Hong Kong’s Vigilantes: The Price of Remembering

The conviction of three pro-democracy activists in Hong Kong for organizing annual vigils to commemorate the Tiananmen Square crackdown is more than just a blow to free speech – it’s a stark reminder that some memories are better forgotten. For three decades, tens of thousands gathered at Victoria Park to honor the victims of June 4, 1989, when Chinese soldiers opened fire on unarmed protesters in Beijing. The vigils were the only large-scale public commemoration of the tragedy on Chinese soil.

The trial’s outcome, which saw Lee Cheuk-yan, Chow Hang-tung, and Albert Ho sentenced to prison terms ranging from five to seven years, has sent shockwaves through the global community. The United States, among others, condemned the verdict as a further sign of Hong Kong’s deteriorating freedom of expression. But this is not just a story about repression; it’s also one about the resilience of those who refuse to be silenced.

The alliance’s call for an end to “one-party dictatorship” was deemed incitement by the judges, but in reality, it was a plea for democratic participation. The defendants argued that they were not advocating for the overthrow of the Communist Party, but rather for the Chinese people to have a say in who governs them through free and fair elections – a basic human right.

The verdict has highlighted the hypocrisy of Hong Kong’s pro-Beijing leadership. They claim that the national security law was necessary to restore stability after months of anti-government protests in 2019, but it has been used as a tool to crush dissent and silence critics. The laws have led to the shutdown of dozens of civil society groups, including the alliance, which voted to disband in 2021.

The suppression of the Tiananmen vigils is not just about politics; it’s also about memory. By erasing the annual candlelight vigils from public view, Hong Kong authorities are attempting to erase a painful chapter from their history. However, memories cannot be legislated away, and the conviction of these activists has only served to galvanize support for their cause.

The fall of the rule of law in Hong Kong is a clear consequence of this verdict. As Eric Lai, a senior fellow with the Georgetown Center for Asian Law, noted, the handpicked judges, lack of a jury, and extended time in custody have created a “gray zone” not just for activists but for everyday people in Hong Kong. Words and deeds that were once constitutionally acceptable are now being redefined as crimes.

The conviction of these three activists is a stark reminder of the high stakes in the battle for free speech and democratic participation. As Chow Hang-tung said during her mitigation statement, “Believing that dictatorship is wrong and democracy is right – if that isn’t a belief, then what is?” The answer lies with those who are willing to trade their conscience for the comfort of silence.

Hong Kong’s pro-Beijing leadership will continue to crack down on dissent, using the national security law as a pretext for silencing critics. But activists like Lee Cheuk-yan and Chow Hang-tung will not be silenced. Their conviction has sparked outrage and solidarity around the world, and their message – that democracy is worth fighting for – will continue to resonate long after they are imprisoned.

As Hong Kong’s pro-democracy movement continues to face repression, one thing is clear: the price of remembering Tiananmen Square is a heavy one. But it’s a price that must be paid, as Chow Hang-tung said, “I would rather be a criminal than a person who betrays their conscience.”