The trial of the Hong Kong Alliance in Support of Patriotic Democratic Movements of China resumed on 18 May, with closing submissions heard in a case in which former chairperson Lee Cheuk-yan and former vice-chair Chow Hang-tung deny charges of “incitement to subversion of state power”.
During his closing submission, counsel for Lee Cheuk-yan, barrister Michael Sum, said the prosecution had failed throughout the proceedings to demonstrate that the Alliance had ever called on the public to take any concrete steps to “end one-party rule”, or that any such actions had ever taken place in Hong Kong as a result of the organisation’s influence.
He argued that this absence of evidence was central to the prosecution’s case. “Even today, after the trial has concluded, the prosecution still cannot point to a single action that the Alliance asked the public to take,” he told the court. “There is nothing. One cannot simply invent it.”
Sum also referred to a 2017 publication by the Alliance’s newsletter, in which then-chairman Albert Ho wrote an article entitled “How to End One-Party Rule”. He said the piece advocated long-term, lawful civic efforts to promote democratic change, and amounted to political expression and civic education rather than a call for any specific action.
Judge raises hypothetical “pro-independence” example
The presiding judge, Esther Toh, questioned the defence’s position, asking whether it was being argued that no related actions had ever occurred over the past three decades, or whether there was simply no evidence that anyone had been influenced by the Alliance to act.
Sum replied that both were true.
The judge then asked whether, for example, anyone had ever advocated Hong Kong independence.
Sum immediately objected to the relevance of the example, responding: “You cannot attribute that to the Alliance.”
Pressed further, he clarified that while such views may have been expressed by individuals, there was no evidence linking any such conduct to the Alliance. “If the Alliance had truly incited people to take specific actions over the past 30 years, then it would have been spectacularly unsuccessful,” he said. “Because there is no evidence that any of the millions of people were ever induced by the Alliance to act.”
Defence distinguishes case from “47 democrats” trial
On the question of “unlawful means”, the defence said it was not challenging the constitutionality of the National Security Law, but argued the prosecution must still prove beyond reasonable doubt that the defendants intended to achieve their goals through illegal methods.
Sum said the Alliance had never called for any unlawful conduct, pointing to constitutional protections for citizens’ right to criticise state institutions.
He also distinguished the case from the earlier “47 democrats” subversion trial, in which defendants were convicted over a coordinated plan involving legislative action to block budgets.
In contrast, he said, the Alliance held no legislative power and had no capacity to implement state-level action. “This case is on a completely different footing,” he argued. “The Alliance had no plan, no mechanism, and no concrete steps telling the public how to end one-party rule. We are not talking about abuse of power or breach of duty—we are simply expressing political dissatisfaction.”
Five-point platform unchanged, defence says
Addressing intent, Sum said former leaders of the organisation, including Lee Cheuk-yan, had consistently described themselves as patriots and did not harbour hostility towards the Chinese Communist Party.
He added that the Alliance’s “five demands” had remained unchanged over many years, even after the introduction of the National Security Law, suggesting continuity rather than escalation.
The defence further argued that the concept of “ending one-party rule” was a long-term political aspiration involving stages such as accountability for the 1989 Tiananmen crackdown and broader democratic reform.
Sum concluded that, even if the court accepted the prosecution’s characterisation of the Alliance as supporting democratic movements in mainland China since its founding in 1989, none of its stated objectives had ever been realised, and no evidence had been presented of any operational steps to achieve “ending one-party rule”.
Photo: inmediahk