Former lawmaker Raymond Chan, one of the 47 pro-democracy figures charged with conspiring to commit subversion, has told a court that he had “no intention” to veto the government budget as the city’s largest national security trial continued.
Appearing at West Kowloon Law Courts Building on Tuesday, barrister David Ma questioned his client, Chan, who served as lawmaker from 2012 to 2020 for the New Territories East geographical constituency. Chan’s testimony followed that of journalist-turned activist Gwyneth Ho, who was also among the 16 defendants to plead not guilty to the charge, and who completed testifying on Monday.
Chan said pro-democracy party People Power, which he formerly chaired, “supported the primary election with a common political action agenda,” but he explained that People Power had long been at odds with traditional democrats, who used to call People Power “the establishment camp’s B-team”.
When the democrats accused People Power of not supporting the primaries, Chan said he would say: “We don’t have a common political action agenda with you, but do you think I would run with the establishment camp?”
The 47 pro-democracy figures involved in the case – including former lawmakers, ex-district councillors and activists – stand accused of organising or participating in an unofficial legislative primary election held in July 2020, with the aim of selecting the strongest election candidates in the hope of winning a controlling majority in the legislature.
Prosecutors have alleged that the democrats intended to abuse their powers – if elected as lawmakers – to indiscriminately veto government bills, paralyse government operations, dissolve the Legislative Council (LegCo), and ultimately force the city’s leader to resign.
The maximum penalty for the charge, an offence under Hong Kong’s sweeping national security law, is life in prison. Many of the defendants have been detained since March 2021, and those who pleaded guilty are awaiting sentencing after the lengthy trial of those who entered not-guilty pleas ends.
‘No intention’ to veto budget
Chan told the court on Tuesday he had made his stance clear in March 2020 on a radio programme, when he said that People Power supported the primaries as long as there was a common agenda. His comments were made after Apple Daily published a report saying that Chan’s party was opposed to the primaries and was trying to sabotage coordination meetings.
Asked whether the “common political action agenda” Chan spoke of involved indiscriminately vetoing the budget, Chan said he “certainly had no intention” of doing so, nor of asking others to do so.
He also explained that what he meant by a common agenda was that lawmakers should actively participate and attend legal meetings if voted in, otherwise “35+” – the number of democrats needed to gain a controlling majority in the then 70-seat legislature – would be “just a number.”
Ma showed the court a Facebook post dated March 22, 2020, in which Chan said when it came to deciding whether to join the primaries, a unified coalition should come first, and that differences within the pro-democracy camp should be settled after.
In response to a question from High Court judge Alex Lee – one of three handpicked national security judges overseeing the non-jury trial – as to whether the the “common agenda” was achieved, seeing as Chan joined the primaries, Chan said that he joined the primaries in spite of the lack of common ground. Chan did not require his “high expectations” to be met in order to join the primaries, he added.
Not part of ‘resistance camp’
Chan also told the court that he did not consider himself part of the “resistance camp.” Asked if he rejected activist Ho’s invitation to a “resistance camp” press conference, Chan said his memory was blurry, but he remembered rejecting an invitation from then-lawmaker Eddie Chu.
When High Court Judge Johnny Chan asked whether he “didn’t want to go or could not go,” Chan said: “I didn’t consider myself part of the same camp. I didn’t see why I should have gone.”
Chan also told the court that he had signed an online petition named “Resolute Resistance, Inked Without Regret” after seeing that Ho had signed it and “finding no issue” with it. The petition was signed by 33 defendants in the case.
The first point of the declaration read: “I will deploy the powers conferred to the LegCo under the Basic Law, including that for vetoing Budgets, in compelling the Chief Executive to respond to the Five Demands, withdraw charges against all protesters, hold relevant parties accountable for police brutality, and re-launch political reform for achieving dual universal suffrage.”
Asked whether he thought that point suggested that lawmakers should have a unified stance, Chan said he did not.
On the second point, which read, “I endorse that I shall expressly announce a halt to my electioneering activities should my support rating fall outside the scope of expected seats obtainable for the respective constituency,” Chan said such a mechanism was important, as voters may lose their trust if candidates refused to honour their promise.
Appealing to voters
Ma played a promotional video clip of a conversation between Chan and long-time radio co-host Tam Tak-chi titled “Fast and Slow Have a Talk,” in which Chan said: “[A]ny draconian laws can be opposed, opposed, opposed. The white elephant projects can be opposed, opposed, opposed, and then we oppose the budget, dissolve the Legislative Council, and even the chief executive is going to step down.”
Chan told the court he hoped to convey to voters the message that the legislature and voting were indeed useful. He said while he recognised the theme of the primary election was 35+, saying too much would in turn give voters an “empty promise” of “a vision that can’t be realised.”
Instead, Chan said he was focusing on “35-,” or what would happen if the democrats failed to secure a majority in the legislature. “I was very doubtful that it could be realised,” Chan said. When Ma asked him whether he was, in other words, appealing to voters to encourage them to vote, Chan said he was.
Chan added that others were selling a vision of a legislature in which democrats held a controlling majority, “but what I was selling was a track record. I was describing what I had done in the past.”
He said in the video that blocking the passage of the 2019 extradition amendment bill and the 2014 copyright amendment bill were the two greatest achievements in his eight years as a Hong Kong legislator.
He added that he had to rally support from both inside and outside the legislature to speak out against the copyright bill, known as Internet Article 23 for its broad definition of illegality of derivative creations on the internet.
Leaving office
Ma asked why Chan did not remain in office as a lawmaker after it was announced in August 2020 that his term would be extended by one year, to which Chan replied that the mandate given by voters was for him to only serve for four years in that term.
He also said he chose not to remain after his term ended on September 30, 2020, because of his disappointment with the pro-democracy camp.
“If the pro-democracy lawmakers who advocated to remain had said that they would attend meetings on time, join as many committees as possible, and actively speak and raise views, and vote properly, then I would consider staying,” he said.
“But my nightmare is that if I stayed with you, and I turned out to be the only one facing dozens of pro-establishment lawmakers,” he continued. “Nobody could promise such basic things. I felt powerless and I just didn’t want to fight anymore.”
Asked by Ma whether he “at any stage [intended] to give the impression that [he] would veto any bills or budget, come what may,” Chan said he did not. Asked if he would veto them, Chan said he would not veto any budget “before seeing details.”
Asked if anyone had asked him to do so, and if anyone had asked him to agree to their hypothetical vetoing of the budget, Chan answered in the negative.
In June 2020, Beijing inserted national security legislation directly into Hong Kong’s mini-constitution – bypassing the local legislature – following a year of pro-democracy protests and unrest. It criminalised subversion, secession, collusion with foreign forces and terrorist acts, which were broadly defined to include disruption to transport and other infrastructure. The move gave police sweeping new powers, alarming democrats, civil society groups and trade partners, as such laws have been used broadly to silence and punish dissidents in China. However, the authorities say it has restored stability and peace to the city.
Support HKFP | Policies & Ethics | Error/typo? | Contact Us | Newsletter | Transparency & Annual Report | Apps
latest national security stories
