Two former organizers of the long-standing vigil in Hong Kong commemorating the 1989 Tiananmen Square crackdown were found guilty in a national security case on Friday, prosecuted under a China-imposed law that has effectively quashed the city’s once-thriving pro-democracy movement.
Lee Cheuk-yan and Chow Hang-tung, former heads of the Hong Kong Alliance in Support of Patriotic Democratic Movements of China, were accused in 2021 of inciting subversion under the national security law. Despite pleading not guilty, they now face a potential 10-year prison sentence. The alliance itself was also convicted.
The court’s three judges determined that the alliance’s advocacy to “end one-party dictatorship” was not a call for the ruling Communist Party to return to a multi-party cooperative system under the constitution, but rather to eliminate its leadership status under the constitution. They interpreted the term “end” in the phrase as implying “overthrowing” and “undermining.”
In their ruling, the judges noted that the defendants persisted in promoting this ideology even after the law was enacted, disregarding that it violated the constitution, which designates the party’s leadership as a fundamental aspect of socialism with Chinese characteristics. This action was categorized as “other unlawful means” under the security law.
This verdict is the latest blow to Hong Kong’s once-vibrant pro-democracy movement, which has been significantly dismantled by authorities in Hong Kong and China.
For thirty years, the candlelight vigil organized by the alliance was the primary large-scale public event drawing tens of thousands annually to mourn the victims of the 1989 crackdown in China. The gathering was prohibited in 2020 amid the COVID-19 pandemic, shortly before Beijing imposed the security law on Hong Kong to suppress the massive anti-government protests of 2019.
Following the court proceedings, Lee and Chow acknowledged the public gallery with smiles and waves before departing. They are set to be sentenced at a later date, where they plan to appeal for reduced penalties. Observers view their trial as emblematic of the diminishing freedom of expression in the former British colony since its handover to Chinese rule in 1997.
The judges refrained from providing detailed reasons for the conviction during the hearing, stating that the full judgment would be released online afterward.
