HONG KONG — Two prominent pro-democracy activists who helped organize Hong Kong’s once-massive annual Tiananmen Square candlelight vigils have been convicted of inciting subversion, in a landmark national security case that could send them to prison for as long as 10 years.
Hong Kong’s High Court on August 21, 2026 found former lawmaker and labor activist Lee Cheuk-yan, 69, and barrister Chow Hang-tung, 41, guilty under the National Security Law imposed by Beijing in 2020. Both had pleaded not guilty and have been detained since 2021.
The verdict is significant not simply because of the prison terms the pair could face, but because of what the judges identified as central to the offense: a political slogan repeatedly used by the activists and their organization — a call to “end one-party dictatorship.”
According to the court, Lee and Chow intended through their campaigning to undermine confidence in the Chinese Communist Party and challenge the political system established under China’s constitutional order. The judges ruled that even advocacy that did not necessarily involve violence could still fall within the scope of the National Security Law if unlawful means were used to pursue subversion.
From Candlelight Vigils to a National Security Prosecution
Lee and Chow were senior figures in the now-disbanded Hong Kong Alliance in Support of Patriotic Democratic Movements of China, the organization that for decades organized Hong Kong’s annual June 4 vigil commemorating those killed during Beijing’s military crackdown on pro-democracy demonstrators in 1989.
For years, tens of thousands of people gathered in Hong Kong’s Victoria Park carrying candles — making the city one of the few places on Chinese soil where large-scale public remembrance of Tiananmen was openly held.
The Alliance’s vigils began in 1990 and became one of Hong Kong’s most recognizable political traditions. Organizers said the June 2019 commemoration attracted about 180,000 people, although crowd estimates for such events have historically varied.
That tradition effectively ended after 2020.
Authorities initially prohibited the vigil on public-health grounds during the COVID-19 pandemic. But public Tiananmen commemorations did not resume as Hong Kong’s political environment changed following the introduction of the National Security Law and the crackdown on opposition groups and activists.
The Alliance eventually dissolved in 2021 under mounting legal pressure.
The Slogan at the Center of the Case
The prosecution was broader than the mere act of holding a memorial.
The High Court focused heavily on the Alliance’s long-standing political campaign and, in particular, its repeated demand to end one-party rule in China.
Prosecutors argued that the leadership of the Chinese Communist Party forms part of China’s fundamental constitutional system, meaning efforts aimed at overthrowing or fundamentally undermining that structure can qualify as subversion.
The judges agreed.
Their ruling said Lee and Chow had sought to cause people to lose confidence in the Communist Party by encouraging hostility and division, with the ultimate objective of undermining China’s basic political system.
For Lee and Chow, however, their defense rested heavily on Hong Kong’s historically protected freedoms of speech, assembly and political expression.
The court rejected the argument that their belief that they were exercising lawful freedoms shielded them from criminal liability under the security legislation.
A Third Alliance Leader Already Pleaded Guilty
The case originally involved another prominent democracy activist, Albert Ho, 74, a former chairman of the Alliance and former leader of Hong Kong’s Democratic Party.
Ho pleaded guilty to the same charge earlier in the proceedings.
Lee and Chow instead chose to contest the allegations at trial.
The two now face a maximum sentence of 10 years in prison for inciting subversion. Mitigation proceedings are expected before sentences are formally handed down.
Why the Verdict Goes Far Beyond Two Activists
The ruling is being closely watched because it helps define where Hong Kong courts now draw the boundary between protected political expression and criminal subversion.
Beijing imposed the National Security Law on Hong Kong in June 2020 following the enormous and sometimes violent anti-government protests that rocked the city in 2019.
The legislation criminalizes secession, subversion, terrorism and collusion with foreign forces. Hong Kong and Chinese officials have repeatedly argued that the law restored stability after the unrest and targets threats to national security rather than ordinary criticism.
Critics, however, say the legislation has dramatically narrowed the space for opposition politics, public demonstrations, independent civil-society groups and dissent.
Many of Hong Kong’s best-known democracy organizations have since disbanded, while numerous opposition politicians and activists have been jailed, prosecuted or moved overseas.
International Reaction Adds Pressure
The convictions drew renewed criticism from international governments and rights organizations.
Officials from the United States, Britain and European governments have criticized the prosecution and its implications for political freedoms in Hong Kong. Human Rights Watch called for the convictions to be overturned, arguing that peaceful political expression and remembrance should not be treated as national-security offenses.
Hong Kong authorities, by contrast, have consistently rejected claims that national-security prosecutions represent political repression. Officials maintain that rights and freedoms remain protected but are not absolute, particularly when conduct is judged to threaten national security.
That divide is precisely why the Lee and Chow case carries such significance.
It transforms a dispute that began with the memory of an event in 1989 into a defining legal question for Hong Kong in 2026: How far can citizens challenge China’s political system before political advocacy itself crosses the line into subversion?
For decades, Hong Kong’s Tiananmen vigil was marked by seas of candlelight.
Now, two of the people who helped preserve that tradition are awaiting sentences that could keep them behind bars for years — while the political message once voiced openly in Victoria Park has become evidence at the center of one of Hong Kong’s most consequential national-security trials.
Leave a Reply