Editorial from Hong Kong Ming Pao on Dec. 17, 1995

THE verdict on WEI Jingsheng's case has finally been handed to his family. The world-shocking political trial shows that justice on the Chinese mainland remains subservient to politics. To questions from outside, Chinese officials have responded by saying, "Wei was punished in accordance with the law." But that is totally unconvincing.

In the verdict document, WEI is said to have drawn up an "action plan for a conspiracy" with the object of "subverting the government". The "action plan" is in fact a document drafted by WEI for the purpose of raising money. Called "A Synopsis of the Projects for Which Assistance Is Required", it includes six projects regarded by the Chinese authorities as "evidence": to control a lawful financial institution which employs and preserves funds so as to finance pro-democracy activities; to set up a company which organizes cultural activities such as shows and exhibitions, thereby building up a force supporting pro-democracy activities; to start trade-union movements; to set up a fund to help victims of political persecution; and to set up a fund to finance united-front work.

In fact, WEI only managed to raise a small sum, just sufficient for acquiring a 12.5% stake in "Beijing Xibianmen City Credit Cooperative", a tiny concern, and putting on a "Chinese, Japanese and Korean Modern Art Exhibition" in Beijing in the name of Lifeway Limited, a company registered in Hong Kong. All other "projects" remained on paper. The court found him guilty of "plotting to subvert the government" and "doing acts endangering the People's Republic of China". But how can the court be said to have had regard to "hard facts" or "conclusive evidence"?

Even if WEI had succeeded in raising money, acquired a credit cooperative, set up a cultural company and helped victims of the June 4 incident, would he have committed what amounts to crime of "subverting the government"? The subversion of a government is a serious matter. Needless to say, Chinese citizens are not allowed to publish newspapers or found trade unions. Even if WEI had published a newspaper and established contact with trade unions, he would only have done acts preparatory to the furtherance of a pro-democracy movement. As long as a movement was intended to be peaceful, rational and lawful such is just what a Chinese citizen cherishing political ideal would seek to do (through peaceful popular organizations) to bring about democratization, in addition to "the four modernizations", in China. Such conduct, in fact, manifests patriotism.

Before they can find WEI guilty, the Chinese authorities must prove that the pro-democracy movement which he was to plan or to support was intended to be a violent or unlawful activity, such as bribing a unit of the armed forces into attempting to stage a coup and inciting citizens to use violence to overthrow the government. The fatal weakness of the verdict is that it mentions no evidence whatsoever to show that WEI might have planned to launch or participate in any violent activity. As none of what is mentioned in the Synopsis can amount to an act done with a view to subverting the government, how can the projects possibly constitute "subversion"?

In Chinese criminal law, state of mind is as essential as criminal conduct. What evidence is mentioned in the verdict as to WEI's state of mind? The only evidence is his criticisms of the Chinese government expressed in his submissions which he sent to Chinese leaders while serving his sentence. WEI subsequently authorized two Hong Kong magazines, The Ming Pao monthly and Open, to publish them. In these submissions, the Chinese Communist regime was said to be "autocratic, despotic" and "stubbornly to share the Nazis' views on human rights". WEI also wrote that "it is necessary to know Mao Zedong and the things under him in their true colors, and fight them", and that "Tibet is undoubtedly a sovereign country". The Chinese government may differ with WEI and refute these views, but there is no factual ground whatsoever on which any court can regard the expression of these views to be "manufacturing publicity with the object of subverting the people's democratic dictatorship and the Socialist system and splitti

ng the nation". To do so is unjustifiably to put a label on WEI.

WEI is not the first to criticize the Chinese government as autocratic and despotic and even condemn Mao and his followers, nor is he the last. Many such critics can be found in Hong Kong, and they are no rarity on the mainland. Unwarranted imputation of criminal intent, which is typical false accusation and political persecution, is in nature the same thing as "literary inquisition" in past dynasties.

WEI's counsel's case in his defense is that "WEI has had no intent of subverting the government and has done nothing with a view to doing so." His argument is as sound as it is convincing. However, the court disdainfully dismissed it, saying, "It is rejected on the grounds that it is untenable for lack of factual or legal basis." By doing so, the court rendered virtually non-existent what is called the accused person's right to defend himself. Furthermore, WEI's trial, said to be open, was virtually conducted "in camera", for admittance was restricted. The court wrapped up the trial hastily, and meted out punishment in an outrageously unreasonable manner. To say such a trial was conducted "in accordance with the law" would be to make a mockery of justice and common sense. There is no way WEI can avoid the fate of staying behind the bars. However, in people's eyes, it is the Chinese government and China's legal system that have stool on trial.