Chow Hang-tung's Testimony in Her Trial for "Inciting Subversion"
For five days in March, she took the stand in her own defense
“We believe that people are born equal, that everyone’s dignity and autonomy should be equally respected, and that no one should be used as a tool to be manipulated, deceived, or sacrificed. When we talk about building democracy, we are actually putting this spirit into practice in all aspects of life... Only when this spirit of truly treating everyone as an equal and free person can truly take root in society can the democratic system have a reason to survive and the nourishment to survive.”
—Chow Hang-tung, March 20, 2026
This is part of the Hong Kong Voices series which presents the voices of people in Hong Kong who are persecuted. It’s meant to give people in the rest of the world a chance to listen to them directly. A full list of the posts in the series can be found here.
UPDATED on March 23, 24, 25 and 26 to include Chow Hang-tung’s second, third, fourth and fifth days of testimony. At the end of the 26th, her testimony concluded and cross-examination began.
On Friday, March 20, Chow Hang-tung took the stand in her own defense on Day 15 of the trial of her, Lee Cheuk-yan and Hong Kong Alliance in Support of Patriotic Democratic Mvoements in China on the charge of “inciting subversion” under the National Security Law imposed by the Chinese Communist Party in 2020. Hang-tung followed her co-defendant Lee Cheuk-yan, who testified on Wednesday. Lee was questioned by his lawyer. Because Hang-tung is a lawyer and representing herself, no one questioned her, but the judges played a more active role than usual in the case of witness, interrupting her repeatedly, asking for clarification of various matters and directing her to stick to presenting factual evidence.
This is the second time in the trial that Hang-tung has spoken at length. The first was when she attempted to have the prosecution’s case dismiss. In that case, the primary objective was to show that the prosecution essentially had no case. This time, Hang-tung’s main objectives is to rebut the main allegations of the prosecution as well as to positively present her side of the case, which is to say, to describe in positive terms what the purpose, objectives and actions of Hong Kong Alliance were and what her relationship with the organization was.
She takes this opportunity to explain the general vision and philosophy of Hong Kong Alliance. While the prosecution has said that its call to “end one-party rule” is a violation of the law, that it used “unlawful means” to do so and incited others to do so as well, and that it incited hatred of the government, Hang-tung emphasizes what she considers the inextricable counterpart the “end one-party rule” demand: “build democracy.” And she says that rather than “incite hatred,” Hong Kong Alliance was a force for love and understanding. As regards “unlawful means,” she essentially scoffs at the prosecution and asks how can street stations, lighting candles, rallies, demonstrations, petitions, joint statements and the like be considered “unlawful means”?
Hang-tung will have a third opportunity to speak at length in the closing arguments.
This following has been translated from Chinese-language notes on the testimony and the judges’ questions. In fact, this took place in the courtroom largely in English, the primary language of the trial. But there has been a paucity of English-language coverage of the trial up to now, and there is at present no English-language transcription of the testimony. Thus, this is the most complete written account we have at the moment. While some phrases as translated below may differ from those actually used in court, there is a high degree of confidence in the overall accuracy of the gist of the statements of both Hang-tung and the judges, and they generally conform what has appeared in other media reports.
For further background on the trial, see this post on Hang-tung’s first statement of length in the trial.
The trial is taking place in Hong Kong’s High Court and is presided over by a panel of three judges designated to hear national security cases. The judges are Johnny Chan Jong-herng, Anna Lai Yuen-kee, and Alex Lee. The defendants were denied a trial by jury which up to the imposition of the NSL was considered a basic right in criminal cases heard by the High Court.
As with just about any trial, there is plenty of “legal sludge” in what amounts to about six hours of testimony, but there are also a fair few gems of eloquence delivered by Hang-tung, and in the long run, this trial and the things that Hang-tung said in it will go down as an important event in Hong Kong’s long struggle for freedom.
Friday, March 20, 2026 (Day 15 of the trial)
The following has been translated from this transcription of the trial proceedings.
10:04 Hearing Begins
10:10
Chow Hang-tung: “I am the last defendant, and also the last vice-chairperson of the Hong Kong Alliance in Support of Patriotic Democratic Movements in China (HKA) in this trial. I am currently 41 years old and a barrister. So, I don’t have much of a background.”
CHT stated that from primary school onwards, starting in the early 1990s, she attended June 4 candlelight vigils with her mother. After graduating from university in 2010, she worked as a staff member of HKA for about six months, and then continued to serve as a volunteer until she was elected as a standing committee member in late 2014 and vice-chairperson in late 2015.
“I remained in that position until HKA’s unnatural demise in 2021.”
“I wasn’t present when HKA was established, but I witnessed its final stage. To be clear, although I was only the vice-chair during HKA’s final period…among HKA’s three chairs and vice-chairs, I was the last one to be free.”
Judge Johnny Chan Jong-herng asked when the chair and the other vice-chair of HKA were taken into custody.
CHT: “I may not remember the exact date clearly, but around April 202, Lee Cheuk-yan was detained.”
Judge Chan said Lee Cheuk-yan and Albert Ho were detained one after the other, while Chow Hang-tung was the last to be remanded.
CHT affirmed this.
Judge Alex Lee Wan-tang inquired about who the other vice-chair besides Chow Hang-tung was when Lee Cheuk-yan was chair.
CHT answered Albert Ho.
Judge Lee further asked whether Chow was the only one “not detained” during the final stage of HKA.
CHT affirmed this, stating, “I don’t remember exactly when Mr Albert Ho was remanded in custody, but I think it was around May or June 2021.”
10:13
CHT: “In other words, in HKA’s final period, the person responsible for HKA was me. Furthermore, I do not hesitate to confirm that HKA adhered to its five core goals right up until the very last moment…including the prosecution’s persistent insistence on ‘ending one-party dictatorship.’ Our five core goals comprise an inter-related whole, and ‘ending one-party dictatorship’ is an unwavering belief we cannot abandon.”
Judge Chan asked CHT to clarify the meaning of “we.”
CHT: “Let me not talk about ‘us,’ let me talk about myself. I’m part of this movement to end dictatorship. This movement can’t end, and I will continue to participate.”
Judge Lee: “Would you do this even if you weren’t part of HKA?”
CHT affirmed this: “Furthermore, I can also openly confirm that…the goal of ‘ending one-party dictatorship’ permeates all our actions, writings, and speeches. So, treating these six characters1 as a mantra, and then assuming one has broken the law just because you find them, is, in my opinion, incredibly anti-intellectual.2 What are the actual implications and demands of the phrase, ‘end one-party dictatorship,’ leading to its various forms of expression and manifestation…?”
Judge Chan: “This is ultimately testimony. What you just said sounded more like a statement than evidence.”
CHT: “I was just explaining the questions I’ll be answering later; it’s not important.”
Judge Chan: “You should directly explain your understanding of ‘end one-party dictatorship’ instead of criticizing [the allegation].”
CHT “So, regarding the question of what the implications of ending one-party rule are, I want to set out the main topics I will be discussing.”
Judge Chan: “It’s necessary to make the distinction between factual testimony and...”
CHT: “Of course, of course, I want to provide the judges and the courts with an outline of the topics I will be discussing. That’s the first issue. The second issue I will address is whether ‘end one-party rule’ means overthrowing the state, or merely overthrowing an illegitimate party’s dictatorship.”
