Chow Hang-tung: Statement of Plea

1. A 206-page judgment, going round and round, says that pursuing democracy is a crime.

2. I do not believe that any political party can privately transfer the sovereignty of the country, declare itself to be the people’s choice, declare itself to be the sole leader, and then claim that everyone has a legal duty to uphold its self-appointed throne. Such so-called law is merely a synonym for tyranny.

3. Believing that dictatorship is wrong and democracy is right—what is this if not a belief? Even if the court and the government keep chanting, “We are not judging beliefs,” they cannot alter the fact that under this judgment, people who believe in the idea of “ending one-party dictatorship” can no longer find a place to stand. In the eyes of such “law,” merely holding this thought is already unconstitutional, illegal and an original sin; even if we are simply doing something entirely legitimate, such as commemorating June 4, it will become a crime because of the “incorrectness” of our own thinking.

4. But the law cannot control anyone’s thoughts. Not only can it not control them, when the law insists on opposing conscience, the only thing that will lose is the law, and the only thing that will lose its legitimacy is the law.

5. People must have boundaries, and so must the law. The distinction between democracy and dictatorship is one of the most important of these boundaries, because there is no rule of law under dictatorship. When the court completely empties the factual causes and the question of right and wrong behind the emergence of the demand to “end one-party dictatorship,” and blindly emphasizes only the will of the regime and the so-called duty to obey the law, it is actually as absurd as saying that living under Nazi Germany created a duty to exterminate all Jews. Such conduct will cause the law to lose its soul of upholding fairness and become a puppet driven at will by power.

6. What caused the tragedies that occurred time and again under Nazi rule and totalitarian rule was precisely this attitude of asking not what was right or wrong, but only whether people obeyed. The courts and the country today are both following the same dangerous old path. Indeed, with advances in technology and the strengthening of state power, and with the country becoming a recognized “great power,” the danger today is even greater than it was then.

7. As citizens, we have a responsibility to return state power to the cage of democracy, and to fulfill our duty as the masters of the country by controlling and monitoring it. We do this not only to seek justice for the harms of the past, but also to prevent an even greater disaster from happening again. If we simply fatten a state apparatus that we cannot control in the name of national security, devouring humanity and conscience, tragedy will happen sooner or later.

8. Therefore, ending one-party dictatorship is an unavoidable responsibility for our generation, whether we are Hong Kong people or Chinese people. This must be completed by us ourselves; it can only be completed by us ourselves. No one from outside can do it in our place.

9. This is my sincere thought and belief, and it is by no means the belief of only one person—the 30 years of candlelight in Victoria Park have already proved this. “Ending one-party dictatorship” is the people’s bottom line and a universal aspiration. When the law overestimates its own ability and challenges it, it will only bring humiliation upon itself.

10. The court pretends that the issue is not the dissemination of ideas but the so-called spreading of hostility. But the belief in “ending one-party dictatorship” has never been sustained by any thinking in terms of enemies and friends, or by inciting hatred. We need only speak reason and facts, and that is already enough to win the support of everyone who understands right and wrong.

11. Because dictatorship itself is the greatest and most obvious injustice. It disregards everyone’s equality and autonomy, forcibly imposing a governing order for which there is no reasoned argument, and reducing all free citizens to slaves without choice. Ending one-party dictatorship is merely the pursuit of the dignity that people deserve as human beings, and anyone who is not pretending to be asleep should be able to understand this principle clearly.

12. Only people who cannot reason things out need to rely on mobilizing hatred all day long, while we have no need to do so at all. Only people who have no confidence whatsoever will see hostility everywhere, whereas we simply do not view the world that way. We have absolute confidence in what we believe and what we uphold. The fact that dictatorship relies on hatred to maintain its rule does not mean that everyone must use its methods; it does not mean that the whole world truly revolves around hatred. The belief in equality and justice, and respect for humanity and truth, have always been stronger and more enduring forces than hatred.

13. Beliefs are things that cannot be calculated or traded. To plead for mercy and apologize for everything one believes in is the most hypocritical thing to do, and it is also an insult to everyone who holds the same beliefs. So I will not do that, and cannot do that. Even the executioners who slaughtered entire cities have not come out to apologize—when would it be our turn?! Even if the world has been turned upside down, we should not apologize for the wrongdoing of the regime and make ourselves part of that inversion.

14. Regarding everything in the past, I refuse to use the language and concepts of crime to analyze how serious or not serious the things we did were. If the court really wants some reference, it can ask the National Security Office led by the Communist Party. They truly know how to view efforts to pursue democracy and human rights through the lens of crime. They have also repeatedly said, without the slightest attempt to conceal it, that this case is serious in nature and must be severely punished, without feeling at all that they are interfering with judicial independence. In any event, if the court ultimately really rules that our case is “serious in circumstances,” I will take it as praise for us, because it will mean that we truly accomplished something.

15. Being able to find a mission in which one believes and partners with whom one can fight side by side is the happiest thing in life. Therefore, I do not regret at all the path that I, the Hong Kong Alliance, and the people of Hong Kong have walked together. I have only caused hardship to my family and the people who love me; they are the only people from whom I wish to ask forgiveness.

16. As for the future, whether inside or outside prison, I will continue working, studying, enriching myself and trying all kinds of things to secure the release of pro-democracy activists, rehabilitate the 1989 democracy movement, pursue accountability for the massacre, end one-party dictatorship, and build a democratic Hong Kong and China, until the day democracy arrives. This is a promise I have made publicly countless times. It is a solemn oath I made to the victims amid the sea of candlelight, and I do not intend to be a person who breaks their word.

17. If doing so makes me a criminal forever, if the law truly cannot accommodate our beliefs, then I would rather be a criminal than a person who betrays my conscience. Together with all the Hong Kong people who refuse to accept their fate, I will continue along this unfinished democratic road.

18. Candlelight like a sea

Hearts surge like waves

Our broken bodies strike the shore

Injustice shall never cease

*** The copyright of this work belongs to the author. No organization or individual may use it for commercial purposes without authorization. When reproducing the article or photographs for non-commercial purposes, please indicate the source: https://www.patreon.com/c/chowhangtung