National security trial of Tiananmen vigil organisers to begin in Hong Kong

2026-01-25 - 21:07

A national security trial of former leaders of a group that once organised Hong Kong’s annual candlelight vigils to remember those killed in the 1989 Tiananmen Square crackdown is set to begin on Thursday. Photo: Benjamin Yuen/United Social Press. Chow Hang-tung and Lee Cheuk-yan, who led the now-defunct Hong Kong Alliance in Support of Patriotic Democratic Movements of China, are set to stand trial on Thursday over accusations of inciting subversion – an offence under the national security law Beijing imposed in 2020, following the 2019 pro-democracy protests and unrest. A third leader of the alliance, Albert Ho, is expected to plead guilty. According to the indictment, the trio allegedly incited others to organise, plan, carry out or participate in illegal acts aimed at subverting state power, namely, overthrowing the “fundamental systems” established under China’s constitution and toppling the central Chinese authorities. The offence carries a maximum penalty of 10 years behind bars. For more than three decades, the alliance held annual vigils in Victoria Park to commemorate the Tiananmen Square crackdown and advocate an end to the Chinese Communist Party’s one-party rule, alongside other political demands. Hong Kong authorities banned the gathering in 2020, citing Covid-19 policies, ending the large-scale yearly commemorations in the city. The group disbanded in 2021, among dozens of civil society groups that shuttered following the enactment of the national security law. The group was founded in May 1989, weeks before the People’s Liberation Army cracked down on protesters in Beijing’s Tiananmen Square, killing hundreds or possibly thousands and ending months of student-led demonstrations. The defendants Chow, vice chair of the alliance, has been remanded in custody for over 1,500 days. A barrister by training, the 40-year-old is representing herself in court and has been preparing her case from prison. Chow Hang-tung, former leader of the group that organised Hong Kong’s annual Tiananmen vigils, was escorted to Court of Final Appeal on June 8, 2023. File photo: Lea Mok/HKFP. She has faced prosecution over the work of the alliance, including organising vigils and calling on people to take part. She, along with two other members of the alliance – Tang Ngok-kwan and Tsui Hon-kwong – were also prosecuted in another case in 2021, in which they were accused of acting as foreign agents and ordered to surrender information. The trio refused to cooperate and were convicted, but they took the case to Hong Kong’s top court, which ruled in their favour and overturned the convictions. Last week, Chow lost a legal challenge against the prison rules requiring female inmates to wear trousers in summer, while male detainees are allowed to wear shorts. Lee, former chair of the alliance, campaigned on labour issues in Hong Kong’s legislature for more than 20 years. The veteran democrat and former lawmaker, 68, also served as general secretary of the Hong Kong Confederation of Trade Unions until it disbanded in 2021. Lee Cheuk-yan. Photo: Kelly Ho/HKFP. During the 1989 Tiananmen Square demonstrations, the alliance collected donations from the Concert for Democracy in China, a benefit concert held in Hong Kong, and travelled to hand over the funds to protesters in Beijing. Lee, who was among those who delivered the funds, was detained by the Chinese authorities and signed a confession before being allowed to return to Hong Kong. The ex-lawmaker, who has also been in detention for more than 1,500 days, is among seven veteran democrats convicted in 2024 over their participation in an unauthorised assembly in 2019 – a ruling upheld by Hong Kong’s top court. Ho, a solicitor and founding member of the alliance, is the only defendant in the subversion case planning to plead guilty. Albert Ho. File photo: HK Democrats, via Facebook. In November, the 74-year-old was suspended from practising as a notary public for seven years over his convictions for unauthorised assemblies in 2019 and 2020. ‘Unlawful means’ In the upcoming trial, the prosecution is expected to deliver arguments suggesting that one of the alliance’s core demands and slogans – “bring the one-party rule to an end” – is subversive under the Chinese constitution. The prosecution’s case will hinge on whether the slogan amounted to “unlawful means,” used to incite subversion of state power under the Beijing-imposed security law. During pre-trial hearings last year, Chow and the prosecution clashed over whether the “unlawful means” that the defendants allegedly employed to end the rule of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) had to be specifically defined. The activist argued that the prosecution had failed to specify what those means were and that its “vague and empty” accusations were tantamount to criminalising all political dissent. West Kowloon Magistrates’ Courts in Hong Kong, on September 19, 2024. Photo: Kyle Lam/HKFP. Ned Lai, deputy director of public prosecutions, said that any act could become unlawful as long as one harboured the intention of toppling the CCP, as stipulated in the first article of China’s constitution. High Court Judge Alex Lee, one of the three designated national security judges presiding over the case, said the prosecution’s definition would “cast a net very widely.” Whether that interpretation stands will be dealt with at the trial. The trial begins a day after the judges handed down the judgment on an earlier decision to reject Chow’s bid to have her subversion charge thrown out. The judges cited the prosecution’s arguments as saying that the trial “is not a political trial nor does it involve any issues concerning democracy, the June Fourth Incident, or criticism of the state.” The focus, the prosecution said, is on the defendants’ subversive intent. The judgment read: “This court will adjudicate solely on the basis of evidence and pertinent legal principles. It will not allow the trial to become, as [Chow] suggested, a tool for political suppression in the name of the law or an abuse of judicial procedure.”