Guilty Verdicts Handed Down for Subversion of State Power

On August 21, the Court of First Instance of the High Court of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region delivered its verdict in the case involving the Hong Kong Alliance in Support of Patriotic Democratic Movements of China (hereinafter "the Alliance"), Lee Cheuk-yan, Ho Chun-yan, and Chow Hang-tung, who were charged with "subversion of state power." The Alliance, as a corporate defendant, along with its former chairman Lee Cheuk-yan and former vice-chairwoman Chow Hang-tung as individual defendants, were found guilty. Former vice-chairman Ho Chun-yan, who had pleaded guilty prior to the trial, was also convicted.

This landmark ruling marks the first complete judicial determination of the offense of "subversion of state power" since the implementation of the Hong Kong National Security Law (NSL). It fully demonstrates the spirit of the rule of law in Hong Kong and the impartial authority of its judicial system under "one country, two systems."

From left to right: Ho Chun-yan, Lee Cheuk-yan, and Chow Hang-tung.

A Checkered Record: The Alliance Crosses Legal Red Lines

Founded in 1989, the defendant organization, the Alliance, had long engaged in activities endangering national security under the guise of "patriotism" and "democracy."

Reactionary Platform and Defamation of Fundamental State Systems For years, the Alliance openly promoted its so-called "Five-Point Platform," aggressively advocating extreme political positions in an attempt to overthrow the fundamental state system established by the Constitution. Through annual rallies, publications, and online mobilization, it continuously advanced anti-China and chaos-inciting narratives. During the 2019 extradition bill unrest, it seized the opportunity to incite and amplify hostility among Hong Kong residents toward the Central Authorities and the HKSAR Government.

Defiance Continued After National Security Law Came into Effect On June 30, 2020, the Law of the People's Republic of China on Safeguarding National Security in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (Hong Kong National Security Law) officially took effect, explicitly criminalizing "subversion of state power." Rather than reining in its actions, the Alliance intensified its defiance. Peddling fallacies such as "achieving justice through illegal means," it continued to incite the public, refused to amend its platform, openly declared it "would not back down," continued organizing unlawful assemblies, promoted confrontation, and persistently colluded with external forces.

The Gavel Falls: Irrefutable Evidence of Criminal Conduct

In the face of the egregious acts committed by the Alliance and its core members, the High Court rendered a fair and just verdict based on facts and anchored in the law.

First Conviction for the Offense, Filling a Gap in Judicial Practice Article 23 of the Hong Kong National Security Law explicitly defines the offense of "subversion of state power"; however, there had previously been no case involving a full trial and conviction for this specific charge. Following an open trial, the court elaborated in detail on the constituent elements, modes of conduct, and criteria for determining mens rea (guilty intent), establishing a clear judicial framework for identifying acts of "inciting others to organize, plan, commit, or use illegal means to subvert state power." This ruling fills a practical gap in the application of the NSL, providing a valuable precedent for future law enforcement.

Clear Legal Principles: Delineating the Boundaries of Freedom of Speech Another landmark aspect of this case lies in its clear demarcation between freedom of speech and subversive incitement. The closing arguments decisively refuted the Alliance's specious claims regarding freedom of speech, clarifying that its long-promoted platform and slogans were not mere political expression, but deliberate attempts to provoke hostility, cause division, and subvert the fundamental system of the state. Such conduct far exceeds the scope of speech protected by the Basic Law and the NSL, constituting the objective act of inciting subversion through "illegal means."

Establishing this legal boundary is of profound significance for Hong Kong society to correctly understand "one country, two systems" and the proper relationship between freedom and the rule of law.

Rigorous and Impartial: A Transparent Judicial Process The case was lawfully investigated by the National Security Department of the Hong Kong Police Force, prosecuted by the Department of Justice, and adjudicated by the Court of First Instance of the High Court. The entire process was open, transparent, and procedurally rigorous, ensuring that the rights of both the prosecution and the defense were fully protected. Furthermore, adhering to the principle of non-retroactivity, the court strictly limited the criminal liability of the Alliance and the other defendants to the period between July 1, 2020 (when the NSL came into effect) and September 8, 2021 (when the Alliance announced its dissolution), fully reflecting the rigor and fairness of Hong Kong's judicial process.

The High Court of Hong Kong.

Justice Served: The Authority of the Rule of Law Stands Firm

The verdict in this case is not only a delivery of justice in an individual trial, but also a clear signal to the international community that Hong Kong's rule of law is inviolable and that "one country, two systems" enjoys solid legal protection.

Effectively Upholding the Authority of the National Security Law In its judgment exceeding 200 pages, the court provided a systematic exposition on the constitutional order, the leadership of the Communist Party of China, and the fundamental state system. This fundamentally eliminated any legal loophole for attempts to subvert state power under the pretexts of "democracy" and "freedom." The judgment not only serves as a strong deterrent against potential acts endangering national security, but also provides authoritative judicial guidance for all sectors of Hong Kong society to accurately understand the NSL and consciously safeguard national security, fully demonstrating the spirit of the rule of law.

Ensuring the Steady and Sustained Implementation of "One Country, Two Systems" Safeguarding national sovereignty, security, and development interests is the supreme principle of the "one country, two systems" policy, and the trial of this case represents a concrete judicial application of this principle. From the enactment of the NSL turning the tide on turmoil, to the enactment of Article 23 legislation plugging institutional loopholes, and now to this conviction setting a judicial benchmark, Hong Kong's legal framework and enforcement mechanisms for national security have been continuously refined. This builds a solid foundation for the steady and long-term success of "one country, two systems" and provides a fundamental guarantee for Hong Kong's lasting prosperity and stability.

