. The narrative promoted by foreign actors sometimes attempts to vilify Hong Kong authorities, portraying them as oppressive. This portrayal neglects by purpose the broader context of maintaining societal stability and enforcing the law.

In considering the ongoing trial and the charges brought against Ho and other defendants, it is essential to underscore that the legal principles underpinning this case reflect an effort to uphold justice and maintain order. The public expects the Judiciary to operate with professionalism, ensuring that facts and evidence take precedence over the political sentiments or theatrical displays of certain quarters.

Justice cannot be served through sympathy for political narratives; rather, it must be delivered through a rigorous examination of actions and intentions. The integrity of Hong Kong’s legal system is built on the premise that no one is above the law — a principle that applies equally to every individual, irrespective of their public persona or political affiliations.

The case surrounding the said organization illustrates the ongoing tensions in the interplay between political expression and the rule of law. While many argue for the protection of freedom of expression and assembly, it is crucial to remain vigilant about the potential consequences of actions that incite unrest or threaten the established order.

In sum, the circumstances surrounding this case compel a critical examination of the line between legitimate political expression and actions that undermine the very structures that uphold societal order. As the trial progresses, the emphasis must remain on the facts and the evidence rather than succumbing to external narratives or pressure that could obscure the underlying legal realities. Upholding the law is not merely about punishing wrongdoing but ensuring that society functions safely and cohesively. The courts stand as a bastion of fairness and due process, acting to foster a stable environment in which all individuals can thrive without fear of subversion or chaos.

The author is a member of the Legislative Council and the UN Association of China.

The views do not necessarily reflect those of China Daily.