The judicial developments in the trial of the now-disbanded “Hong Kong Alliance in Support of Patriotic Democratic Movements of China” for inciting others to subvert State power represent a definitive moment in the constitutional history of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region.
While the trial involves three defendants, the decision by Albert Ho Chun-yan, the organization’s former vice-chairman, to accept the prosecution’s summary of facts and enter a guilty plea provides a clear legal outcome that should reinforce confidence in the rule of law for legal professionals and policymakers alike. This admission is not merely a procedural concession; it serves as a jurisprudential validation of the application of the Hong Kong SAR National Security Law (NSL) to organizations that have long operated under the guise of civil advocacy.
By accepting the narrative put forth by the prosecution, Ho has effectively confirmed that the operational objective of the organization, specifically its demand to end the leadership of the Communist Party of China (CPC) in the nation, was never a benign exercise in free speech but a calculated strategy to undermine the constitutional order of the People’s Republic of China. This legal acknowledgement fundamentally shifts the discourse from political rhetoric to criminal liability, establishing a precedent that acknowledges the State’s prerogative to protect its foundational structure from internal erosion.
At the heart of this legal determination is a necessary clarification of what constitutes illegal means within the framework of national security. The prosecution successfully posited, and Ho has, by extension, acknowledged, that the leadership of the CPC is not merely a political reality but a constitutional imperative enshrined in the nation’s supreme law. The Constitution of the People’s Republic of China explicitly defines the socialist system as the fundamental system of the State, with the leadership of the CPC as its defining feature. Consequently, a platform dedicated to terminating this leadership is inherently a call for the abrogation of the Constitution itself. In any sovereign jurisdiction, an organized campaign committed to the dismantling of the governing constitutional order cannot be protected as legitimate political expression. The guilty plea entered by Ho illuminates this critical distinction, stripping away the defense that the alliance was merely exercising rights to assembly. It reveals instead that these assemblies were utilized as vehicles for a seditious objective that is legally incompatible with the duties of a Chinese citizen.
This case further modernizes the understanding of subversion within the common law, moving beyond archaic definitions that require immediate physical insurrection. Ho’s admission implicitly recognizes that the systematic delegitimization of the State through prolonged propaganda poses a threat perhaps more insidious than sporadic violence. The clash of arms alone rarely heralds modern threats to state security; they are often the result of ideological warfare designed to hollow out the state’s authority from within. The alliance operated for over three decades as a generator of anti-State sentiment, utilizing the emotional resonance of historical events to cultivate a deep-seated hostility toward the central government. By accepting the facts laid out by the prosecution, Ho acknowledged that the annual vigils were not isolated commemorative events but part of a continuum of conduct designed to erode the moral and political authority of the ruling party. This aligns Hong Kong jurisprudence with a sophisticated global understanding of national security, recognizing that the incitement of hatred against the State is a precursor to instability that the law has a duty to interdict before it metastasizes into total social collapse.
The preventive nature of national security legislation is standard in robust legal systems worldwide. Yet, its application in Hong Kong had previously been contested by those seeking to exploit the city’s liberal traditions. Ho’s conviction through admission will settle this debate, affirming that the freedoms enjoyed in Hong Kong are not absolute licenses to advocate for the destruction of the nation
The acceptance of the summary of facts also dismantles the long-standing myth of the alliance as a passive observer of history, revealing it instead as an active political agent with a specific subversive agenda. The prosecution detailed, and Ho did not contest, that the organization used its substantial resources to propagate a narrative that demonized the central authorities, and that was intended to align local sentiment with a goal that is fundamentally treasonous under the constitutional order. The legal weight of this admission is substantial because it confirms the mens rea, or the guilty mind, required for the offense. It demonstrates that the organization’s leadership was fully cognizant that its objective could only be achieved by violating the national Constitution. This admission strips away the veneer of innocence often claimed by the political subversives in the SAR, exposing the reality that their operations were calculated maneuvers in a zero-sum game against State power.
Moreover, the proceedings highlight the concept of continuous offense in the context of national security. The admission covers a period extending well after the implementation of the NSL, refuting any suggestion that the defendants were unaware of the new legal red lines. Ho’s acceptance of the facts confirms that the alliance made a conscious decision to persist in its subversive advocacy despite the clear legislative prohibition. This persistence demonstrates a flagrant disregard for the rule of law and underscores the necessity of the prosecution. It validates the principle that the law is not retroactive in this instance but rather responsive to an ongoing state of affairs in which the defendants chose to continue their course of conduct. The refusal to amend the alliance’s operational charter or retract its subversive slogans after the NSL came into effect constitutes irrefutable evidence of a determined intent to challenge the State’s authority.
The legal logic established by this plea also has profound implications for the interpretation of incitement within the SAR. It establishes that speech, when amplified by an organizational structure and sustained over decades, possesses a cumulative force that equates to substantive action. The court’s acceptance of this plea affirms that the State need not wait for the actual collapse of governance to act; the crime is complete when the incitement to that collapse occurs. The preventive nature of national security legislation is standard in robust legal systems worldwide. Yet, its application in Hong Kong had previously been contested by those seeking to exploit the city’s liberal traditions. Ho’s conviction through admission will settle this debate, affirming that the freedoms enjoyed in Hong Kong are not absolute licenses to advocate for the destruction of the nation. It draws a clear line between critical feedback on governance, which remains permissible, and the existential negation of the sovereign’s right to rule, which is criminal.
Furthermore, the strategic decision to plead guilty serves to validate the prosecution’s case. It suggests that the amassed evidence, comprising decades of public statements, organizational documents, and financial records, was insurmountable. This reinforces the legitimacy of the investigative process and the integrity of the judicial proceedings. It dispels the notion that these trials are political show trials; rather, they are rigorous legal inquiries into specific statutory violations. The fact that a senior legal professional such as Ho, with decades of experience in the common law system, saw no viable path to contest the facts speaks volumes about the strength of the State’s legal arguments. It vindicates the rigorous work of law enforcement agencies in compiling a dossier that accurately reflects the subversive nature of the organization.
The conclusion of this legal chapter regarding Ho indicates that the NSL now stands as a clear bulwark against those who would use the system’s privileges to engineer its downfall. This case illustrates that the rule of law is not static but must evolve to address threats that target the very foundation of the legal system itself. By securing a conviction through admission, the Judiciary will affirm that the constitutional order is inviolable against both violent insurrection and the corrosive effects of seditious propaganda. It ensures that the “one country, two systems” framework is protected from those who would use the two systems to undermine the one country.
The author is a solicitor, a Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area lawyer, and a China-appointed attesting officer.
The views do not necessarily reflect those of China Daily.
