Hong Kong’s conviction of pro-democracy activist Chow Hang-tung and veteran labour campaigner Lee Cheuk-yan has intensified a much broader dispute over the territory’s political future, the reach of national-security legislation and the survival of peaceful dissent.
On Friday, the High Court sentenced Chow and Lee for the offence of “inciting others to subvert state power,” which is provided in the Hong Kong National Security Law imposed by Beijing. Along with the two former leaders, the dissolved Hong Kong Alliance in Support of Patriotic Democratic Movements of China, whose leaders they were, was also convicted of an offence. The decision was arrived at on the basis of the case where the objective of the Alliance to achieve democracy, its remembrance of the 1989 Tiananmen Square Massacre every year, and the long-held demand of the movement “to end one party dictatorship” was taken into account. The sentence has been adjourned, although the offence carries a maximum sentence of 10 years in prison.
A conviction rooted in political advocacy
Chow, who is 41 and a barrister, as well as Lee, 69, and former vice-chair of the Hong Kong Alliance, pleaded not guilty. In the same case, Albert Ho Chun-yan, the former chairman and now aged 74, pleaded guilty. The Hong Kong Alliance is one of the longest-running organisations within Hong Kong’s civil society. It was well-known for holding the annual June 4 vigil in Victoria Park, honouring those who lost their lives during the crushing by the Chinese government of the pro-democracy movement in Beijing in 1989. For many years, Hong Kong has been one of the few territories controlled by the Chinese government where a Tiananmen memorial event could be held publicly.
Tens of thousands of people attended, and it became a symbol of the freedoms enjoyed in Hong Kong rather than mainland China. However, with the introduction of the National Security Law on 30 June 2020, things started changing rapidly. There have been no more annual vigils in Victoria Park since 2020 as the authorities banned them citing public health and security reasons, while the Alliance was being investigated. It dissolved itself in 2021 as a result of the authorities demanding data on the Alliance’s membership, donors and activities. This case was not confined to the refusal to provide information only.
According to reports of the judgment, the three-judge national-security panel concluded that the defendants sought to undermine confidence in the Chinese Communist Party, create hostility towards the central government and challenge China’s constitutional order. The judges reportedly held that non-violent resistance could still constitute an offence if its purpose was to undermine the fundamental political system.
The court also rejected the defence argument that Chow and Lee believed their conduct was protected by Hong Kong’s established freedoms of expression, assembly and association.
The “one-party dictatorship” slogan
The central point in the prosecution case was “end one-party dictatorship” from the Alliance. While for the defense and the human rights organizations, it was a politically democratic demand, for the prosecution and the judges it was a sign of the desire to overthrow the state power. This aspect is very important as from the decision it can be understood that the security law is not only about violent conspiracy or any other kind of armed uprising. It is also about organized campaigns of political change.
The line between criticism and subversion becomes harder to distinguish. Democratically oriented movements are constantly questioning governments, political parties and even the constitution by making speeches, participating in demonstrations, and other types of political campaigning. In Hong Kong case the law considers all of these actions as crimes when they are against the political system created by the Chinese Communist Party. The Hong Kong Labour Rights Monitor claimed that the prosecution had failed to prove that Chow or Lee planned or incited violence. Rather, it claimed that the prosecution largely based its case on public declarations, political goals and peaceful activity.
The group said the High Court had effectively delivered “a conviction of conscience and truth.” Its executive director, Christopher Mung, warned that
“there is no longer room in Hong Kong for peaceful dissent or political expression.”
The statement captures the principal concern among rights advocates: that national-security law is no longer being used only to prevent violent threats but is becoming a legal mechanism for controlling political ideas.
Tiananmen remembrance becomes a security issue
The ruling is also an indicator of the limitations of the debate regarding Tiananmen that has been witnessed in Hong Kong. The memorial vigil was not only an event that was meant to pay tribute to the dead but it also symbolized the capacity of the city to keep an account of history that has been disowned by the government in mainland China. People gathered to light candles, observe silence, and demand justice for the people who were killed in the 1989 massacre.
Amnesty International has described the prosecution of the vigil organisers as part of an effort to erase the movement’s legacy. Human Rights Watch’s Asia director, Elaine Pearson, said the judgment demonstrated that
“public displays of mourning have become a crime in Hong Kong.”
The statement points to a fundamental transformation. A public commemoration that had once been regarded as part of Hong Kong’s distinctive political culture is now treated as potentially hostile to China’s sovereignty and political system.
That transformation has consequences for historical memory. The trial did not only examine what Chow and Lee did in the courtroom or in public campaigns. It also examined whether Hong Kong residents could continue to remember an event that remains heavily censored in mainland China.
