In a Hong Kong courtroom, two aging activists — Lee Cheuk-yan and Chow Hang-tung — were found guilty of inciting subversion for the act of lighting candles in memory of the dead. Their conviction under Beijing's 2020 national security law marks a moment in which the boundaries of permissible memory have been redrawn by the state, transforming grief and remembrance into instruments of sedition. What is on trial, in the deepest sense, is not two individuals but the question of whether a society may mourn its own history — and who holds the authority to answer.
Hong Kong activists guilty of 'subversion' for Tiananmen vigils
Two activists face up to 10 years imprisonment; dozens of opposition leaders detained or fled Hong Kong; civil society decimated.
Remembering the past, in Hong Kong, has become a crime.
Mark
Why does a vigil—a candlelit gathering to remember the dead—become a national security threat?
Mimi
Because the vigil was about more than memory. The slogan was "end one-party rule." The court saw that as an attempt to make people lose faith in the Communist Party. The vigil was the vehicle; the message was the crime.
Mark
But people have been holding Tiananmen vigils for decades. What changed in 2020?
Mimi
The national security law changed everything. Before, Hong Kong had a degree of autonomy—it was supposed to. After 2020, Beijing could prosecute almost anything as a threat to the state. The vigils went from tolerated to forbidden overnight.
Mark
Did Lee and Chow actually call for violent action?
Mimi
No. That's what makes the conviction so striking. They organized peaceful gatherings. The law doesn't require violence—it just requires "incitement" to acts "by unlawful means." A vigil itself became the unlawful means.
Mark
What does Chow mean when she says they're trying to erase memories?
Mimi
She means the government is trying to make it impossible to publicly acknowledge what happened in 1989. If you can't gather, can't speak about it, can't remember it together, the event itself starts to disappear from the city's consciousness.
Mark
Is this the end of dissent in Hong Kong?
Mimi
It's the end of organized, public dissent. Opposition leaders are in prison or exile. Civil society groups have disbanded. What remains is individual silence, which is perhaps the point.
Mark
Why would Western governments care about two activists in Hong Kong?
Mimi
Because Hong Kong was supposed to be different—a place where Chinese rule coexisted with Western-style freedoms. If that promise is broken, it signals what Beijing might do elsewhere, and it raises questions about whether any agreement with China can be trusted.
O Pulso
- Two activists face up to ten years in prison for organizing candlelit vigils — gatherings that were, for decades, simply part of Hong Kong life.
- The prosecution's case rested on a slogan and a memory: that demanding an end to one-party rule, even in mourning, constitutes a threat to state power.
- Chow Hang-tung, a Cambridge-trained barrister who defended herself, argued from the dock that the law itself was the defendant — but the court was not persuaded.
- France, Germany, and the United Kingdom have condemned the verdict, warning that peaceful remembrance has been criminalized in violation of commitments China made at Hong Kong's handover.
- Since 2020, Hong Kong's opposition has been systematically dismantled — leaders jailed or exiled, civil society hollowed out — and this conviction deepens that pattern.
- Outside the courthouse, police corralled reporters while supporters who had queued for days to witness history absorbed a verdict that confirmed their fears: in Hong Kong today, remembering the past is a crime.
In a Hong Kong courtroom, two aging activists — Lee Cheuk-yan and Chow Hang-tung — were found guilty of inciting subversion for the act of lighting candles in memory of the dead. Their conviction under Beijing's 2020 national security law marks a moment in which the boundaries of permissible memory have been redrawn by the state, transforming grief and remembrance into instruments of sedition. What is on trial, in the deepest sense, is not two individuals but the question of whether a society may mourn its own history — and who holds the authority to answer.
A Hong Kong court convicted activists Lee Cheuk-yan, 69, and Chow Hang-tung, 41, of inciting subversion for their decades-long role organizing candlelit vigils marking the anniversary of the 1989 Tiananmen Square crackdown. Each now faces up to ten years in prison. The verdict is among the most consequential prosecutions under Beijing's sweeping 2020 national security law — legislation that has fundamentally altered what may be said, remembered, or mourned in the former British colony.
Lee and Chow led the Hong Kong Alliance, the organization that held the city's only public Tiananmen memorial each June 4th, drawing thousands to light candles for those killed when Chinese troops entered Beijing's central square. After the national security law took effect, such gatherings became legally perilous. The Alliance disbanded. Its leaders were charged in 2021 and have remained in custody since. A third defendant, former lawmaker Albert Ho, 74, pleaded guilty before the trial began.
Prosecutors argued that the Alliance's slogan — calling for an end to one-party rule — was designed to undermine confidence in the Chinese Communist Party and sow division. Chow, who represented herself, countered that the law itself was what stood trial, and that the Alliance had done nothing more than exercise freedoms Hong Kong was guaranteed under the 1984 Sino-British joint declaration. When the guilty verdict was read, Lee made a heart shape with his hands from the dock before being led away. From her prison cell, Chow had written to UK Prime Minister Andy Burnham: "They are trying to rewrite Hong Kong history. They certainly want to erase some memories."
