支联会不交资料案口头陈情前，幸彤也准备了书面陈情，中英文版对照如下。
法庭虽然判处我们有罪，但其实这场审讯已经证明了我们的清白。
我们清楚看到，所谓外国代理人的指控根本就是莫须有。我们清楚看到，原来国安把说出真相、要求问责、追求民主、捍卫人权，都视作危害国家安全。我们清楚看到，以国安法之名所作的所谓刑事调查，原来是没有追溯时限的历史清算。
如果我们当时默许了国安的标签和裁断，乖乖遵从对“外国代理人”的所有无理要求，这一切就不会有机会大白于天下。
这个案件表面上只是一宗关于资料的案件，而事实上，资料或曰讯息亦正是这个案件，甚至是国安法时代的核心问题。
政府说，以国家安全之名，它有权要求公民交出各种资料。同样地，以国家安全之名，它做什么决定都不用跟你解释。
当人民在权力面前变得愈来愈透明，但权力却在人民面前变得愈来愈不透明的时候，人民就不再是国家的主人，而是国家的奴隶。而“国家安全”亦只会成为掩饰这种奴役的借口。
讯息就是力量。这点当权者是最清楚的。所以他们要不惜一切地掩埋六四真相，要秘密地完成国安法的立法，要千方百计地阻止我们知道和公开他们对支联会的荒谬指控。正如这场审讯，虽然是在公开法庭所进行，但是以“公共利益”为名，最关键的信息要不被遮蔽，要不只能以打哑谜的方式去呈现，实际上连阁下都无法一窥案件的全貌。就算公众可以旁听，记者可以报导，大家也看不到什么，所谓“公开”变得徒有形式。
黑暗是滋生滥权和恐惧的温床。在本案中，真正关乎公共利益的讯息，并不是支联会这么多年做过些什么事，而是公权力在以国家安全之名做些什么。真正应该“交出”的资料，是国安行事的准则和理据，是他们凭什么可以将一个植根本地30多年的组织，一夕之间打成是外国的和违法的。
可悲的是，在这个权力失衡的体制下，政府要拿公民的资料，发一封信就可以，但公民想要得到一个交代，却必须去抗争，去冒着牢狱的风险，而拿到的可能也很有限。但是，这是是值得的，也是必要的。如果透过这场审讯得到的讯息能多少缚住权力的手，令它没有那么肆无忌惮，那个人的牢狱并不算是什么。
况且，我们如若顺从，那外国势力的标签就再也脱不下了，香港人30多年的坚持，就会因为我们的退让，变成了名不正言不顺的外部阴谋，变了不再是属于我们自己的运动。我们退无可退，我们必须如此。
我们必须以最响亮的话语，最清晰的行动，和当权者，也和全世界说，平反六四，结束专政，从来就是这片土地上的人自己的要求，不是因为什么煽动、什么误导、什么外部势力，而是出于每个人都有的良知和尊严。
维园的如海烛光，之所以震撼，之所以难能可贵，并不只是因为那个集体的画面，而是因为每一点烛光的后面都有一个独立自主的人，是因为这片烛光是任何权力都操纵不出来的。
因为国安说我们30多年的烛光集会都是危害国家安全的罪证，我这阵子重温了不少集会的片段。我看着烛光背后的一对对眼睛——沧桑的、年轻的、含泪的、坚定的、善良的、普通的、独特的、真诚的——我就知道，我永远不可能背弃这些目光。顺从或认罪，代表的从来不只是我们自己，而是这千万对眼睛。他们都不是无知无觉的棋子，我亦无权代他们承认这种侮辱。
否认我们是外国代理人，并不是要和外国割席。恰恰相反，正是因为我们想要和国际社会维持正常、自由的交往，我们才更要否定这种标签，并拆解它背后种种不合理的假设和谬误。
只有一个极权、一元的国家，才会将所有政治组织等同为国家利益的代表，才会将政治等同权势和阴谋。他们无法理解，政治可以、更应该是道德的。政治只不过是人们想活得更好的努力，它真正要回应的，是人性的需求，普世的价值，无论是古人所说的仁义，还是今人强调的人权和自主。
人性无分国界，价值高于国籍。追求人权和民主的运动，本就应当是超越国家界线的运动，尤其当国家本身就是压迫的来源。在国际舞台上，民间有权发出与当权者不同的声音，有权和不同的公民、政治组织去来往、合作而不被视作敌人或罪犯。我亦希望全世界爱好自由的人能继续与我们同行，不要中了极权的话术，为了避免代理人这个标签，反使得在地的抗争者被孤立。
况且，对这个国家的人民最大的威胁，从来就不是来自于什么外国干预，而是来自于内部，来自于不受制约的国家权力——六四就是最好的例子。与其千方百计地提防什么外国代理人，我们更应该提防的是自封人民代理的当权者。
作为扎根香港的公民社会的一分子，我们没责任依从规管外国代理人的法律行事，却有责任制止滥权、守护尊严、捍卫自由，我们尽了该尽的责任，我们自豪，我们无悔。
面对国安与控方的生安白造，隐瞒闪躲，我们一直持守的不过是立足事实，捍卫尊严。若然法庭认同前者是而后者非，那就判处本人最重的刑罚。
英文原文
Although the Court has ruled us guilty, the trial has already proved our innocence.
We know as a matter of fact that we are not foreign agents. Throughout the trial we were also able to see how the police’s accusation was utterly baseless. We saw clearly how speaking the truth, seeking accountability and defending human rights were all acts endangering national security in the police’s books. We saw clearly how the so-called criminal investigation was in fact an inquisition of legitimate speech and actions that stretched back to ages past, back to well before the enforcement of the National Security Law(NSL), even back to before Hong Kong’s handover.
