HONG KONG — Hong Kong has sentenced three prominent democracy activists who helped organize the city’s annual Tiananmen Square vigils to lengthy prison terms, in one of the most consequential national-security cases involving the city’s once-prominent pro-democracy movement.
Former Hong Kong Alliance leaders Lee Cheuk-yan and Chow Hang-tung were sentenced Friday to seven years and seven years and three months in prison, respectively, after being convicted of inciting subversion under Hong Kong’s national security law. A third former leader, Albert Ho, who pleaded guilty, received a five-year-and-two-month sentence.
The sentences mark a dramatic escalation in the legal consequences faced by organizers of commemorations that for decades had been among the most visible expressions of political dissent in Hong Kong.
From candlelight vigils to national-security convictions
For years, Hong Kong was the only place in China where large-scale public commemorations of the June 4, 1989, Tiananmen Square crackdown were permitted.
The Hong Kong Alliance in Support of Patriotic Democratic Movements of China organized annual candlelight vigils that drew tens of thousands of people.
That tradition effectively ended after Hong Kong authorities prohibited the 2020 vigil, citing public-health restrictions during the COVID-19 pandemic. Subsequent national-security measures further narrowed the space for public commemoration and political dissent.
The Alliance later disbanded.
But prosecutors argued that its broader political activities went beyond remembrance and amounted to an attempt to undermine China’s political system.
The phrase at the center of the case
A major part of the prosecution’s argument focused on the Alliance’s longstanding call to “end one-party dictatorship.”
Hong Kong prosecutors argued that the slogan was not simply political advocacy but constituted an effort to undermine China’s Communist Party-led system.
The court accepted that argument, finding Lee and Chow guilty of inciting subversion under the national security law. Both had pleaded not guilty.
The case illustrates the sweeping reach of Hong Kong’s national-security legislation, which Beijing imposed in 2020 following the territory’s mass pro-democracy protests in 2019.
Who received the longest sentences?
Lee Cheuk-yan, 69, a former lawmaker and longtime labor activist, was sentenced to seven years.
Chow Hang-tung, 41, a lawyer and prominent democracy advocate who represented herself during much of the trial, received the longest sentence at seven years and three months.
Albert Ho, 74, a former lawmaker and human-rights lawyer, received five years and two months after pleading guilty.
The Hong Kong Alliance itself was also fined HK$1.5 million, according to Reuters.
Critics see a wider warning
Human-rights organizations and international officials have sharply criticized the convictions and sentences.
Human Rights Watch said the case demonstrated the continuing erosion of fundamental freedoms in Hong Kong, while other critics argued that peaceful political advocacy and remembrance had been criminalized under the national-security framework.
The criticism reflects a much broader concern about Hong Kong’s political transformation since 2020.
Before the national-security law, the city had maintained a relatively open environment for political activism compared with mainland China. The annual Tiananmen vigil became one of the most powerful symbols of that difference.
That space has since dramatically contracted.
Hong Kong authorities defend the national-security approach
Hong Kong authorities and Chinese officials have consistently defended the national-security laws, arguing that they are necessary to protect stability and prevent activities that threaten national sovereignty.
In the Tiananmen case, prosecutors maintained that the defendants’ political activities crossed the line from protected expression into conduct intended to undermine state power.
The government has rejected claims that the prosecution is politically motivated and says the rule of law continues to operate in Hong Kong.
That creates the central divide surrounding the case: critics view the prosecution as punishment for peaceful political expression, while authorities describe it as a legitimate national-security case.
A turning point for Tiananmen remembrance
The sentencing carries significance far beyond the three defendants.
For decades, the June 4 vigil was one of the defining events of Hong Kong’s civil society. Tens of thousands could gather in Victoria Park to light candles, sing songs and remember those killed during the 1989 crackdown.
That public ritual is now gone.
The imprisonment of the people who organized it sends an unmistakable message about how dramatically Hong Kong’s political environment has changed since 2020.
The case also raises a difficult question about the future of historical remembrance in the city: what happens when remembering a politically sensitive event becomes a national-security issue?
For Lee, Chow and Ho, the answer is now measured in years behind bars.
And for Hong Kong, the sentences may become another defining marker of the shrinking space for organized political dissent.
The candles may no longer burn openly in Hong Kong — but the debate over what the city is allowed to remember has only become more intense.
Leave a Reply