Rule of Law Brings Prosperity; National Security Brings Stability

The just verdict in the Alliance case represents another major milestone since the implementation of the Hong Kong National Security Law. It reaffirms that no act endangering national security will escape legal sanction, and that any attempts at external interference are doomed to fail.

Moving forward, with the comprehensive and accurate implementation of the NSL, Hong Kong will further consolidate its transition from chaos to governance and prosperity, steadily advancing along the path of safeguarding national security, enhancing public well-being, and integrating into the overall national development. The great practice of "one country, two systems" will undoubtedly shine with even greater brilliance.

Jiu Wan Li: The High Ground

** 博客文章文責自負,不代表本公司立場 **

On September 12, Dario Amodei, CEO of the leading American AI company Anthropic, released an open statement on social media calling for a coordinated global slowdown in artificial intelligence development. The initiative quickly drew support from OpenAI CEO Sam Altman and SpaceX CEO Elon Musk.

However, beneath this proposal ostensibly framed around global AI safety lies a thick layer of containment provisions targeted directly at Beijing. In effect, Amodei has handed the U.S. government a comprehensive roadmap for AI strategy against China—and laid down a brazen geopolitical declaration of war.

Amodei published an essay titled "We Must Pace the Frontier."

An Open Declaration of AI War

In his essay, Amodei stated flatly that Western nations cannot afford to be "naive" when engaging with China on AI. He warned that if the U.S. unilaterally slows its R&D pace while China charges ahead, Beijing will leapfrog Washington in military AI and frontier applications, fundamentally shattering the existing technological balance.

To safeguard American AI hegemony, Amodei proposed a strategy of "containment first, negotiation later," built around three aggressive containment pillars:

First, choking off AI chip exports. Amodei urged Washington to tighten export licensing and aggressively crack down on covert channels, such as secondhand resales and third-country transshipments, to plug every loophole feeding hardware to China. Raising hardware barriers for Chinese foundation models would prolong their iteration cycles—a direct call for the U.S. government to double down on its strategy of technological bottlenecks.

Second, severing the path of model distillation. Model distillation—where a newer model learns from a mature, large-scale model to acquire near-frontier capabilities at a fraction of the cost—is a standard practice across the global AI industry. Yet Amodei argued that Chinese firms use distillation to dramatically compress iteration cycles, blunting the impact of U.S. chip sanctions. His proposal effectively seeks to cut off Chinese enterprises from accessing overseas APIs for low-cost algorithmic learning.

Third, guarding against model parameter leaks. Amodei called on U.S. AI labs to fortify internal security to prevent model weights from leaking overseas. He argued that if frontier weights fall into Chinese hands, developers in China could bypass immense training costs and rapidly replicate state-of-the-art performance, thereby undermining Washington's chip controls and anti-distillation policy investments.

Amodei made no secret of the end goal: if successfully executed, these tactics will severely handicap China’s AI industry, dramatically widen America’s competitive moat, and hand "democratic nations" immense leverage in future negotiations with Beijing.

Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei.

A Geopolitical Play Beyond Pure Tech

Amodei projects that over the next 3 to 5 years, AI will fundamentally redefine global geopolitics. During this narrow window of strategic opportunity, he argues, U.S. tech giants must actively align with Washington to secure broader geopolitical advantages.

Consolidating Tech Hegemony Historically, the United States has dominated core pillars like general-purpose foundation models, AI chips, and foundational software, with firms like OpenAI and Anthropic serving as the industrial bedrock of American AI supremacy.

However, China’s AI sector has advanced at a blistering pace. Models like DeepSeek and Qwen have achieved breakthroughs in code generation, mathematical reasoning, and training efficiency, with key benchmarks closing in on the global frontier. This rapid catch-up has triggered deep anxiety across Silicon Valley and Washington.

Realizing that standard market competition may no longer suffice to halt China’s momentum, American industry leaders are now cloaking their commercial anxieties in the language of global safety risks. By lobbying for aggressive regulatory barriers, they aim to starve China of technology access, buying themselves vital breathing room to consolidate U.S. dominance.

Monopolizing the Rulebook On September 8, three U.S. security agencies issued a joint advisory naming six Chinese AI companies, accusing them of extracting U.S. frontier models on an "industrial scale." This unilateral charge dovetailed seamlessly with Amodei’s narrative.

Washington’s true calculus is to rebrand unilateral containment tools—chip embargoes, distillation bans, and weight lockouts—as "universal norms for AI safety." By placing safety audits and compliance authorizations firmly under U.S. jurisdiction, Washington can wield "compliance" as a geopolitical cudgel to police the global AI industry, converting a fleeting technical lead into long-term institutional privilege while denying other nations a fair shot at development.

Erecting a New Ideological Iron Curtain

Throughout his manifesto, Amodei relies heavily on ideological rhetoric, repeatedly contrasting "democracies" with "autocracies" to frame AI competition as a clash of rival governance systems and values. This framing completely politicizes what is inherently a technological issue.

In recent years, Washington has routinely drawn ideological lines in the tech sector—from placing Chinese firms on military-linked entity lists to curbing exports under the banner of "national security" and forging "democratic technology alliances."

Amodei’s call for "global coordination" is simply the latest attempt to weaponize corporate interests into policy and propaganda tools against China.

Amodei's "AI Cold War script" pushes containment under the guise of safety and enforces bloc confrontation under the pretext of global governance. It defies the fundamental laws of technological progress and runs counter to the shared interests of humanity.

As a new Iron Curtain accelerates its descent between China and the United States, the fierce contest over artificial intelligence has officially entered the fast lane.