10:20
CHT: For HKA, “’end one-party rule’ is far from just a slogan; it sincerely expresses our judgment of the current situation and the direction of our actions. We genuinely believe that China today is a one-party dictatorship.”
Judge Chan inquired whether CHT agreed with Lee Cheuk-yan’s testimony regarding the meaning of “dictatorship.”
CHT: “I will have my own way of expressing myself. What he said is not wrong, but I have my own way of expressing myself.”
Chan asked if she meant that she and Lee Cheuk-yan shared the same understanding of “dictatorship” but expressed it differently.
CHT: “You could say that. Because ‘dictatorship’ and ‘democracy’ are terms commonly used in public communication. Asking non-experts to define it might be difficult, but I think everyone knows basically what it means.”
Chan clarified that he wasn’t asking Chow to define “dictatorship,” but rather, “We’re asking about your understanding of this word, what it means.”
CHT: “OK, then my own understanding may not be the same as Mr. Lee’s.”
The lawyer representing HKA questioned whether Chow’s use of “we” included both herself and HKA. [Hong Kong Alliance is technically a co-defendant in the trial, but since the Hong Kong government forcibly closed HKA, it no longer exists. The lawyer representing HKA is court-appointed and its actual role in the trial is negligible.]
CHT replied that if he meant the idea that “China is a one-party dictatorship,” then “we” includes HKA.
Judge Lee: “Of course, if you mention ‘we,’ they’ll [HKA’s legal counel] be more sensitive. If you’re saying ‘we’ represent HKA, then say it directly. HKA isn’t a single person; it doesn’t have its own brain. Its brain is its members, especially the standing committee. If you mean HKA as an organization, then say HKA, don’t keep making Barrister Lam have to jump around like that.”
CHT: “OK. It’s common knowledge that China is a one-party dictatorship. Many democratic countries in the world set boundaries [on the government’s power], like the United States, but China has never been like that. It’s clearly a dictatorship, and has even been described by some scholars as a perfect dictatorship.”
Judge Anna Lai Yuen-kee inquired whether the above testimony represented CHT’s and HKA’s views.
CHT “Let me be the one to take responsibility for that because I haven’t consulted HKA since my following testimony is not a formal statement.”
Judge Lai: “If any part of your testimony represents HKA, please state that clearly.”
CHT: “OK, because it’s difficult to reach a formal agreement based on specific wording, you can be assured that I am the sole individual taking responsibility for these words.”
10:22
CHT: “When we talk about ‘dictatorship,’ we’re referring to Lenin’s understanding of it. It’s based on the idea that power, including the use of force and unchecked power, applies to the current situation with CCP. In China, the Communist Party controls all state organs, and it even infiltrates various social, commercial, and religious organizations… The party is not bound by law, including the constitution, nor by democratic elections. Even softer checks and balances, such as independent media and active civil society, are completely absent in China. This state of affairs, where state power is completely monopolized by a single party and there is a complete lack of checks and balances, is what I call a one-party dictatorship.”
Judge Lee asked whether other HKA members, especially of the standing committee, shared or had a similar understanding of “dictatorship.”
CHT: “I would consider them similar, but of course we didn’t hold a seminar to discuss the definition of ‘dictatorship.’ However, in our ordinary use of this term, my understanding is that it is similar to everyone’s basic understanding. That is, when we used this specific term in our daily lives or in discussions.”
Judge Lee: “So you think people won’t object to your definition?”
CHT: “You could say that, yes.”
Judge Lee: “So a member of HKA, especially a standing committee member, believes that China is a ‘one-party dictatorship’?
CHT: “I think so. At least, I haven’t heard any voices opposing this view.”
Judge Lee asked whether there was any dispute within HKA that “one party” refers to the Communist Party.
CHT affirmed there was no dispute.
Judge Lee: “When HKA discussed ‘one-party dictatorship,’ did everyone know in their hearts that they were referring to the CCP?”
CHT: “If we are describing the reality of China, we are of course referring to the CCP.”
Judge Lee: “It only refers to China, no other countries?”
CHT: “Of course, of course it’s about China, but our goal of ending one-party rule is not limited to the CCP.”
10:28
CHT: “Therefore, we see the evil consequences of one-party dictatorship. State power will repeatedly spiral out of control and be abused… So when we talk about ‘ending one-party dictatorship’ and building democracy, what we want to end is this lawless state. We hope the country can establish a constitutional democratic system, so that public power can operate within the framework of the rule of law and equality, without arguing about who is bigger, who is evil, or who is right. We hope the country can truly belong to the people, and is not the private property of a certain political party.”
Lee Cheuk-yan’s defense counsel implored, “You really need to slow down; we can’t copy it properly.”
Judge Chan: “The second defendant [Lee Cheuk-yan’s defense counsel] has helped you a lot; you really need to help him out.”
CHT: “Yes, I’m sorry. In short, what we demand is that those in power abide by the law, that the people can hold them accountable, and that there be consequences for any mistakes or crimes committed by those in power. Only when all of this is achieved can one say that one-party rule has ended. Therefore, from this perspective, our five core goals—release pro-democracy activists, vindicate the 1989 Tiananmen Square protests, hold those responsible for the massacre accountable, end one-party rule, and build a democratic China—are themselves requirements for ‘ending one-party rule,’ and can even be considered indispensable elements of ‘ending one-party rule.’ And when it comes to ‘end one-party dictatorship,’ if it’s completely impossible to say or do anything, it’s tantamount to saying that even seeking justice for the June 4 massacre is illegal. We absolutely do not agree to that. I only realized after coming to this court that if asking those in power to obey the law can be called subversion of state power, and it can even be so absurd as to say that the people have no means to make those in power obey the law… when obeying the law can be called subversion of state power, it proves that we are in…”
Judge Chan: “This is not a closing argument. You shouldn’t use arguments to express what you want to say; this should be factual evidence.”
CHT: “I am explaining how we understand the connotations of ‘end one-party dictatorship.’ What we want to end is precisely what we just described as an illegal state, a state where people cannot even obey the law.”
Judge Lee summarized CHT’s definition of “dictatorship” as “unchecked power leading to abuse and lawlessness,” and noted HKA consistently demanded accountability from those in power, requiring them to be responsible for their words and actions.
CHT affirmed this, stating, “We have never been the ones who truly subvert state power. In China’s current reality, the only one truly capable of that and truly subverting state power has always been the CCP.”
Judge Lee inquired whether CHT’s use of “now” included the period in question, stating, “We mainly want to hear about the relevant period in this case, not just now.”
CHT: “Of course, this situation has remained unchanged from then until now.”
10:32
Judge Lee instructed the prosecution and defense to display Article 22 of the National Security Law on the screen, and said to CHT, “I know your previous stance was against the National Security Law, that you felt it was not a good thing, but there’s nothing we can do now; we are adhering to the National Security Law in our trial.”
