A verdict is expected Friday in the case of two organizers of an annual Hong Kong vigil to remember the 1989 Tiananmen Square crackdown. Lee Cheuk-yan and Chow Hang-tung, former leaders of the Hong Kong Alliance in Support of Patriotic Democratic Movements of China, were charged in September 2021 with inciting subversion and face a maximum jail term of 10 years if convicted.
The activists pleaded not guilty when their trial opened in January. If convicted by three government-approved judges, they likely will be sentenced at a later date. For three decades, the now-disbanded alliance organized the only large-scale, public commemoration in China that attracted tens of thousands annually until the event was banned in 2020, citing public health risks during the coronavirus pandemic.
Observers say the activists' prosecution and the disappearance of the vigil symbolize the erosion of freedoms that Beijing promised to maintain for 50 years when Hong Kong returned to Chinese rule in 1997. The government has stated its law enforcement actions are evidence-based and strictly in accordance with the law.
The 1989 pro-democracy protests in Beijing's Tiananmen Square were a significant challenge to the Communist Party's rule. Government troops opened fire on student-led demonstrations, resulting in hundreds, possibly thousands, of deaths. The event has since been officially taboo in mainland China.
Weeks after the vigil ban in Hong Kong, Beijing imposed a national security law. This legislation was later used to prosecute Lee, the alliance's former chairperson, and Chow, a former vice chair. Authorities have described the law as crucial for Hong Kong's stability, particularly following anti-government protests in 2019.
The alliance voted to disband in the same month that Lee and Chow were charged. Numerous other prominent activists, including media tycoon Jimmy Lai, are currently jailed under the 2020 security law, and dozens of civil society groups have disbanded since its introduction.
During the trial of Lee and Chow, prosecutors contended that the pair incited others to use unlawful means to subvert China's fundamental system and central political bodies. They argued that calls for "ending one-party rule," one of the alliance's core demands, amounted to inciting the overthrow of the Communist Party's leadership.
The defense denied the accusation, asserting that the slogan was aimed at promoting democracy and urging the party not to enforce "dictatorship." They maintained that the alliance had not advocated for illegal actions.
Chow, a barrister who represented herself, cautioned that if the court does not carefully consider the reasonable effects of their statements, it could inadvertently sanction the actions of those in power.
Albert Ho, a co-defendant and former vigil organizer, previously entered a guilty plea, a move that typically results in a reduced sentence. His sentencing is also pending.
Critics view this case and its potential outcome as a critical test of Hong Kong's civil rights and judicial independence. The existence of the alliance and the annual vigil were once considered key characteristics of Hong Kong operating under China's "one country, two systems" framework, symbolizing the city's autonomy, according to Eric Lai, a senior fellow with the Georgetown Center for Asian Law.
Lai noted that the charge of inciting subversion is frequently used in mainland China to prosecute human rights lawyers, activists, and intellectuals. He suggested the Hong Kong court's verdict could indicate the extent to which it aligns with mainland China's party-led judiciary.