On Aug 21, 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” and its former principal figures after the trial had gone through detailed arguments from both the prosecution and the defense.

The proceedings strictly adhered to established court procedures and ultimately produced a verdict based on law and evidence, fully demonstrating that justice had been done.

The ruling not only affirms the legal principle that the Constitution of the People’s Republic of China (PRC) and the Basic Law of the HKSAR together form the constitutional foundation of the city, but also underscores that safeguarding the fundamental system of the State established by the Constitution is a constitutional responsibility of the HKSAR.

The Constitution is the fundamental law of the State. The Preamble and Article 1 of the Constitution stipulate: “The socialist system is the fundamental system of the People’s Republic of China. Leadership by the Communist Party of China is the defining feature of socialism with Chinese characteristics.” The leadership status of the Communist Party of China (CPC) is, without question, the core element of the fundamental system of the State established by the Constitution.

The Hong Kong SAR National Security Law (NSL) stipulates that acts of subverting State power include overthrowing or undermining the fundamental system of the PRC established by the Constitution. The connotation of the fundamental system of the PRC as established by the Constitution naturally encompasses the leadership status of the CPC.

The alliance’s core platform and objectives since the day of its establishment have been to end the leadership status of the CPC. As decided by the court, after the NSL came into effect in June 2020, the defendants fully understood and were fully aware that the group’s core action platform contravened the Constitution, yet they persisted in carrying out such acts in Hong Kong, inciting others to organize, plan, and commit or participate in acts by unlawful means with a view to subverting State power.

No country would tolerate actions in the form of speech or otherwise that seek to subvert its constitutional order or undermine its fundamental state systems. Many countries, including those from the West, have implemented extremely strict legislation and practices when it comes to safeguarding the security of their national constitutional systems.

No country would tolerate actions in the form of speech or otherwise that seek to subvert its constitutional order or undermine its fundamental state systems. Many countries, including those from the West, have implemented extremely strict legislation and practices when it comes to safeguarding the security of their national constitutional systems

Although the United Kingdom does not have a single codified constitution, several constitutional documents collectively establish its constitutional monarchy. The monarchy can be regarded as the cornerstone of the UK’s constitutional order. Historically, the UK has enacted stringent legislation prohibiting any attempt to depose the monarch. Section 3 of the Treason Felony Act 1848, which remains in force today, stipulates that anyone who intends to depose the monarch, make war against the monarch, or intimidate Parliament, and expresses such intent through publications or open actions, commits a felony punishable by life imprisonment.

When Hong Kong was under British rule, the British also transplanted the relevant legal frameworks designed to protect the monarchy and national security into Hong Kong. Section 3 of the former Crimes Ordinance established the “treasonable offenses”, stipulating that anyone who intends to depose the queen from the style, honor, and royal name of the crown of the UK or any of her other dominions, as demonstrated by any overt act or by publishing any printed matter, constituted an offense punishable by life imprisonment. Sections 9 and 10 of the former Crimes Ordinance stipulated that any words or publications intended to bring into hatred, contempt, or disaffection against the queen, her heirs, or successors, or the government of Hong Kong, or the government of any other part of the queen’s dominions, constituted the crime of “seditious intention”.

Turning to the United States, after the Revolutionary War (1775-83), 13 North American colonies threw off British colonial rule, established the United States of America, and enacted the Constitution of the United States. Americans hold the US Constitution in the highest esteem; presidents swear to uphold it upon taking office, and naturalized citizens pledge to defend it. The US Constitution established fundamental national structures and systems, such as federalism and the presidential system (including the Electoral College). During the 2021 US Capitol riot, demonstrators attempted to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election and prevent Congress from certifying the election results; the US Department of Justice subsequently charged the core organizers with “seditious conspiracy”, resulting in heavy sentences handed down by the judiciary. These examples demonstrate that when confronted with challenges to their constitutional orders, both the UK and the US similarly show zero tolerance.

As can be seen, many countries — including those in the West — have always regarded their own constitutional orders as nonnegotiable, absolute red lines. Paradoxically and imperiously, however, some Western politicians, media outlets, lawyers, and other entities have leveled groundless accusations against independent verdicts handed down by Hong Kong courts in accordance with the law. This posture reveals blatant double standards that could have been driven only by sinister political motives, and thus deserves strong condemnation. Since these countries expect other nations to respect their own constitutional systems, they should put away their hypocritical behavior, cease all malicious defamation against Hong Kong, and respect its legitimate right to uphold its constitutional order in accordance with the law.

The author, a solicitor, is a member of the Legislative Council and the National Committee of the Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference.

The views do not necessarily reflect those of China Daily.