Chow Hang-tung’s statement arguing for early acquittal in the HK Alliance trial. From Brian Kern’s intro…
It’s worth stressing that, having been in prison since September 2021, she has prepared her entire defense, including this statement, from inside of a prison cell, without the aid of a word processor or the internet.
…Ultimately, what Hang-tung is portraying is two almost entirely clashing world views. According to one, citizens truly are the masters of the nation and are without question free to discuss their government and constitute it as they see fit. According to the other, it is only a supreme power entirely above the law which has the authority to dictate to its subjects what is permissible to say and do in relation to matters of governance.
In this sense, it can be said that while Hang-tung’s statement is primarily intended to address the matter at hand in the trial, it can also be read as a “statement to history,” raising issues that get straight to the heart of the political status of Hong Kong as well as freedom and human rights.
…From a political and ethical perspective, Hang-tung is saying, Of course, citizens have the right to freedom of expression. This includes expression related to matters of governance. And not only that, they have the right to choose their own political leaders. So the whole premise of the prosecution’s case is absurd; in fact, it is a perversion of the rule of law.
The whole thing is worth reading, though she perhaps unnecessarily/unwisely strays into subjects like the CCP’s non-status in Hong Kong and its treatment of Uyghurs. From the conclusion…
(76) The prosecution’s entire case is riddled with holes and leaks everywhere. Regardless of what actions the defendant incited; what methods were involved; the nature and consequences of those actions; or the defendant’s intent, the prosecution either lacked any evidence or presented no coherent facts, merely jumping between the most convenient statements available at the moment. Even though I have analyzed the prosecution’s core accusation—assuming “ending one-party rule” equals “ending the leadership of the Communist Party”—the court can see that the prosecution has still failed to prove any element of a crime.
(77) Most importantly, whether it’s “ending one-party rule” or the prosecution’s use of “ending the leadership of the Communist Party,” that is a goal that every Chinese person has the right to pursue. The prosecution tried very hard to make this goal something completely unthinkable and impossible, but they simply couldn’t find any reasonable legal or evidentiary basis.
(78) Ultimately, the fact that the Party doesn’t want anyone to talk about ending one-party rule doesn’t mean the law doesn’t allow it. The prosecution has completely failed in proving that the law “doesn’t allow it.” Throughout the prosecution’s arguments, they have been constantly subtly changing the meaning to disguise the Party’s will as law. They have changed meaning to effect, opposition to violation, motive to intent, and even mainland law to Hong Kong law.
Convincing? The NatSec court didn’t think so and rejected the application for early acquittal, and that of Lee Cheuk-yan. The trial continues today.
“though she perhaps unnecessarily/unwisely strays into subjects like the CCP’s non-status in Hong Kong and its treatment of Uyghurs ”
As she will be found guilty regardless, might as well take advantage of the public forum for what is probably the last opportunity she will have for many years to come to voice out.
Ironically, the stated end-goal for every true Communist Party member is to end party rule.
As per Engels: “The interference of the state power in social relations becomes superfluous in one sphere after another, and then ceases of itself. The government of persons is replaced by the administration of things and the direction of the processes of production. The state is not “abolished”, it withers away.”
And: “The society which organises production anew on the basis of free and equal association of the producers will put the whole state machinery where it will then belong—into the museum of antiquities, next to the spinning wheel and the bronze axe.”
Mao was all for it too:
“We are the opposite of the political parties of the bourgeoisie. They are afraid to speak of the extinction of classes, state power and parties. We, on the contrary, declare openly that we are striving hard to create the very conditions which will bring about their extinction. The leadership of the Communist Party and the state power of the people’s dictatorship are such conditions. Anyone who does not recognise this truth is no communist. Young comrades who have not studied Marxism-Leninism and have only recently joined the Party may not yet understand this truth. They must understand it — only then can they have a correct world outlook. They must understand that the road to the abolition of classes, to the abolition of state power and to the abolition of parties is the road all mankind must take; it is only a question of time and conditions.”