The recently wound down Civic Party did not have a “unified party stance” on vetoing all government bills as a bargaining chip to push for the five demands advocated during the 2019 extradition bill protests and unrest, an ex-party member charged in a high-profile national security case has told the court.
Ex-Eastern District Council member Tat Cheng on Thursday became the first defendant to give evidence personally against the charge of conspiracy commit subversion, which he faces alongside 46 other pro-democracy prominent politicians and activists.
The 47 defendants stand accused of organising, or taking part in, an unofficial legislative primary election held in July 2020 as part of a plan to seize majority control of the 70-seat legislature before the city’s electoral overhaul.
Prosecutors alleged that the democrats intended to abuse their powers as lawmakers to indiscriminately vote down government bills, if their plan been carried out to fruition. They conspired to paralyse government operations, cause the chief executive to dissolve the Legislative Council, and ultimately force the city’s leader to resign, prosecutors allege.
Veto gov’t bills
Cheng, who was a member of the pro-democracy Civic Party between 2012 and 2020, said on the witness stand on Thursday that his co-defendant and fellow party member Jeremy Tam proposed using a veto against all government bills as a bargaining chip to push for the five demands which stemmed from the 2019 protests.
Demonstrators at the time demanded full democracy, the withdrawal of the extradition bill, an independent probe into police conduct, amnesty for arrestees and a halt to the characterisation of protests as “riots.”
According to Cheng, Tam’s suggestion was made at an internal meeting in March 2020, around a week before the party held a press conference concerning the primary election. At the meeting, then-lawmaker Tam pointed to views among wider society that someone was seeking to use the veto as a bargaining chip, the ex-district councillor said.
“Rather than being pressured sooner or later, why don’t we come out and say that we will use the vetoing of all government bills as a bargaining chip to fight for the five demands…” Tam was quoted as saying by Cheng.
Cheng faced questions from his representative, Senior Counsel Hectar Pun, and three designated national security judges. The lawyer asked if anyone at the meeting sided with Tam, while High Court judge Andrew Chan questioned why Tam’s comment contradicted the views expressed by another Civic Party member, Tanya Chan.
Chan was said to have opposed the idea of vetoing the budget when legal scholar Benny Tai, a “primary mover” of the scheme, met with representatives of the Civic Party in February 2020.
In response, Cheng, who was at the March meeting as a potential candidate for the Hong Kong Island constituency, said that then-Civic Party leader Alvin Yeung supported Tam’s idea. He and then-lawmaker Kwok Ka-ki’s assistant both raised objections because they were concerned that vetoing the budget would affect plans for constructing a public hospital on Lantau Island and the expansion of the Eastern Hospital, Cheng said.
“Our supporters were rational, middle class people. Why would we come out and try to get a slice of the pie from the localists?” Cheng said when asked why he objected to Tam’s stance.
“I asked [Alvin Yeung and Jeremy Tam] if they could not go that far,” he added.
Party stance
Pun asked Cheng whether there was a unified party stance about vetoing the budget. The defendant said that there was not.
The Civic Party held a press conference on March 25, 2020, where Yeung said the party would cast a vote against every government bill if the chief executive failed to respond to the five demands.
He did not make any statement on that occasion, and only held a placard with a QR code to a voter registration website, Cheng said.
The former district councillor told the court that, prior to the press briefing, there was no discussion over whether the stance to be expressed to the media would be binding upon individual party members.
He also mentioned there was an internal mechanism that allowed Civic Party lawmakers to be exempt from following the party stance if their views did not align. It was established in 2016 after then-legislator Claudia Mo quit the party over a disagreement with the party’s positioning.
‘Rubberstamp’
Cheng gave evidence about the Civic Party’s structure and its decision-making process, saying said the caucus, which consisted of incumbent lawmakers, their assistants and some veteran party members, often overrode the executive committee.
“The function of the executive committee was like a rubber stamp… it had always been the case that lawmakers within the party would call the shots,” he said.
When judge Alex Lee asked if he would describe the decision-making process at Civic Party “democratic,” Cheng replied “No.”
Cheng eventually left the Civic Party in December 2020.
Another district councillor Lee Yue-shun, Yeung, Tam and Kwok all quit the Civic Party after they were prosecuted in the 47 democrats case. The latter three were also among 31 democrats who pleaded guilty earlier and remain detained pending sentencing, which could see them spend up to life behind bars.
Last month, the Civic Party voted to dissolve after the its executive committee posts were left vacant after no members filed nominations to take up the positions. It passed a motion at an extraordinary general meeting to wind up the company and said a liquidator had already been appointed.
Cheng will continue his testimony on Friday.
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
Help safeguard press freedom & keep HKFP free for all readers by supporting our team
