Hong Kong’s Tiananmen activists guilty in national security trial
Two prominent Hong Kong activists, Lee Cheuk-yan and Chow Hang-tung, have been found guilty of inciting subversion under the city's Beijing-imposed national security law, over their roles organising annual vigils to commemorate the 1989 Tiananmen Square crackdown. The verdict marks a further tightening of the law's use against pro-democracy figures and comes as Hong Kong's once-unique freedom to publicly mark the crackdown has been effectively eliminated, drawing condemnation from human rights groups who say the prosecution criminalises peaceful commemoration.
Lee, 69, and Chow, 41, face up to ten years in prison, with sentencing to be set later; a third defendant, Albert Ho, 74, had already pleaded guilty in January. All three were leaders of the now-disbanded Hong Kong Alliance, founded in 1989 to support the Tiananmen protesters and which for decades pressed authorities to acknowledge the crackdown and pursue democratic reform; its leaders have been detained since being charged in 2021. Public vigils, once held annually in Victoria Park, were banned in 2020 and never resumed, the same year the national security law took effect. Amnesty International called the pair "prisoners of conscience" and demanded their immediate release, arguing the case rests on vague definitions of subversion.
In short
- Two Hong Kong Tiananmen vigil organisers convicted of inciting subversion
- Lee Cheuk-yan and Chow Hang-tung face up to 10 years in jail
- Amnesty International calls them "prisoners of conscience", demands release
Steelman: both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
The national security law exists to prevent conduct that threatens Hong Kong's stability and governance. Supporters argue the law appropriately targets systematic efforts to undermine the government's authority, and that the Hong Kong Alliance's vigils, though presented as commemoration, functioned as annual gatherings organising ongoing pro-democracy opposition. They contend that meaningful national security must address organising activities at their root rather than waiting for explicit incitement to illegality, and that stable governance is essential to Hong Kong's prosperity and residents' wellbeing.
The case against
These convictions criminalise peaceful, long-established commemorations of a historical event, eliminating Hong Kong's once-distinctive freedom to mark difficult history publicly. Critics argue the "subversion" charges rest on dangerously vague legal definitions that effectively criminalise peaceful political speech and assembly by treating sustained political opposition as threatening. They maintain international human rights standards protect precisely these freedoms so societies may remember difficult history and engage in peaceful dissent, and that the law functions as a tool to suppress legitimate political expression rather than addressing genuine security threats.
Explained simply
Hong Kong's Tiananmen vigil has been held every year since 1989 to remember the crackdown on pro-democracy protesters in Beijing, when the Chinese military used force against demonstrators calling for political reform. For decades the vigil was organised by the Hong Kong Alliance, a group founded that year to support the protesters and press for official acknowledgement of the events. The gatherings, usually in Victoria Park, made Hong Kong the only place under Chinese rule where the crackdown could be openly commemorated in public.
That changed after Beijing imposed a national security law on Hong Kong in 2020, following mass anti-government protests the previous year. The law created new offences, including subversion, aimed at curbing threats to state power, and the vigil was banned that same year, officially on public health grounds, and has not been held since. Lee Cheuk-yan and Chow Hang-tung, along with Albert Ho, were senior figures in the Hong Kong Alliance, which later disbanded, and all three have been in custody since being charged in 2021.
The case matters because it tests how far the security law reaches into activities that were previously legal and widely tolerated, including public remembrance and civil society organising. Supporters of the law say it restored order after 2019's unrest, while critics, including international human rights organisations, argue it is being used to shut down peaceful dissent. The outcome for Lee and Chow, who could face significant prison time, is being watched as a marker of the space left for political expression in Hong Kong.