If we have acquiesced to the wrongful labelling of ourselves as foreign agents, and quietly submitted to the unreasonable demands of the national security police, then what had been revealed through the trial would have been forever kept in the dark.
On the surface this is but a technical case of non-compliance with an information request. Yet such apparent simplicity belies the importance of information to the new era heralded by the NSL.
The government says that in the name of national security, it can have almost unlimited power to demand all sorts of information from a citizen. Further, in the name of national security, it needs not even explain the basis of the demand.
When the people become ever more transparent before the government, yet the government becomes ever more opaque before the people, then the people risk turning from the master of the government into its slaves. And the so-called“national security” would just become another perfect pretext to make such slavery.
Information is power and those in power know that well. This is why they have to bury the truth of the Tiananmen Massacre. This is why they have to complete the legislation of the NSL in secret. This is why they have tried all they can to stop us from knowing and exposing their absurd allegation against the Hong Kong Alliance. This trial itself is the best example of such tactic– although it was conducted in an open court, but in the name of“public interest”, all the key information was redacted or could only be referred to in a roundabout manner. Not even Your Worship could have a full grasp of the relevant facts. Even if the public was free to attend and journalists free to report, nothing of substance could be seen or said. Open justice degrades to a mere formality.
Darkness is the surest breeding ground for abuse and fear. The key information that has been missing in this stage is not what the Alliance had done over its long and public existence, what the authorities were and are still doing in the name of national security. The information that should have been handed over is the basis and criteria of the police determination, a proper explanation of how they could relegate a well respected local organisation to the rank of being foreign and criminal all of a sudden.
Sadly with the current imbalance of power between the people and the government, it is much harder to obtain information from the government than the other way around. When the government wants information from a citizen, all it needs to do is to issue a letter. If the citizen wants some explanation in return, he or she must risk becoming a criminal in fighting back. Yet this is both necessary and worth doing. If the information thus obtained can check the worsening abuse of power somewhat, then imprisonment is a price we gladly pay.
Furthermore, if we had complied with the national security police’s order, the label of“foreign agent” would have stuck with us forever. The perseverance of the Hong Kong people for over three decades would turn into a sinister foreign plot and thus, becoming something that is no longer our own. This is unacceptable. We could not back down.
We must, with the most unambiguous response, proclaim to the authorities and the world that seeking justice for the Tiananmen Massacre and ending one party dictatorship are all along the demands of the people living here on this land. They are not the result of so-called incitement or foreign interference but stemmed from the value of conscience and dignity inherent in each of us.
The sea of candlelights in Victoria Park was impressive not because of the grandeur of the imagery, but because there was an autonomous inpidual behind each flickering flame. It is not a scene that could be produced by any machination of state power, foreign or local.
Since the national security police claimed that our30 years of candlelight vigil are evidence of our criminality, I have spent much time rewatching videos of those events recently. I looked into the eyes behind those tiny flames– some wizened, some youthful, some teary, some shone with resolve, others with kindness; all so ordinary yet unique and above all sincere– and I know there and then I can never betray those eyes. Our plea or compliance has never been a decision that concerns only ourselves; but represents those thousands and thousands pairs of eyes. None of them is a mindless tool of foreign forces, nor do I have the right to submit to such indignity on their behalf.
Denying that we are foreign agents is not about cutting foreign ties. On the contrary, precisely because we wish to defend our freedom to interact with the international community, we must speak up against such loaded labelling and debunk the false assumptions behind it.
The criminal framework targeting so-called foreign agents reflects a worldview that regards all political organisations as the extension of an unified state, which must necessarily align with the interest of a state. It reflects a tendency to equate politics with treachery and power struggle. This is the totalitarian mindset which we reject. Politics can and should be normal. Politics is but people’s attempt to build a good life. It can and should be a response to every human’s urge to be kind and just, to be social yet autonomous, and to live a life true to the values we hold dear.
Human nature transcends national borders and values are above nationality. The movement for human rights and democracy is by nature a movement that stands above national boundaries, especially when the state itself is often the source of oppression. In the international arena, members of the civil society have the right to express narratives alternative to the state’s, and to connect and cooperate with different civil and political organisations from around the world, without being classified as enemies or criminals. I also hope that freedom-loving people from around the world can continue to stand with us, and not fall into the trap of isolating those on the ground in a counterproductive attempt to“protect” us from the false charge of being a“foreign agent”.
In fact the biggest threat to the people of the country has always been from within, not without. It is the domestic, unrestricted power that killed the most– as demonstrated by Tiananmen and countless historical tragedies. Rather than hyping up the illusionary threat of“foreign agents”, what we should guard against is instead those self-appointed leaders who claim to rule in our name.
As proud members of the Hong Kong civil society, we have no obligation to obey the law regulating foreign agents. But we have the duty to call out abuses of power, and to defend our common freedom and dignity. We have done our part, and have no regrets.
Your Worship, truth speaks for itself. To rule us guilty under the factual circumstances of the case does not take away the Hong Kong Alliance’s legitimacy, but the law’s legitimacy. Henceforth, we know how hollow and out of touch with reality the police allegation of“foreign agent” can be. In turn, this label has lost all ability to convince and degrade. This is our victory, regardless what sentence this court may impose.
As opposed to making false allegations and being secretive, all we have been insisting on is to defend our dignity based on truth and openness. If the Court considers the former right and the latter wrong, then please do sentence me to the heaviest sentence.
