Hong Kong Government Rebuts Criticism Over Alliance Verdict
Hkgov · 1 SOURCESabout 1 hour ago2 MIN
Summary
The Hong Kong SAR Government said it strongly condemned what it called baseless slanders and smears by Western countries, anti-China media, organisations and politicians over the court verdict delivered a day earlier in the Hong Kong Alliance incitement to subversion case.
It said Hong Kong’s constitutional order is founded on the Constitution, whose preamble states that the leadership of the Communist Party of China is the core of the constitutional order of the People’s Republic of China.
According to the government, the court made clear that the defendants were tried strictly on the basis of law and evidence rather than their political views.
The administration also argued that rights and freedoms are not absolute, and that the case concerned conduct intended to undermine the PRC’s fundamental system by stirring hostility and division.
Key Points
- The government said criticism followed yesterday’s verdict in the “Hong Kong Alliance” incitement to subversion case and described overseas reactions as baseless smears.
- It said the Constitution underpins Hong Kong’s constitutional order, and cited the preamble on Communist Party leadership within the PRC constitutional framework.
- Officials said no country permits citizens to subvert its constitutionally established order, framing the case as a matter of national constitutional protection.
- The court, as cited by the government, found defendants stayed hostile to the Communist Party and central government after the national security law took effect.
- The government said an earlier Court of Appeal ruling distinguished lawful criticism from conduct intended to incite hatred or subversion.
Why It Matters
The government’s response sets out how it wants the national security framework and constitutional order to be understood in public debate in Hong Kong.
It also underscores that officials are drawing a firm line between protected criticism and acts they say are aimed at subversion, a distinction likely to remain central in future political and legal disputes.