Tiananmen vigil group writings intended to tell stories of Chinese dissidents, not to incite subversion, court hears

2026-03-23 - 10:23

Writings published by a now-dissolved Tiananmen vigil group were not meant to be subversive, but written to expose Hongkongers to democratic movements in mainland China, a former leader of the group has said in court. Chow Hang-tung. File photo: Candice Chau/HKFP. “My articles were not meant to incite anything,” Chow Hang-tung, who led the Hong Kong Alliance in Support of Patriotic Democratic Movements of China, told national security judges on Monday. She instead intended to “tell stories” about rights activists facing oppression in mainland China, including the late Chinese dissident Liu Xiaobo and his widow Liu Xia. Chow, along with fellow Alliance leader Lee Cheuk-yan, is standing trial for “inciting subversion” under the Beijing-imposed national security law, an offence that carries a maximum penalty of 10 years in prison. The third defendant, Albert Ho – another leader of the group – has pleaded guilty to the same charge. For decades, the Alliance organised vigils at Victoria Park to commemorate the 1989 Tiananmen crackdown in Beijing, when hundreds, perhaps thousands, were killed as troops dispersed pro-democracy demonstrators in and around Tiananmen Square. On Monday, the court was shown an article in a periodical published by the Alliance in 2017, titled “Memorial at Sea for Liu Xiaobo.” Liu was one of the authors of Charter 08, a manifesto signed by Chinese dissidents and human rights activists calling for political changes, including the establishment of an independent legal system, an end to one-party rule, and freedom of association. He was sentenced to 11 years in prison for inciting subversion of state power over his involvement in the petition. The annual vigil at Victoria Park on June 4, 2020, to commemorate victims of the 1989 Tiananmen Square Massacre. Photo: May James/HKFP. The Alliance, which is itself standing trial under the national security law, supported the Charter 08 movement and called for Liu’s release. The Alliance was planning how to celebrate his release when the news broke that Liu was gravely ill in prison in 2017. “He passed away so quickly that we didn’t even have time to say that... we tried to fight for him to see his family one last time.” Chow began choking up and paused. Judge Alex Lee then asked if she needed to take a break and ordered that she be given a tissue. She said the Alliance’s support for the Charter 08 movement did not stop after Liu died in 2017, prompting judge Johnny Chan to ask whether the Alliance continued its support after Beijing’s national security law was enacted in Hong Kong. Chow said it did. ‘A reflection’ The activist also said she hoped that her writings would help foster a connection between Hongkongers and democracy advocates in mainland China. “When Hongkongers look at [mainland] China... they might be able to see what so many people have done in the pursuit of democracy and freedom,” she said. “Democracy isn’t something that we alone pursue; it’s also the wish of countless Chinese people.” “We were not trying to incite anything. We wanted to promote understanding between Hong Kong and mainland China. These are the most positive stories about China and its finest people,” she added. A memorial held in Hong Kong on July 14, 2018, a year after Liu Xiaobo’s death. Photo: Catherine Lai/HKFP. “It is about letting friends in Hong Kong hear these stories, so they can see that both sides may be facing very similar struggles and controversies, confronting the same systemic oppression, and thus perhaps find a reflection of themselves in our mainland counterparts.” Chow was then shown an article by fellow defendant Ho in which he said that historical experience showed that ending one-party rule was generally achieved in three ways: leaders relinquishing power, armed revolution, and peaceful protest. However, Chow said that the Alliance had always advocated for non-violent resistance and “resolutely rejected” violent revolution. Judge Chan then asked whether those “non-violent” means could be considered illegal in mainland China. She replied: “It’s not about how the government defines it, but about the nature of the actions themselves: petitioning, assembly, marching, and demonstrating are not criminal acts in essence.”