KANIS LEUNG - Associated Press
•8/28/2026
HONG KONG (AP) — Three former organizers of Hong Kong’s annual vigils in remembrance of the 1989 Tiananmen Square crackdown returned to court Friday to argue over their sentences after being convicted of inciting subversion under a national security law imposed by China.
Lee Cheuk-yan, Chow Hang-tung and Albert Ho, former leaders of the Hong Kong Alliance in Support of Patriotic Democratic Movements of China, were charged in 2021 under the law that has effectively stifled the city’s previously thriving pro-democracy movement.
Lee and Chow, who pleaded not guilty, were convicted Aug. 21. Ho earlier entered a guilty plea, which often can result in a reduced sentence.
They face a maximum prison term of 10 years and are expected to be sentenced at a later date. Alex Lee, one of the judges, said they would be sentenced within two weeks.
The disbanded alliance also was found guilty on the same charge. It was best known for organizing the only large-scale public commemoration in China that drew tens of thousands of people annually for three decades to remember the 1989 crackdown’s victims.
The verdict has drawn concerns from foreign governments. Critics say the case illustrates a decline in freedoms Beijing promised to maintain when the former British colony returned to Chinese rule in 1997. But the Hong Kong government insisted the court only considered the laws and evidence and that many rights and freedoms are not absolute.
Three government-approved judges ruled the trio of former vigil organizers had intentionally encouraged supporters of the alliance to wait for the right time to carry out “end one-party dictatorship,” one of the group’s core demands, through unlawful means.
The judges said the call carried the notion of overthrowing or undermining the ruling Communist Party’s leadership status, adding that the defendants have long held enmity against the party and they did not genuinely believe their words and deeds would not violate the security law.
Erik Shum, a lawyer representing Lee and Ho, told the judges that China’s fundamental system did not change because of the alliance members' promotional work and the Communist Party was still stable and carrying out its duties, while the defendants’ advocacy work did not involve violence.
Chow, a barrister who represented herself, insisted she did not do anything wrong and did not deserve even one day in prison. She argued the verdict was saying that pursuing democracy is a crime.
“If the law truly has no room for our beliefs, then I would rather be a criminal than be a hypocrite,” she said.
In a post Friday on social media site Patreon, Chow said regardless of whether she is in or outside prison, she would persistently strive to vindicate the 1989 pro-democracy movement, end one-party dictatorship and build a democratic Hong Kong and China, among other goals.
The security laws calls for sentences of between five and 10 years if the offense is serious. If the circumstances are minor, sentences should not be more than five years, short-term detention or other restrictions.
Many leading activists have been jailed under the security law, including former media tycoon Jimmy Lai. But China said the security law was necessary for Hong Kong’s stability.
Hundreds and possibly thousands of people were killed as military tanks rolled into the center of Beijing and troops opened fire to end the student-led pro-democracy protests in the 1989 Tiananmen crackdown.
The bloody event soon became a political taboo in mainland China. But vigils in Hong Kong helped keep the memories alive under the greater freedom granted by Beijing's “one country, two systems” governing principle for the city.
The vigil organized by the alliance was banned in 2020 during the coronavirus pandemic. After COVID-19 restrictions were lifted, the former vigil site was occupied by a carnival each year.
The court hearing the former vigil organizers’ case also is expected to decide the future of the Pillar of Shame, a memorial sculpture commemorating the Tiananmen crackdown that was removed from a university campus in late 2021, and whether it could be returned to its owner.