Article 22
A person who organises, plans, commits or participates in any of the following acts by force or threat of force or other unlawful means with a view to subverting the State power shall be guilty of an offence:
(1) overthrowing or undermining the basic system of the People’s Republic of China established by the Constitution of the People’s Republic of China;
(2) overthrowing the body of central power of the People’s Republic of China or the body of power of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region;
(3) seriously interfering in, disrupting, or undermining the performance of duties and functions in accordance with the law by the body of central power of the People’s Republic of China or the body of power of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region; or
(4) attacking or damaging the premises and facilities used by the body of power of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region to perform its duties and functions, rendering it incapable of performing its normal duties and functions
A person who is a principal offender or a person who commits an offence of a grave nature shall be sentenced to life imprisonment or fixed-term imprisonment of not less than ten years; a person who actively participates in the offence shall be sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment of not less than three years but not more than ten years; and other participants shall be sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment of not more than three years, short-term detention or restriction.
Judge Lee said paragraphs one through four of the article define “acts of subversion of the state,” but the prosecution is only relying on paragraphs one and two. The prosecution also argued that the content of paragraph two cannot be construed independently of the others and must be interpreted together with paragraph one. “If paragraph one cannot be proven, paragraph two cannot be proven either.” Judge Lee asked how CHT defined the “state power” mentioned in the article.
CHT: “I understand that the most fundamental aspect of state power is that sovereignty resides in the people.” She said this is mentioned in the preamble to the Constitution and Article 2.
Judge Lee instructed the prosecution to display the [relevant sentence of] the preamble to the Constitution on the screen:
The Chinese people thus secured power and became masters of their own country.
CHT: “Therefore, we believe that CCP dictatorship, firstly, subverted the people’s power, leaving them with no choice; secondly, it subverted many provisions in the constitution regarding the operation of state organs. These constitutional provisions on the operation of the government and its organs are part of our fundamental system. For example, the constitution states that the National People’s Congress is the highest organ of state power, but of course, it is subject to the dictatorship of the Party’s leadership. Everyone says the National People’s Congress is a rubber stamp; when it has no real power, the highest power granted by the constitution has already been subverted and destroyed. That’s why I said it’s not us who are subverting state power, but the reality of this dictatorship. Therefore, what we’re demanding in ‘end one-party dictatorship’ doesn’t actually constitute subversion of state power. We want to overthrow an illegitimate party dictatorship. What we’re demanding is the return of power to the people, for state power to be returned to its true masters.”
Judge Lee summarized CHT’s testimony, stating that according to her understanding, the “fundamental system” referred to in the first paragraph of Article 22 of the National Security Law is “the National People’s Congress as the highest organ of state power.”
CHT said this was “incomplete,” and that the fundamental system stipulated in the entire Constitution is one of the state’s organs of power.
Judge Lee then clarified that the first paragraph of Article 22 of the National Security Law does not refer to the National People’s Congress.
CHT: “The National People’s Congress is a part of it, not the whole.”
Judge Lee: “The fundamental system of the state is that all power resides in the people, and the National People’s Congress, as the highest organ of state power, should enjoy real power. However, according to your view, the National People’s Congress is not actually the highest organ of state power; in your opinion, it’s just a rubber stamp.”
CHT affirmed this.
Judge Chan: “Chapter Three [of the Chinese Constitution] concerning the National People’s Congress contains more specific clauses. Looking back at the General Principles, aren’t the concise and essential clauses within the General Principles more important?”
CHT: “From a common law perspective, simply stating ‘leadership’ is legally meaningless. The discussion should focus on how to define the constitutional boundaries. Otherwise, it is as if the Constitution never existed. The Constitution only states where the highest organ of power is located... but when it comes to how that is to be implemented, it’s entirely vague. You can’t say that just because there’s a ‘leadership,’ real power has gone to the Party; that’s inappropriate. Of course, this ‘leadership’ clause was added in 2018. Before 2018, this clause didn’t exist, yet state organs operated in exactly the same way…. What we’re demanding is a return of power to the people. It’s like we, as the masters of the country, are asking a thief to return something, so the thief then accuses us of robbery. That’s our understanding of the current accusations [we face].”
10:44
CHT indicated that she would now testify on the next issue, namely the means used and whether they were unlawful.
Judge Lee: “Using Article 22 of the National Security Law is an unlawful means, isn’t it?”
CHT affirmed this.
Judge Lee stated that the Court of Appeal had ruled on Article 22, indicating that the terms “force,” “threat to use force,” and “illegal means” in the article are “three independent things, not the same category. “Other illegal means” can involve other illegal means that are not force. “Do you have anything to say to that? This isn’t an argument; do you have any defense to offer?”
CHT: “To extend the imperfect analogy, we advocate for the return of the stolen goods, but we don’t advocate for catching the thief red-handed.”
Judge Lee asked CHT if what she meant was “returning the property to its rightful owner.”
CHT: “Yes, that’s a good way of putting it.”
Judge Lai asked whether force might be used [to catch the thief].
CHT: “But I didn’t advocate catching the thief or stealing his things.”
Judge Lee: “Then you need to be more precise.”
CHT: “It’s hard to be absolutely precise when it comes to metaphors. Actually, the illegal means in this case are quite systematic and extensive.”
Judge Lee “Simply put, you didn’t encourage people to use unlawful means, did you?”
CHT: “Right, right. That is, what we did was actually just...It’s like going to report a crime; we hope to use transparency, the system, and the law to get back what we’ve lost.”
Judge Lee: “You need to explain those words... transparency... the system... explain them one by one.”
CHT: “Ordinary people, including myself, cannot directly bring the CCP to justice. When it comes to ‘ending one-party rule,’ the only path we can take is a more roundabout one, relying on the collection and preservation of evidence, and on public education and empowerment.”
Judge Lee questioned whether “empowerment” meant “equipping” or “training” the masses: “Originally lacking ability, becoming capable means getting trained.”
CHT agreed that there was an element of “equipping,” but not a systematic approach to “training,” jokingly asking, “For example, would you consider a candlelight vigil as training?” She agreed, however, that empowerment includes encouragement and education, such as educating citizens on how to exercise their rights.
Judge Lee pressed further, asking if this included “arousing certain emotions in them?”
CHT: “I never said I wanted to incite any emotions,” but she agreed that HKA could be understood to “motivate” the masses, such as encouraging them to participate in the June 4 candlelight vigil or inviting them to participate in marches.
Judge Lee pressed further, asking if there was also an element of education.
CHT said the intention was “to equip everyone to exercise their civic rights as citizens.”
Judge Lee asked if she had anything to add.
CHT replied that it also included collective action and media engagement, including marches and demonstrations.
Judge Chan asked which direction the pressure was directed towards.
CHT: “Media engagement is usually directed more toward the government, both Hong Kong and China, but HKA was more concerned about China. It’s about breaking the CCP’s complete monopoly over society from the bottom up through means that ordinary people like us can use. Or rather, lessening it, reducing it; ‘weakening it’ would also be a suitable term.”
Judge Chan pressed further, asking if CHT wanted this to occur in mainland China.
CHT: “Mainland China...of course, but Hong Kong is also influenced by the CCP. Hong Kong isn’t as severely affected as the mainland, but it’s also under a dictatorship.”
Judge Chan asked if the mainland included Hong Kong.
CHT: “Maybe we should just say all places under the rule of the CCP; that would be a little more accurate.”
