Vigil Group Fears National Security Law’s ‘Political Suppression’

A former leader of a prominent Hong Kong group, once responsible for orchestrating annual vigils to commemorate the Tiananmen Square crackdown, has voiced significant concerns that the national security law could be weaponized for “political suppression.” This sentiment was articulated during a court proceeding, highlighting the anxieties surrounding the broad implications of Beijing-imposed legislation on civil liberties.

Chow Hang-tung, who previously held a leadership position within the Hong Kong Alliance in Support of Patriotic Democratic Movements of China, testified on Thursday. She revealed that the organization engaged in internal discussions regarding the impending national security law weeks before its enactment in late June 2020. These deliberations, which took place prior to the group’s annual June 4 vigil that year, centered on the potential for the legislation to be “used as a tool for political suppression,” Chow informed prosecutor Ivan Cheung. She further elaborated that the law “could be used to suppress dissident voices, which is clearly what we were.”

Chow, along with fellow leader Lee Cheuk-yan, and the Alliance itself, are currently facing trial for the charge of “inciting subversion.” This offense, stipulated under the national security law, carries a maximum prison sentence of ten years. Another prominent leader, Albert Ho, has already entered a guilty plea to the charges and was excused from attending the trial. The Hong Kong Alliance ultimately disbanded in 2021, following a two-year ban on its vigil by authorities, ostensibly due to COVID-19 restrictions. The arrests of its leadership on national security charges further contributed to the group’s demise.

Prosecutors contend that the Alliance, through its consistent calls to “end one-party rule”—a foundational principle since its establishment in 1989—aimed to incite others to overthrow the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) governance. In her testimony, Chow confirmed that the Alliance had expressed support for Charter 08, a significant manifesto released in 2008. This document, signed by numerous Chinese dissidents and human rights activists, advocated for substantial political reforms, including the termination of the one-party system.

Navigating Dissent and Defining Resistance

Chow acknowledged that while the Alliance broadly supported the aspirations of the Charter 08 movement, divergences could arise concerning the practicalities of implementation and the specific pathways for reforming China.

When questioned about the meaning of “resist” as articulated in the Alliance’s 2020 vigil slogan, “Truth, Freedom, Life — Resist,” Chow provided a detailed explanation. Prosecutor Ivan Cheung specifically inquired if this referred to “the political system controlled by the Chinese Communist Party.” Chow responded by stating that the Alliance’s resistance encompassed “all unjust oppression, not just in the political system, but every form of injustice.” This same interpretation, she affirmed, extended to the 2021 slogan: “Resist, for Freedom and our Shared Destiny.”

The court was presented with a video recording of the 2019 vigil. In the footage, Chow delivered a poignant eulogy for those who perished during the Tiananmen crackdown. At that time, she declared, “We reject this murderous government and vow to seek justice.” She also addressed the attendees, referring to the protesters at Tiananmen Square as having “started” a resistance that had “become the fuel for many more resistance movements both inside and outside the country.” The 2019 vigil also featured various speakers, including Liane Lee, a survivor of the crackdown who was a university student in 1989 and traveled to Beijing to express solidarity with the democracy movement.

The conclusion of the 2019 vigil included an announcement urging participants to attend a rally scheduled for a few days later, on June 9. This rally was organized to protest the proposed extradition bill, legislation that would ultimately ignite months of widespread protests and civil unrest across Hong Kong. Lee, a fellow Alliance leader and co-defendant in the current case, was recorded shouting slogans encouraging the public to “fill up Victoria Park” on the designated day and calling for the “draconian law” to be withdrawn.

Chow emphasized on Thursday that the primary objective of the vigil was remembrance. “We had to do right by every warrior that comes, trembling, to share their testimony… The Alliance’s stance can only be described as too moderate, not too radical,” she asserted.

In response to questions posed by the Alliance’s lawyer, Priscilia Lam, and Judge Alex Lee, Chow expressed her belief that advocating for the end of one-party rule did not constitute an illegal act. Furthermore, she confirmed, under Lam’s questioning, that the Alliance had indeed removed language from its founding charter in 1994 that called for the “overthrow” of former Chinese leader Deng Xiaoping. She also stated that the group had never explicitly called for “overthrowing or subverting the leadership of the Chinese Communist Party.”

Lam subsequently presented historical documents dating back to 2002, pertaining to the introduction of Hong Kong’s domestic national security legislation, Article 23. These documents indicated that the offense of subversion was required to be committed through “serious unlawful means.” Chow acknowledged her awareness of such legal concepts. However, the judges ruled that these documents, being over two decades old, were not relevant to the present case.