In brief
Two Hong Kong activists charged with inciting subversion were found guilty after a national security trial that upheld the controversial law’s broad reach. Lee Cheuk‑yan and Chow Hang‑tung, leaders of the disbanded Hong Kong Alliance, face up to ten years in prison. A third former lawmaker was already sentenced after pleading guilty earlier this year. Rights groups warn that the law’s vague definitions threaten free expression and the right to mourn the 1989 Tiananmen massacre. The verdict underscores the tightening of control over dissent in Hong Kong.
Lee Cheuk‑yan (69) and Chow Hang‑tung (41), former leaders of the Hong Kong Alliance that had organized annual vigils to commemorate the 1989 Tiananmen Square crackdown, were found guilty of inciting others to subvert state power under the city’s sweeping national security law.
Both defendants face a maximum penalty of ten years in prison, although sentencing is expected at a later date. A 74‑year‑old former lawmaker, Albert Ho, who pleaded guilty in January, has already been sentenced for the same offence.
Prosecutors argued the defendants “endanger national security in the name of human rights”. Chow, who represented herself, told the court in May that the law itself was on trial. She highlighted that Hong Kong was once a unique place within Chinese territory where people could publicly mourn the deadly crackdown, a freedom that has been curtailed since the law’s enforcement in 2020.
The Alliance was founded in May 1989 to support students holding pro‑democracy rallies. Weeks later, Chinese troops and tanks crushed pro‑democracy protests in Beijing’s Tiananmen Square, with death toll estimates ranging from a few hundred to many thousands. Over the next three decades, the Alliance called on authorities to accept responsibility for the crackdown, free dissidents and introduce democratic reform.
The Alliance’s leaders were charged in 2021 and have been behind bars since. Rights group Amnesty International has warned that the case relies on vague, overly broad and arbitrary definitions of ‘subversion’ that threaten free expression and the right to mourn the 1989 massacre.