10:53
CHT continued her testimony, stating that the goal of “ending one-party dictatorship” “inherently determines what means we can use... because what we want to end is a power structure, not the rule of a particular political party. Only when we truly establish a democratic system and customs, only when these systems and laws truly restrict those in power, can one say that one-party dictatorship has ended. Therefore, if we understand ending one-party rule as an ultimate goal, then the only means to achieve this goal is democracy and the rule of law. Other methods, such as planting bombs, conspiracies, or palace coups, will not achieve this.”
Judge Lee asked what CHT meant by “transparency,” “system,” and “law.”
CHT explained “transparency” meant that HKA’s actions were entirely public and open for the world to see. For HKA, “ending one-party rule” was not merely a “distant ultimate goal,” but rather the process of moving from dictatorship to democracy. At this level, “ending one-party rule” and “building a democratic China” are like “two sides of the same coin,” the starting point and end point of the same process. “Conversely,” she said, “if ending dictatorship is not allowed, it’s equivalent to not allowing the building of democracy.” CHT explained that achieving democracy is not merely about free, fair, regular, and meaningful elections, but rather “a series of social structures that support people’s free choice,” including the protection of human rights, the rule of law, separation of powers, an independent media, a mature civil society, and a diverse and inclusive social culture. “These underlying social foundations are necessary to support people’s free, truly free, and autonomous choice. So when we talk about building democracy, we are actually including building the things mentioned above; it’s not just about having choices.” Chow said HKA placed greater emphasis on building the spirit of democracy. “Because ultimately, why do we want such a system? It’s not because we worship the West or hate other countries—of course not—but because of our fundamental beliefs about how people should live together. We believe that people are born equal, that everyone’s dignity and autonomy should be equally respected, and that no one should be used as a tool to be manipulated, deceived, or sacrificed. When we talk about building democracy, we are actually implementing this spirit in all aspects of life,” including interpersonal relationships, community operations, and the design of national systems. “Only when this spirit of truly treating everyone as an equal and free person can truly take root in society can a democratic system have a reason to survive and the nourishment to survive.”
Judge Lee said, “We’ve gotten close to this point,” indicating the court was more interested in understanding HKA’s “practical actions and what your defense strategy is.” He remarked that since CHT had already shared the Alliance’s vision and values, the court “isn’t judging your thoughts, we’re judging your actions... do you have anything to say?”
CHT: “The key point is that when discussing ending one-party rule, the prosecution equates it to ending the CCP’s leadership; our equation is to building a democratic China.” Beyond slogans, she wanted to address the issue of incitement in general.
Judge Li: “You saw our ruling—the meaning of incitement is very broad, including encouraging or instigating people to do something.”
CHT indicated she had no dispute on this point and said that the prosecution’s opening statement alleged that the defendants, under the guise of democracy and June 4, promoted and disseminated HKA’s agenda, stating that “whether it was organizing candlelight vigils, establishing a June 4th memorial, or protesting the Xinqiang concentration camp, it was all advocacy of their agenda.”
Judge Lee: “If I understand correctly, the prosecution’s basic argument is that HKA operated under a false pretense; what they said wasn’t true, and people didn’t believe what they said.”
The lead prosecutor and Deputy Director of Public Prosecutions Lai Ka-yee: “That’s not exactly our allegation.” He clarified that the prosecution’s position was that the defendants were using means to overthrow and undermine the fundamental system and the leadership of the CCP. “We’re not saying that what they said was false—it could be true—but it was being used as a pretext.”
Judge Lee said that the prosecution’s accusation that the defendants incited hatred against the CCP in order to overthrow its leadership was “not a misunderstanding, is it?”
Judge Chan: “The prosecution has asserted that the truth behind these events is not something to be debated in this case, but rather that the focus should be on the ultimate goal, ‘ending one-party rule.’”
Judge Lai: “The case was very clearly stated at the outset. The prosecution’s position is that on the one hand, it has no reason to dispute HKA truth claims, while on the other, it accuses the defendants of being deceptive.”
Judge Lee Li Yun-teng summarized that the prosecution accused HKA of “attempting to use these events, whether true or false, to incite hatred against the CCP in order to achieve the goal of ending the leadership of the CCP.”
Judge Lai agreed.
11:11-11:48 Court adjourned
11:48
CHT: “I would like to thank the prosecution for its clarification, because I have never understood what ‘in the name of so-called democracy’ means. [A phrase used by the prosecution to indicate its skepticism that it was really democracy for which HKA advocated.] Our core concept is democracy. The prosecution’s allegation that we are using this as a pretext for something else means that our act of advocating democracy is the criminal act in this case. It’s much clearer now.”
Judge Lee: “That’s not their allegation. They allege that your statements incited in others hatred towards the CCP and encouraged them to engage in unlawful means to overthrow the CCP’s leadership.”
CHT responded to the charge of incitement, stating that whether advocating or promoting a proposition is equivalent to inciting criminal activity can be addressed in the closing arguments. She added that the prosecution’s assertion that the June 4 candlelight vigil, the June 4 memorial museum, and human rights initiatives “were intended to incite others to accept our propositions is, in fact, incorrect.”
Judge Lee: “It’s not about inciting others to accept your propositions; it’s about inciting others to use unlawful means to endanger national security, which undermines the fundamental system.”
CHT: “Logically, one must first spread the message before others can take related actions. That’s how the logic works; it can’t directly jump to action. HKA’s work wasn’t just about spreading the message or ending one-party rule. Initiatives like candlelight vigils and the June 4 Museum already contained their own inherent purpose and meaning. They were already putting our own five core goals into practice.”
Judge Chan: “Was HKA’s work was related to ‘ending one-party rule’?’
CHT: “Of course it’s part of the whole; it can’t be separated.”
Judge Lee advised CHT to describe the motives behind the HKA’s actions.
CHT: ”Of course. Our actions about inciting others to do anything; these actions had their own purpose... Our work, including the goal of ‘ending one-party rule,’ was already in the practice. It wasn’t about inciting others to agree with the platform and then taking actions to ‘end one-party rule.’”
Judge Lee asked if the two were necessarily “mutually exclusive.”
CHT: ‘Not necessarily mutually exclusive, but in reality, for example, helping an elderly person cross the street is inciting others to do the same...”
Judge Lee said “inciting” includes encouragement. “For example, giving up your seat on the subway to someone in need is a spontaneous act, but it can encourage others to do the same, though the intention isn’t necessarily to achieve that effect.”
CHT: ‘This action [giving up a seat] cannot be considered an issue of incitement.” She said she would discuss whether an action can be considered “encouragement” if it was not intended to “encourage.”
Judge Chan asked whether HKA and CHT had any intention of encouragement.
CHT: “It’s not as if everything HKA did could be considered in its entirety as incitement, though that appears to be the prosecution’s logic in this case. Such a characterization of HKA’s actions is unreasonable and untrue. Each event and scenario has to be considered individually.”
11:58
CHT said she would now recount her experiences and observations as a participant, volunteer, and standing committee member of HKA, explaining why her actions were in line with the five core goals rather than constituting “incitement” of others to commit illegal acts.