The legal framework behind the case
Secession, subversion, terrorism, and foreign collusion are outlawed under the Hong Kong National Security Law. The penalty for subversion charges depends on the role of the individual being prosecuted and the severity of the act committed and may include short-term imprisonment as well as the death penalty. The crime which Chow and Lee were convicted of, inciting others to subvert the power of the state, may be punished by up to ten years of prison term. The law also made changes to the legal framework of national security cases in Hong Kong by limiting the possibility of bail, where a defendant must prove that he or she will not engage in national-security-threatening actions anymore, allowing trials without juries and appointing judges specifically by the chief executive.
The implementing rules of the law also provided national security police with additional powers of investigation which include ordering for the disclosure of information and applying certain restrictions regarding property and liberty of a person. The separate Safeguarding National Security Ordinance of Hong Kong, also referred to as Article 23, came into force on 23 March 2024. The Ordinance expanded the list of offences in the areas of treason, insurrection, sabotage, espionage, interference, state secrets and sedition. A UK government report noted that there had been 296 arrests from July 2020 to July 2024 under the National Security Law, old sedition legislation and Article 23. Of those, 134, or 45 per cent, took place in the period from June 2020 to July 2021.
The same assessment reported that 65 people were charged between July 2020 and June 2021, compared with six between July 2023 and July 2024. It also cited Human Rights Watch’s finding that 91 per cent of those charged since 2020 had been convicted.
These figures help explain why the Chow case has become a test of Hong Kong’s remaining civic space. While authorities say the laws target a limited group of national-security offenders, critics argue that the cumulative effect has been to dismantle organised opposition, independent media and public protest.
Chow’s earlier legal battles
The latest conviction follows several previous cases involving Chow and the Hong Kong Alliance.
Chow was found guilty of inciting people to take part in an unauthorised assembly connected with the planned Tiananmen vigil in 2021. Her conviction was set aside in December 2022 by the Court of Final Appeal of Hong Kong, which held that the ban had not been issued on lawful grounds. The prosecution appealed and her conviction was restored in January 2024. Amnesty International commented on the development as a further assault on the rule of law and peaceful assembly.
Chow was prosecuted along with two other Alliance leaders in connection with their failure to provide information required from them by the police under Article 43 implementation rules. She was convicted in 2023 and each was given four and a half months of imprisonment. On 6 March 2025, the Court of Final Appeal of Hong Kong dismissed the convictions of all three defendants in a unanimous judgment. It was one of very few legal successes that Chow and other democracy activists had in court, though she had already served the sentence. This judgement did not bring her legal ordeal to an end. She remained in custody as a result of the much graver subversion charge was going on.
Government defends ruling as rule-of-law victory
Hong Kong officials and Chinese authorities rejected the criticism and presented the verdict as confirmation that national-security law is functioning properly.
Chief Executive John Lee Ka-chiu accused the Alliance of planting “seeds of hatred” in Hong Kong society and attempting to create hostility towards the Communist Party and the central government. He called incitement to subversion “an extremely serious offence” and said the government would resolutely prevent, suppress and punish activities endangering national security.
The Office for Safeguarding National Security of the Central People’s Government in Hong Kong said the verdict
“demonstrates the spirit of the rule of law and upholds the authority of the HKSAR National Security Law.”
Officials said the Alliance had used terms such as “resistance” and “disobedience”, organised rallies and marches, and sought to stir public hostility towards the central government.
The government’s argument is that political freedoms do not include the right to challenge China’s constitutional order or the leadership of the Communist Party. Under this approach, the Alliance’s call to end one-party rule was not ordinary political criticism but an attempt to subvert the state.
International reaction and diplomatic pressure
Foreign governments and international organisations sharply rejected that interpretation.
The Australian Government said it was “deeply concerned” by the convictions and warned that the broad application of national-security legislation was creating a “chilling effect on free speech.” Canberra called on China to stop suppressing freedom of expression, assembly, media and civil society and urged repeal of the National Security Law.
France and Germany said they “deeply regret” Chow’s conviction and stressed that
“peaceful advocacy for human rights does not constitute a crime.”
The two governments also noted that Chow received the Franco-German Human Rights Award in 2023.
The European Union criticised the verdict after monitoring the proceedings alongside United States diplomats. Taiwan’s Mainland Affairs Council expressed “deep regret and sorrow” and urged the immediate release of Chow and Lee.
CIVICUS called the ruling an unjust verdict based on a draconian law and said Chow had been criminalised for subversion. The organisation repeated its demand for the release of human-rights defenders and an end to prosecutions targeting peaceful civic activity.