Remarks by S for S at media session on sentencing of incitement to subversion case of "Hong Kong Alliance" (with video)
Following are the remarks by the Secretary for Security, Mr Tang Ping-keung, at a media session on the sentencing of the incitement to subversion case of the "Hong Kong Alliance" this afternoon (September 11):
Secretary for Security: Regarding the case in which the "Hong Kong Alliance" (the Alliance), Lee Cheuk-yan, Ho Chun-yan and Chow Hang-tung were charged with incitement to subversion, following the conviction by the Court of First Instance on August 21, the court delivered its sentence this morning. The three defendants were sentenced to imprisonment ranging from five years and two months to seven years and three months. The Alliance was sentenced to a fine of $1,500,000.
The court ruled that the circumstances of the offences of incitement to subversion committed in this case were of a "serious nature". The sentence passed must reflect the severity to uphold the rule of law. The Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (HKSAR) Government considers that the sentence manifests that justice is done and safeguards the core values of Hong Kong.
First, I must reiterate that the Constitution is the fundamental law of our country. In its reasons for verdict, the court stated that the Constitution and the Basic Law together establish the constitutional order of the HKSAR, and the preamble and Article 1 of the Constitution make it clear that the leadership by the Communist Party of China (CPC) is the core and foundation of the constitutional order of the People's Republic of China (PRC). Under the Constitution, overthrowing or undermining the leadership status of the CPC is tantamount to overthrowing or undermining the fundamental system established by the Constitution, which is prohibited under Article 22 of the Hong Kong National Security Law (HKNSL). No constitution of any country would allow citizens to subvert the constitutional order and the fundamental system of the country established by the constitution.
However, the objective of the Alliance was precisely to overthrow the leadership status of the CPC and the fundamental system of the PRC under the Constitution. The organisation carried out various activities in public over a long period with an intent to sow seeds of hatred against the CPC and the Central Government in Hong Kong society and incite others to subvert state power, which must be deterred in accordance with the law.
The court has reiterated in the reasons for sentence that the defendants were put on trial not because of their political ideology or their words or deeds before the HKNSL. They were convicted solely on the basis that they had committed acts in violation of the HKNSL during the charge period.
The court did not accept the defendants' claims that they did not understand the HKNSL. In fact, the defendants were well aware that their advocacy would contradict the Constitution, but still insisted on going their own way, and also encouraging others to persist.
The reasons for sentence also explicitly set out six reasons why the present case was of a "serious nature":
(1) At the material time of the case, some individuals were still unwilling to accept the exercise of sovereignty by the state over the HKSAR, nor were they willing to accept the constitutional order established by the Constitution and the Basic Law. The defendants engaged in inciting words and deeds amid a turbulent and unsettled social atmosphere, placing national security and public order at greater risk.
(2) The defendants' criminal conduct was not an isolated incident, persisting for a period of as long as 14 months;
(3) The defendants committed the offences through various activities and on various social media platforms;
(4) The defendants possessed mobilising power and influence, with the impact of their words and deeds on the general public far exceeding that of lesser-known individuals;
(5) The defendants' activities were city-wide with an extensive reach, influencing people of different age groups, and their potential harm must not be underestimated; and
(6) Despite the defendants' belief that their agenda might be in breach of the Constitution and the HKNSL, they still persistently pursued their course of conduct which was premeditated.
All defendants received a fair trial by the court without any interference, strictly in accordance with the law applicable to Hong Kong and under the safeguards of the Basic Law and the Hong Kong Bill of Rights. The reasons for both the verdict and the sentence handed down by the court clearly emphasised that the defendants in this case were put on trial not because of their political views or beliefs. The court would only consider the laws and evidence relevant to the case and decide whether the prosecution was able to prove the charge beyond reasonable doubt.
Safeguarding national security is an obligation of all Hong Kong citizens and the constitutional responsibility of the HKSAR. As in this case, the HKSAR Government will continue to effectively prevent, suppress and punish acts endangering national security in accordance with the law, ensuring the steadfast and successful implementation of the "one country, two systems" principle. Thank you.
(Please also refer to the Chinese portion of the remarks.)
Source: AI-found images
