Goal of Tiananmen vigil group an ‘empty slogan’, not actual plan: defence lawyer

Leaders of the now-disbanded group behind Hong Kong’s annual Tiananmen vigil have said ending one-party rule was an “empty slogan” and that they had never incited anyone to overthrow the Chinese government during their three-decade campaign.

The Hong Kong Alliance in Support of Patriotic Democratic Movements of China, its former chairman Lee Cheuk-yan, former vice-chairman Albert Ho Chun Yan and former vice-chairwoman Chow Hang-tung, told judges on Friday that by advocating an end to “one-party dictatorship” in mainland China, they were merely expressing their belief in the pursuit of freedom and democracy for its people.

Last week, Lee, 68, and Chow, 41, were convicted of inciting public hatred towards the Communist Party of China, while Ho, 74, earlier pleaded guilty to the same charge. They were accused of using the annual vigils commemorating Beijing’s crackdown on pro-democracy demonstrators in June 1989 to attract supporters and instigate them to take action to oust the ruling party.

Submitting oral mitigation at West Kowloon Court on Friday, defence counsel Erik Shum Sze-man, representing Lee and Ho, said bringing an end to one-party rule was an “empty slogan”, and that the alliance had never made concrete plans to realise the goal.

“Over the past 30 years, not a single person was incited by the alliance’s promotion to undermine the party. The Communist Party has been consistently stable over all these years, fulfilling its duties,” Shum said.

Founded after the 1989 crackdown, the alliance organised annual candlelight vigils in Hong Kong’s Victoria Park to mark the event and call for accountability and democratic reforms across the border. It held its last vigil in 2019.

Shum said the alliance’s stated goal of ending Communist Party rule was “theoretical and conceptual”, and that there was no clear evidence showing that anyone had taken action to subvert mainland Chinese authorities following the annual vigils.

Chow, a barrister by profession, told the court that she did not commit any wrongdoing by hoping to build a democratic China, and that the expression of her beliefs through the alliance’s events was once deemed lawful.