CHT: “I was only 4 years old when HKA was founded. Of course, I don’t remember much, but I’ve always gone with my mother to the annual candlelight vigil, and I consider it one of the most important annual traditions. When I was little, I might not have fully understood the rituals or speeches. but I generally understood that there was a group of older brothers and sisters who stood up for a better country but they were brutally murdered by the army, while the executioners remained at large. Therefore, we had to remember those older brothers and sisters and seek justice for them. The June 4 candlelight vigil was my first lesson in civic education. It was the first time I left the protected environment of home and school and realized the immense injustice and unfairness in this world. But the June 4 candlelight vigil, though it dealt with such a dark subject, never became a place of hatred and despair. On the contrary, the vigil always conveyed love and responsibility. It told us that when faced with injustice in the world, we can’t just stand by and do nothing; we can do something, take a step further, and make this world move in a better direction. And this wasn’t inspired by a particular speech or statement on stage. It was what everyone who went to the candlelight vigil genuinely showed me through their actions. Victoria Park [the site of the candlelight vigil] on the night of June 4 was actually a very magical place. Complete strangers could instantly become friends, like family, supporting each other, sharing joys and sorrows. We’d all cry when we heard stories of bereaved families. If your candle went out, the person next to you would light it again. If it got wet from the rain, the aunt next to you would share waterproofing tips. At the end, everyone would scrape up the candle wax from the pavement and remove the metal barriers… For me when I was little, the magic of Victoria Park, where everyone became one, was something I longed for. It made me wonder, what power makes everyone who comes here naturally become the best person they can be. Many years later, after I myself gained experience of participating in social movements, I finally found the answer to this question. It turns out that what truly unites people is the willingness to bear suffering, not blindly praising others. When we say we’re proud of a group’s achievements, to some extent we’re enjoying the benefits that identity brings us. But when we’re willing to see the injustices and unfairness within this group, and willing to stand with the most vulnerable members, then we truly love this group. This applies to loving our families, our country, and the world. Building democracy includes maintaining the freedom and space to express suffering, allowing people to express their love. The magic that united people in Victoria Park over the years came from the love that everyone brought, and never from the hatred the prosecution alleges. And we people... myself, or rather, those who insist on telling, recording, and commemorating the injustices of the world, are never trying to spread hatred, but rather to unite in love. When I attended the June 4 candlelight vigil as a child, I didn’t understand it. I simply felt that everyone I saw at the vigil was a good person, someone I wanted to learn from. Initially, learning could only be through imitation: wall hangings commemorating June 4 in secondary school, and continuing June 4 commemorations while studying at university in the UK. When I started thinking about organizing things myself, I naturally needed to learn more, not just about what happened in 1989, but also asking more broadly what happened in China. HKA provided a great deal of help in this process due to its extensive database on China’s democratic development and June 4 with original audio-visual materials, articles, documents, and publications from that time. Besides historical facts, I also found analyses and sharing from experts and scholars on current political issues in China. HKA also provided me with ideas and references for my actions. For example, when I first wanted to organize a June 4 commemoration in the UK, I started by copying the June 4 candlelight vigil. HKA lent me documents and gave me access to its archives when I planned a June 4 exhibition, and introduced and recommended people related to the pro-democracy movement. Actually, when I consulted HKA, I was just a clueless student, but they were still willing to help me and trust me, and I’m very grateful. This is one reason why, after graduating in 2010, I went to work for HKA... The second, and even more important reason, is because I identify with the work of HKA. Especially after going to the UK and trying to organize some June 4 commemoration activities there, I felt even more strongly the importance of an organized, continuous, and public effort to promote the issue.”
12:14
CHT continued her testimony regarding her experiences with HKA. While organizing June 4 commemorative activities during her studies in the UK, she deeply understood the importance of organized, continuous, and public promotion of the issue. Because while many in Britain were outraged when the June 4 massacre occurred, 20 years later, no organization there continuously discussed June 4. The public had no opportunity to participate or form a habit, so naturally, June 4 had faded from memory. The atmosphere was completely different from Hong Kong; everything had to be recounted from the beginning, and the response couldn’t be expected to be as strong as in Hong Kong society. In Hong Kong, the public knew what June 4 was.
“June 4 had become a social consensus in Hong Kong, a starting point for discussing democracy and human rights in China. This can be considered an anomaly. And this anomaly is the result of many people working tirelessly for many years. HKA played a significant role, but of course, it wasn’t just HKA but also many churches, teachers, journalists, political parties, community organizations, and even parents, each in their respective roles, speaking out and taking various actions.”
After graduating from university in 2010, she returned to Hong Kong and worked as a staff member at HKA. She described her work at the time as mostly “tidying up stones,” such as setting up street stalls and collecting signatures.
“Even the June 4 rally itself—everything seemed insignificant, but without this gradual accumulation, we would forever remain at the stage of talking ABCs, and there would be no deeper action within society.”
The busiest months as a staff member were April and May, when she had to push a cart to set up street stalls almost every day. This taught her the most important thing was to persist.
Judge Lee: “This doesn’t need to be discussed in detail.”
Chow said that since the prosecution alleged that street stalls constituted incitement, it was important to show how her work experience reflected how HKA implemented its five core goals in practice. She explained that setting up street stalls requires a “sharp hit,” meaning people needed to know what action to take within 10 seconds. Therefore, “it’s impossible to find a place to hide ideologies or engage in inflammatory behavior.” More in-depth exchange activities involved educational work such as lectures, exhibitions, and websites, in an effort to provide a platform for public interaction. Every May, HKA held a lecture series on the situation in China. In 2010, they held four lectures on human rights and China’s development. Besides education and campaigning, HKA’s main work involved “statement” demonstrations and marches, and activities such as flying kites on June 4, laying flowers on Qingming Festival, a long-distance June 4 run, washing the Pillar of Shame, and hunger strikes. They also used “creative” methods, such as “collective head-shaving” to support Liu Xia [the wife of Liu Xiaobo, who spent a long time under house arrests while he was in prison]. While June 4 was the issue that HKA focused on the longest and most, its “mandate” was to support the mainland’s democratic movement.
“The movements we supported were far more extensive than June 4,” she said, citing examples such as HKA statements in support of Hu Jia, lawyer Gao Zhicheng, and Tan Zuoren, remembering the Wenchuan earthquake victims, and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights). She also noted public discussions about June 4 and support for Charter 08. CHT pointed out that the release of Liu Xiaobo and Charter 08 even became the themes of June 4 rallies and the HKA newsletter. CHT displayed issue 85 of the HKA newsletter published in March 2010, noting that it focused on Liu Xiaobo and Charter 08. [Former HKA leader] Szeto Wah’s article commemorating June 4 also called for the release of Liu Xiaobo and support for Charter 08. CHT then displayed issue 86 of the HKA newsletter, pointing out that the cover showed the HKA holding street actions in support of Charter 08 and demanding the release of another initiator of the Charter. CHT also displayed issue 87 of the HKA newsletter, noting that the cover showed HKA banners displayed at street stalls supporting the release of Liu Xiaobo and Charter 08. CHT pointed out that the theme of supporting Charter 08 permeated many of the HKA’s actions, and the full text of the Charter was published in issue 87 of the HKA newsletter.
“We hoped readers would understand the content themselves and judge whether it was something they could support, and whether advocating such ideas should lead to an 11-year prison sentence.” Many HKA members had signed a petition supporting the Charter.
