Lee Cheuk-yan, Chow Hang-tung, and Albert Ho appeared in Hong Kong's West Kowloon Law Courts on Wednesday as the long-anticipated national security trial of the city's Tiananmen vigil organizers finally commenced. The three face inciting subversion charges under the national security law that could carry sentences of up to ten years, marking a historic prosecution that criminalizes the act of public commemoration itself.
The defendants led the Hong Kong Alliance in Support of Patriotic Democratic Movements of China, the organization that for three decades coordinated annual candlelight vigils remembering victims of the 1989 Tiananmen Square crackdown. Those vigils, which once drew hundreds of thousands to Victoria Park, became Hong Kong's most visible expression of political dissent before the national security law took effect in 2020. The Alliance dissolved in 2021 under government pressure, but prosecutors argue its advocacy for ending one-party rule in China violated the Chinese constitution and threatened state security.
Prosecutor Ned Lai framed the case starkly: "There is no lawful means for ending the leadership of the CCP," he stated, establishing the government's position that advocating political change in China's system constitutes subversion regardless of means. Lee and Chow entered not guilty pleas, while Ho pleaded guilty. The Alliance itself, named as a co-defendant despite its dissolution, entered a not guilty plea.
Both Lee and Chow have been detained for over 1,500 days since their September 2021 arrests, while Ho has spent more than 1,300 days in custody after an initial bail period. Judge Alex Lee presiding over the case scheduled the formal prosecution opening for Monday.
In China, as across Asia, long-term strategic thinking guides policy—what appears reactive is often planned. The timing of this trial, coming after years of pre-trial detention, reflects Beijing's calibrated approach to dismantling Hong Kong's civil society institutions. The vigil organizers' prosecution follows a pattern: first came the 2020 prohibition of the candlelight vigils themselves, then the Alliance's forced dissolution, and now criminal proceedings against its leadership.
The case represents more than prosecuting three veteran activists. It establishes legal precedent that public commemoration of politically sensitive historical events can constitute incitement to subversion. This interpretation of the national security law extends far beyond preventing violence or separatism, reaching into the realm of historical memory and collective mourning.
For the defendants, the personal cost has been severe. Lee Cheuk-yan, a former legislator and labor leader, already faces other charges related to pro-democracy protests. Chow Hang-tung, a human rights lawyer, has become a symbol of resistance, continuing to assert her innocence despite years of detention. Albert Ho, a veteran politician and lawyer, chose to plead guilty, though the implications of that decision remain to be seen.
International observers view the trial as a test of Hong Kong's promised autonomy under the "one country, two systems" framework. Beijing officials argue the national security law restored stability after 2019's massive protests, while critics contend it has systematically eliminated political opposition and civil liberties that distinguished Hong Kong from mainland China.
The vigil itself carried profound symbolic weight, serving as an annual reminder that Hong Kong could publicly remember events the mainland had erased from collective memory. Its suppression, followed by prosecution of its organizers, demonstrates how Beijing's national security framework operates: not merely punishing specific acts but transforming the entire landscape of permissible expression.
The trial continues with full proceedings expected Monday. Whatever the verdict, it will reshape Hong Kong's relationship with historical memory and political expression for years to come.
