Hong Kong Court Must Not ‘Pay Lip Service’ to Human Rights, Lawyer Tells Trial of Tiananmen Vigil Activists
In a courtroom that has become a focal point for the shifting legal landscape of the city, a defense barrister has issued a stark warning to a three-judge panel presiding over the national security trial of prominent Tiananmen vigil activists.
Representing Lee Cheuk-yan, barrister Erik Shum argued on Monday that the Hong Kong judiciary must move beyond mere rhetoric regarding civil liberties. He urged the court to recognize that calls for political reform—specifically the demand to “end one-party rule” in China—constitute legitimate political expression rather than criminal subversion under the Beijing-imposed national security law.
The trial involves Lee and Chow Hang-tung, former leaders of the now-defunct Hong Kong Alliance in Support of Patriotic Democratic Movements of China. The group, which for decades organized annual candlelight vigils in Victoria Park to commemorate the 1989 Tiananmen Square crackdown, is facing charges of “inciting subversion.” If convicted, the defendants face a maximum sentence of 10 years in prison.
The Defense of Civilian Political Criticism
As closing arguments commenced, the defense centered on the distinction between advocating for systemic change and inciting an active revolt. Shum contended that the prosecution failed to provide any evidence that the Alliance sought to mobilize the public to violently topple the state or the ruling Chinese Communist Party (CCP).
According to Shum, the Alliance’s five tenets—which included the democratization of China—were aimed at evolving the country’s political framework rather than targeting a specific party through force. He noted that the group never formulated an “action plan” to trigger a coup or an uprising.
“In the past 30 years, there has been no evidence showing that any person acted under the Alliance’s specific instruction,” Shum stated in Cantonese, emphasizing that the group’s decades-long history was one of peaceful commemoration and advocacy.
Shum also challenged the logic used by the state, describing the prosecution’s position as a “tautological theory.” The prosecution has argued that because a 2018 constitutional amendment establishes the CCP’s leadership as the “defining feature” of China’s socialist system, any call to end that rule is inherently illegal because there are no “lawful means” to do so.
“We ask: How exactly did the Alliance incite others to overthrow the CCP? And my submission is that the prosecution has always reverted to the claim that ending CCP rule is illegal,” Shum argued, suggesting that such a logic effectively criminalizes the very concept of political opposition.
Prosecution Argues Freedom is Not Absolute
The prosecution, led by Ned Lai, presented a contrasting view of the defendants’ intent. Lai argued that the Alliance’s rhetoric went beyond mere dissatisfaction and moved into the territory of undermining the “fundamental system” of the country and its central political bodies.
The state maintains that the defendants’ calls for democratization were not merely expressions of opinion but were intended to stoke hatred against Beijing and destabilize the central government. Lai emphasized that the boundary of free speech has limits when it threatens national stability.
“We say that their behaviour had crossed the line,” Lai said in Cantonese. “Freedom is not absolute.”
The prosecution further dismissed the defendants’ advocacy for democratization as irrelevant to the legal merits of the case, asserting that the nature of the calls themselves constituted a breach of the national security law regardless of the underlying democratic ideals.
However, the judicial response to these arguments appeared nuanced. Judge Alex Lee, one of the three national security judges, questioned Shum on how the court should distinguish these actions from the landmark “Hong Kong 47” case. In that instance, 45 pro-democracy campaigners were found guilty of subversion.
Shum distinguished the present case by noting that the “Hong Kong 47” involved lawmakers who planned to use their official legislative power to veto the government budget—an act ruled as an abuse of power. In contrast, Shum argued, the Alliance members were private citizens exercising civilian political criticism without any formal state power.
“On this side of the spectrum is dissatisfaction with the status quo. Is that not allowed to be said?” Shum asked the panel.
Judge Lee noted that the court might need to examine whether the defendants “genuinely believed” their actions were lawful, a subtle indication of the complexities regarding intent in subversion cases.
A Legacy Under Pressure
The legal proceedings mark the final chapter for an organization that was once a cornerstone of Hong Kong’s civil society. For over thirty years, the Alliance served as the primary organizer of the Victoria Park vigils, which drew thousands of participants to remember the 1989 Tiananmen Square protests and the subsequent military crackdown.
The group’s influence and visibility began to wane significantly in 2021. Following the implementation of the national security law, authorities banned the annual vigils, citing COVID-19 restrictions, though many observers viewed the move as a means to suppress political assembly. The Alliance officially disbanded that same year following the arrests of its leadership.
The following table outlines the current status of the primary defendants in this trial:
| Defendant | Role in Alliance | Current Legal Status |
|---|---|---|
| Lee Cheuk-yan | Former Leader | In custody since September 2021; undergoing trial. |
| Chow Hang-tung | Former Leader | In custody since September 2021; representing herself. |
| Albert Ho | Former Leader | Excused from proceedings after pleading guilty in January. |
The stakes for the defendants are high, as the subversion charge carries significant prison time. Both Lee and Chow have remained behind bars since September 2021, awaiting the resolution of these proceedings.
Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.
Chow Hang-tung, acting as her own barrister, is scheduled to deliver her closing arguments to the court on Tuesday. The court has not yet announced a date for the final verdict.
What are your thoughts on the intersection of national security and political expression? Share your comments below and share this story to keep the conversation going.