12:29
CHT cited the full text of Charter 08 published in issue 87 of the HKA newsletter, stating that it advocated freedom, human rights, equality, republicanism, and constitutionalism, demanding that China promote political democratization. The latter part made 19 specific proposals, having to do with constitutional amendment, separation of powers, public service, human rights protection, public office selection, and urban-rural equality. “Charter 08 is a fairly comprehensive constitutional reform initiative.”
CHT cited Charter 08’s provisions on the constitution and freedom of association:
1. A New Constitution. We should recast our present constitution, rescinding its provisions that contradict the principle that sovereignty resides with the people and turning it into a document that genuinely guarantees human rights, authorizes the exercise of public power, and serves as the legal underpinning of China’s democratization. The constitution must be the highest law in the land, beyond violation by any individual, group, or political party.
9. Freedom to Form Groups. The right of citizens to form groups must be guaranteed. The current system for registering nongovernment groups, which requires a group to be “approved,” should be replaced by a system in which a group simply registers itself. The formation of political parties should be governed by the constitution and the laws, which means that we must abolish the special privilege of one party to monopolize power and must guarantee principles of free and fair competition among political parties.
Judge Chan asked whether the Chinese constitution at that time included the phrase about “one-party monopoly.”
CHT said no, but “in reality, it existed, and it still exists now.”
Judge Lee inquired about the extent to which Charter 08 represented HKA’s position.
CHT: “I cannot say it represented our position because we played a supporting role; we support their initiative but did not represent their position.”
Judge Li pressed further, asking to what extent the Hong Kong Alliance endorsed the content of Charter 08.
Chow said HKA had not specifically discussed whether each member “absolutely supports” every single clause, “but the general direction is one of support for the initiative.” She said a new constitution and freedom of association are demands that HKA had long supported and promoted, adding that HKA had been supporting Charter 08 since its release in December 2008. HKA considered Charter 08 to be a “legal, reasonable, and justifiable demand for constitutional reform,” but it lead to the initiator being sentenced to 11 years in prison and HKA’s campaigns for the release of Liu Xiaobo and Liu Xianbin. HKA’s campaigns for the release of pro-democracy activists were often small-scale, involving only a handful of people. Not all of the issues and people they focused on were widely known in Hong Kong.
Judge Lee pointed out that the HKA newsletter displayed by CHT was not published in 2008, the year Charter 08 was released, and asked whether it publishing Charter 08 in 2010 was a response to the Liu Xiaobo trial.
CHT stated that Liu Xiaobo was sentenced to 11 years in prison in October 2009, so HKA publilshing Charter 08 was a response to that. However, he emphasized that “this isn’t something that can be resolved in one go; it requires continuous effort,” adding, “Many people who advocate for democracy and human rights in mainland China don’t receive much attention. Liu Xiaobo was an exception, widely known, but Liu Xianbin wasn’t widely known… It wasn’t about getting applause or inciting others to support us; it was about doing something worthwhile, so we did it. It wasn’t about using those issues to incite others. Sometimes, talking about such things is even considered box office poison by Hong Kong people; in other words, it wasn’t always the popular thing to do.”
12:46
CHT said that during her time working at HKA, she felt her understanding of China was superficial or based on secondhand information. Seeing her own shortcomings in this area, she hoped to find a job in mainland China to “personally see how life is there and what the situation is like.” In 2010, she became an officer at a NGO focusing on Chinese labor rights, and for the next four years, she “traveled all over the country,” assisting migrant workers, left-behind children, and workers suffering from pneumoconiosis.
Judge Chan: “Left-behind children?”
CHT explained that “left-behind children” was a term used in mainland China referring to the children of migrant workers who left their rural homes to work in cities, leaving behind unattended children in the countryside.
For four years, CHT lived with these groups, advocating for their rights, petitioning, and engaging in actions and initiatives. “I have personally experienced the various injustices under the dictatorship,” she said. For example, migrant workers themselves revealed institutionalized discrimination, and the low-cost, high-efficiency factories that China was most proud of were actually the result of exploiting workers’ rights. “Workers have no right to organize unions; they have no way to defend their rights.” During her time working in mainland China, CHT witnessed firsthand that “change is possible.” Through the organization and mobilization of civil society, and by speaking out, “we still have the ability to push for changes, large and small, even under authoritarian rule, from abolishing the re-education through labor system to raising compensation standards for pneumoconiosis. The prerequisite for achieving all this is acknowledging and accepting suffering, respecting everyone’s experiences and lessons, and not treating the oppressed lower classes merely as a low-end population needing to be eliminated.”
In response to the prosecution’s accusation that HKA was inciting the public by criticizing negative aspects of China, CHT emphasized, “These negative situations are precisely the people I care about. When these negative situations remain unseen, there is no possibility of resolution or improvement.” CHT said her experience working in mainland China made her “increasingly convinced that ending dictatorship is no longer just about grand political reforms, but about truly ending the dictatorship that permeates our daily lives, ending the class discrimination and abuse of power within those daily routines.” To achieve this goal, she described education on the meaning of rights, the cultivation of civil society organizations, and civic practice as “indispensable.” CHT mentioned that while working in mainland China, she also served as a volunteer for HKA. The work was similar to her previous job as an office worker, and she joked, “It’s just that I went from being paid to doing it unpaid. Sometimes I might even have to pay out of pocket, so thinking about it, it was actually quite a loss.” Laughter rippled through the audience at this point. CHT said that HKA volunteers were the true pillars of the organization. “For over 30 years, they gave so much without expecting anything in return; they were the ones who truly supported the group, even more than the standing committee members.”
Before the court adjourned for lunch, Judge Lee asked CHT how much testimony she had left. CHT smiled and said, “There’s still quite a while left.”
12:55-14:32 Lunch
14:32 The hearing recommences
14:32
CHT testified regarding her consideration of whether or not to run for a standing committee position in HKA in 2013. “At that time, some people started advising me to run for standing committee, but I struggled a lot. My struggle wasn’t about disagreeing with HKA’s work; it was about the possibility that the reality of ‘one-party rule’ might affect my work in mainland China.”
“These two issues are inherently similar in nature and ideology, but in reality, there’s no way around it. Under authoritarian rule, many things that are compatible cannot coexist. If I love my work, the smart thing to do is to stay as far away from so-called politically sensitive groups as possible. However, I saw the necessity of HKA’s work. After all, if everyone is sensitive about things like the system and democracy, they won’t speak up or discuss it. In that case, the systemic deadlock facing this country will never be resolved. Whether it’s trying to advance labor issues, or other environmental or women’s rights issues, under this system, it will only become more and more inefficient. It’s even possible that a political wave could sweep through, and all the achievements of civil society, painstakingly accumulated, could vanish. Therefore, in my consideration and thinking, if you can’t use a democratic system to build a protective barrier for the unrestrained state of dictatorship, then any achievements of civil society are insecure.”
Judge Lai asked CHT if she believed serving as an HKA standing committee member might affect her work in mainland China.
CHT said HKA “was a politically sensitive group,” and that “the CCP didn’t like it; this was politically clear.” She forgot whether she had discussed the aforementioned struggles with her employer. “Because we have to talk about the events of 2013 and their aftermath...it perfectly reflects this kind of concern...2013 was the year Xi Jinping came to power...and afterwards, the situation regarding civil society in China became increasingly serious.” She cited the “709 crackdown” on rights lawyers in 2015 as an example.