International condemnation followed swiftly. France and Germany issued a joint statement declaring that "peaceful advocacy for human rights does not constitute a crime." The UK's Indo-Pacific minister called the verdict proof that even quiet acts of remembrance are now treated as threats to national security, and called for the law's repeal. Amnesty International criticized the legal framework as relying on "vague, overly broad and arbitrary definitions of subversion."
The conviction arrives against a backdrop of systematic dismantling: since 2020, most of Hong Kong's opposition leaders have been jailed or driven into exile. Supporters who had queued for days outside the courthouse to witness the proceedings described the verdict as confirmation of Beijing's total authority over the city's civil life. Sentencing has yet to be scheduled — but the message, many observers noted, has already been delivered.
A Hong Kong court has convicted two activists of inciting subversion for their role in organizing annual candlelit vigils commemorating the 1989 Tiananmen Square crackdown. Lee Cheuk-yan, 69, and Chow Hang-tung, 41, now face up to a decade in prison each. The verdict, handed down on Friday, marks one of the most prominent prosecutions under Beijing's 2020 national security law—a sweeping measure that has fundamentally reshaped what is permissible to say and do in the former British colony.
Lee and Chow led the Hong Kong Alliance, the organization that for decades held the city's only public memorial for those killed when Chinese troops and tanks rolled into Beijing's central square on June 4, 1989. The vigils were a fixture of Hong Kong life, drawing thousands each year to light candles and remember the dead. But after the national security law took effect, such gatherings became dangerous. The Alliance disbanded. Its leaders were charged in 2021 and have been held in custody since. The trial itself consumed 24 days of court proceedings beginning in January. A third defendant, former lawmaker Albert Ho, 74, pleaded guilty in advance.
The specific charge against Lee and Chow was that they "incited other persons to organise, plan, commit or participate in acts by unlawful means with a view to subverting the state power." The prosecution's case centered on the Alliance's slogan demanding an end to one-party rule. Prosecutors argued that the defendants intended to undermine confidence in the Chinese Communist Party by stirring hostility and sowing division. Chow, a Cambridge-educated barrister who represented herself, argued in court that the law itself was on trial. The defence maintained that the Alliance was simply exercising freedom of speech—a right that Hong Kong was supposed to retain under the 1984 Sino-British joint declaration that governed the handover from British to Chinese rule in 1997.
Inside the courtroom on Friday, Lee and Chow waved to supporters from the dock, flanked by correctional officers. When the judge delivered the guilty verdict, Lee made a heart shape with his hands and waved again before being led away. From her prison cell, Chow had written a letter to UK Prime Minister Andy Burnham, portions of which the Guardian obtained. "They are trying to rewrite Hong Kong history," she wrote. "They certainly want to erase some memories, or memories of some chapters in our history." She called on Britain to take a harder line against what she described as a "totalitarian and aggressive China."
The conviction has drawn swift international rebuke. France and Germany issued a joint statement saying they "deeply regret" the outcome and that "peaceful advocacy for human rights does not constitute a crime." Chow had been awarded the Franco-German prize for human rights in 2023. The UK Foreign Office's Indo-Pacific minister, Rosie Winterton, called the verdict "a further demonstration that even peaceful acts of remembrance in Hong Kong are now treated by the authorities as threats to national security." She said the extensive use of the national security law to punish peaceful expression violates commitments China made under the joint declaration and called for the law to be repealed.
Human rights organizations have criticized the legal framework itself. Amnesty International said the case "relies on vague, overly broad and arbitrary definitions of 'subversion'." The conviction reflects a broader pattern: since 2020, Hong Kong's civil society has been systematically dismantled. Most of the city's opposition leaders have either been detained or have fled abroad. The authorities defend the national security law as necessary to restore order after the turbulent pro-democracy protests of 2019, which sometimes turned violent and shook the international financial hub.
On the day of the verdict, dozens of police officers gathered outside the courthouse, ushering reporters away as members of the public—many of whom had queued for days to secure a seat inside—arrived for the hearing. One supporter told the Guardian that the case illustrated "the absolute power of Beijing in reshaping Hong Kong's civil society through the national security law." Another said it "highlights the central government's total control regarding national security enforcement in the region." Sentencing is expected at a later date, but the convictions themselves have already sent a clear message: remembering the past, in Hong Kong, has become a crime.
Citações Notáveis
They are trying to rewrite Hong Kong history. They certainly want to erase some memories, or memories of some chapters in our history.— Chow Hang-tung, in a letter from prison
This verdict is a further demonstration that even peaceful acts of remembrance in Hong Kong are now treated by the authorities as threats to national security.— Rosie Winterton, UK Foreign Office Indo-Pacific minister
Quer a matéria completa?
Leia o original em The Guardian ↗
Crime & Justice