Judge Lee asked CHT twice whether he ultimately ran for office in 2013, saying, “Don’t talk about 2015, let’s talk about 2013 first.”
Judge Lai: “When did you officially become an HKA standing committee member?”
CHT replied that she was elected in 2014.
Judge Lai: “Then don’t talk about 2015, let’s talk about 2014.”
CHT: “Back in 2013, just in the first six months after Xi Jinping came to power, there were already several waves of crackdowns targeting different civic groups.” At that time, HKA recorded over 100 “prisoners of conscience,” “all of whom were participants in non-violent social activism.”
Judge Lee: “When the prosecution presented evidence, I didn’t let them recount such a long history. They wanted to discuss over 30 years of events, but I didn’t let them. I use the same principle here, and ask you to condense it a bit…. So, as a result, you didn’t get elected in 2013. If it weren’t for that, you wouldn’t have had to wait until 2014 to hold the election.”
CHT affirmed this, citing a joint statement from HKA in September 2013, which stated that after Xi Jinping came to power, he proposed “putting power in a cage of regulations,” but “in reality, it means putting those who demanded that power be put in a cage in a cage,” resulting in the detention of over a hundred citizens for exercising their freedom of speech.
Judge Lee inquired whether CHT participated in the statement, whether she drafted it, and whether she signed it.
CHT stated that she participated as an HKA volunteer; the statement was not drafted by her; it was signed by the “organization.”
Judge Lee: “That is, HKA initiated this joint signature campaign, and HKA, as an organization, signed it.”
CHT affirmed this, adding that she also participated in HKA’s campaign regarding the joint signature campaign, including preparing props and collecting information, “because being in the domestic NGO sector, there was truly an atmosphere of white terror.” CHT said that precisely because of the white terror in China, many NGOs “had reached a point where they could no longer function,” which is why she left the mainland NGO in 2014.
14:43
CHT presented a document from the “Joint Concern Group for Human Rights in China,” that demanded an end to the suppression of human rights and the implementation of international human rights conventions. The document was dated August 29, 2013, and both HKA and the mainland NGO she worked for were among the initiators.
Judge Lee: “Since HKA signed this document, it means their position supports the content of this statement.”
CHT affirmed this, but emphasized that given the circumstances at the time, “as members of civil society, we pooled our efforts to focus on human rights issues in China, forming the ‘Joint Concern Group on Human Rights in China.’ We believed that human rights are an indivisible concept; we couldn’t say that the organization only focused on labor rights and neglected civil rights, press freedom, and the like. Without the latter, the former wouldn’t be guaranteed either. ‘Ending One-Party Dictatorship’ is a movement demanding political rights; it cannot be separated from other movements.”
Judge Lee: “So, ‘Ending One-Party Dictatorship’ is a ‘movement demanding political rights’?”
CHT: “It is a movement demanding political rights, which inherently includes movements pursuing other political and social rights within it. So, facing the situation at the time, where there was no longer a means to promote social issues in mainland China, I decided to run for the standing committee. I also decided to switch careers and become a barrister, as it gave me an independent and flexible position to participate in the pro-democracy movement.”
Judge Lee summarized CHT felt that in late 2013, the social atmosphere at the time made it impossible for her to participate in rights activism or advocacy activities in mainland China.
CHT: “I wouldn’t say there was no way to participate at all, but no way to participate in an organized and formal way; I could only participate individually, like a wildcat.”
She further discussed HKA’s “organizational structure,” addressing one of the accusations she faces of “inciting others to join HKA or donate to it,” stating, “I don’t know if this kind of incitement constitutes a crime.”
Judge Lee interrupted, pointing out that the prosecution’s charges “from beginning to end” were not simply against HKA, but rather “targeted its platform of ending one-party rule.”
CHT responded that the prosecution had mentioned this in its opening statement.
Judge Lee: “I think they never said... that participating in the HKA was illegal. The prosecutor said that the main charge was ‘inciting others to overthrow’ and that ‘HKA is a crucial platform’ to broaden the scope of the prosecution’s incitement charge. So we shouldn’t cast too wide a net.”
CHT: HKA was legally speaking a “company limited by guarantee,” holding an annual general meeting at the end of each year to elect standing committee members, with the chair and vice-chair elected from among the elected standing committee members, all of whom were unpaid. The membership remained at over 200, all group members. Citing the work report of the 26th standing committee, the report stated that included members from labor unions, political parties, legislators’ offices, student unions, religious groups, community organizations, organizations focusing on LGBTQ+ issues and workplace injury issues, etc., representing “a very broad spectrum of the community.”
Judge Lai asked CHT whether she ran for the standing committee as an individual member or as representative of a group.
CHT said she was running on behalf of a group called “June 4 Action,” and added that if members felt the standing committee was “not performing its duties properly,” “they could kick us out.”
Under questioning from the judge, she jokingly added that members could “kick me out” according to the bylaws, and that “HKA’s operating model is precisely a manifestation of the spirit of democracy. Even if a standing committee member was the head during a particular time in the HKA, their leadership authority was strictly limited, similar to the company’s bylaws and membership restrictions.”
Judge Lee: “Who would you describe as the ‘big shots’ of HKA?”
Lee Cheuk-yan laughed.
CHT: “HKA was run by members; in daily operations, they were the standing committee members.”
Judge Lee: “Who would you describe as the ‘directing mind’?”
Judge Chan added that the question concerned the time covered by the charges.
CHT: “The ‘directing mind’ during the period of the charges? The current standing committee members. The standing committee met monthly and sometimes not everyone attended. Just now, I wanted to make a distinction. The ruling party is not the same as the country, and leadership is not the same as dictatorship. Our leadership did not dictate the HKA.”
Judge Lee: “Standing committee resolutions were binding.”
CHT affirmed this. “There were strict boundaries. A leader couldn’t just do anything. There were procedural rules.”
14:59
CHT said HKA operated in accordance with its bylaws and related regulations. “Its operation was legal and compliant for 30 years.”
She displayed HKA’s Articles of Association, which state that HKA’s objective was “to promote any patriotic democratic movement” and “to promote democratic reform.”
CHT then displayed a screenshot of HKA’s website, showing its objectives. She pointed out that the Articles of Association do not include the “Five Core Principles,” but the “Five Core Principles” concretize the objectives.
CHT also displayed her 2019 platform in her campaign for a seat on the standing committee, stating that the platform is an internal document that truly reflects the internal thinking of the HKA.
CHT noted that the 2019 election was held during the anti-extradition bill protests, and therefore her platform at the time addressed HKA’s role under the circumstances: “What I believe the HKA can do is to persist in its role as a mediator, revealing the truth, and building bridges to dismantle barriers, so that people in mainland China and Hong Kong can truly connect, support each other, and fight for democracy together.”
CHT said that given the prevailing tensions between Hong Kong and mainland China at the time, she believed the above could be achieved, “creating greater mutual understanding and connection, and never resorting to the prosecution’s accusations of inciting hatred or division.”
Judge Lee asked about the meaning of “mediator” and “building bridges to dismantle barriers.”
CHT explained that HKA had consistently supported the mainland’s democratic movements, and at that time, the tensions between Hong Kong and mainland China were intensifying, and they resembled two opposing forces or enemies. Therefore, she hoped to act as a “bridge,” providing a platform for mutual understanding and recognition, “removing the walls built on prejudice and misunderstanding.”
CHT also presented her 2020 platform in her campaign for a seat on the standing committee stating that HKA is a federation, representing the greatest common denominator reached when groups with differing stances and ideologies unite. Therefore, it has never been the most progressive in its position. However, precisely because of this, it is also our bottom line that we cannot compromise on, and a bulwark we must defend to the death in Hong Kong and China’s democratic movements.
She said that after the implementation of the Hong Kong National Security Law, the social situation changed drastically, and civil society severely shrank. Therefore, analyzing the role of HKA, she felt that “precisely in the context of such a retreat in civil society, it is even more important to uphold the bottom line and principles of civil society.”
CHT stated that regardless of HKA’s platform or purpose, “I have always felt that it is merely a bottom line of seeking common ground while reserving differences, not about being maverick... or about promoting and advocating that it is not like that. It is the minimum principle reached by Hong Kong civil society, a minimum consensus.”
Judge Chan read out the platform’s contents, raising concerns about whether it implied “illegal means,” asking historically, what democratic movement that opposed dictatorship could be tolerated or considered as conducting itself “legally” by that dictatorship?
CHT explained that many regimes around the world suppress dissent under the name of the rule of law. “We anticipated that under dictatorship, legal means would be used to suppress us,” he said. “From a legal perspective, we never believed that what we did was illegal, but the political judgment at the time was that the law would be used against us.”
Judge Chan was concerned about the platform’s mention of “resistance,” and “subversion,” quoting, “HKA’s position has always been clear: what we resist, what we want to subvert, and what we want to end is the CCP’s one-party dictatorship, not the puppet government of Hong Kong.
CHT confirmed, “We wanted to overthrow the one-party dictatorship,” and added that “subversion doesn’t necessarily mean reversing what is legal, turning the positive into the negative, or the negative into the positive.”
Judge Lai asked whether the term “subversion” in the platform meant “to overthrow.”
CHT: “The usage is not directly equivalent, so I didn’t use that word directly.”
Judge Lee Yun-teng asked whether “resistance” and “subversion” had similar meanings.
CHT: “In this section, it can be said that they do.”
Judge Lee further asked whether “subversion” at the time meant “becoming unstable or reversing.
CHT: “I think it’s more than that; it’s a reversal, a reversal of a dictatorship.”
15:13
Judge Lee cited CHT’s platform for running for standing committee member of HKA, noting that after the National Security Law came into effect, some groups “decided to disband” or change course in order to avoid breaking the law. Judge Lee said it appears CHT disagreed with that stance, stating, “You insist on not backing down.”
CHT affirmed this, stating that her platform states the bottom line principle of Hong Kong society, “There is no turning back.”
Judge Lee: “You won the election again that year.”
CHT: “There are always some principles that cannot be compromised; there are always some stances that should be brought into the open. Of course, the language is different, but when it comes to the things pursued by the five major principles, these things should be directly demanded and appealed for, not discussed in roundabout ways.”
Judge Lee: “So you’re not going to compromise, even if the National Security Law requires this?”
CHT affirmed this.
Judge Lai inquired whether CHT’s statement regarding “accountability for violence” included the violent incidents that occurred during the anti-extradition bill protests.
CHT stated that the platform was used for her candidacy for HKA, so the “violence” mentioned mainly concerned June 4. “When I wrote it, I didn’t specifically think about the violence in Hong Kong, but in general, accountability, such as police brutality, is about holding the government accountable, not private citizens.”
15:16-15:33 Court adjourned
Monday, March 23, 2026 (Day 16 of the trial)
The following has been translated from this transcription of the trial proceedings.
10:04 Hearing Begins
Chow Hang-tung continued her testimony, displaying issue 117 of the Hong Kong Alliance Newsletter, which included an article by then-Vice Chair Richard Tsoi entitled “Is Constitutional Amendment for the People or for the Party?” The article is sub-titled “Hong Kong Alliance’s Stance on Amending the Chinese Constitution.”
Judge Anna Lai Yuen-kee noted that the article mentioned HKA’’s stance on amending the Chinese Constitution and inquired whether it can be said to represent HKA’s position.
CHT stated that the article reflected HKA’’s position, explaining, “HKA has a spokesperson system,” with the chair and vice-chair always acting as spokespeople. “If articles or speeches are written in the name of the chair or vice-chair in HKA activities or publications, it’s generally assumed to represent HKA’s stance, unless the context explicitly states it’s an individual opinion. Conversely, if a statement is written by an HKA standing committee member, there’s no such assumption. Of course, there’s a chance HKA activities represent HKA’s stance, but this is a hypothetical situation. Therefore, this article discusses HKA’’s stance on constitutional amendments, although it wasn’t written by me.”
Judge Lai quoted the article’s content, stating that it showed HKA believed that the 2018 constitutional amendments “in fact, already overturned the existing constitutional system.” It said, “This constitutional amendment is undoubtedly the most important and controversial since the comprehensive revision of the Chinese Constitution in 1982. This is not only because it involves 21 amendments to the original text of the Constitution, most notably the removal of the stipulation that ‘the President and Vice-President may not serve more than two consecutive terms, which is clearly ‘tailor-made’ for Xi Jinping, allowing him to hold three key party-state positions simultaneously (President, General Secretary of the Communist Party of China, and Chairman of the Central Military Commission) and continue to serve in them; more importantly, in terms of the overall content of the amendment, this constitutional amendment represents a major subversion of and regression in relation to the 1982 Constitution.
Judge Alex Lee inquired whether Issue 117 was published in 2018.
CHT affirmed this.
Judge Johnny Chan Jong-herng asked for affirmation of CHT’s position on this matter: Regardless of CHT’s or HKA’s views on the 2018 constitutional amendment, “once the constitution is amended, it becomes the constitution.”
CHT: “Of course. What I want to communicate is how we see it, and how we initially stated that it is the CCP itself that has subverted state power.”
Judge Lee summarized CHT’s testimony, saying that CHT believed the 2018 constitutional amendment was “inappropriate.”
CHT responded, “Even more, it subverts the constitutional system.”
Judge Lee noted that the article was written by Richard Tsoi, not CHT.
CHT confirmed this, but added, “This is also the position of HKA.” CHT quoted the article, stating that it explained why she believed the constitutional amendment was a subversion of the constitutional system: Anyone familiar with modern Chinese history knows that the 1982 Constitution was a significant revision of the original 1975 and 1978 Constitutions. The two so-called Constitutions drafted in the 1970s had very strong characteristics of the Cultural Revolution and the Mao Zedong era. Therefore, under the influence of the CCP’s policy of fully implementing the general line of opening up and reform in the late 1970s and actively eliminating the lingering effects of the Cultural Revolution, constitutional amendment became a necessary step. The 1982 Constitution, while still significantly different from the constitutions of modern democratic and rule-of-law countries, did, to some extent, mitigate the influence of CCP dictatorship and personal autocracy by drawing lessons from the Mao Zedong era and the Cultural Revolution. Two prominent aspects are the following: one, the formal articles of the Constitution no longer contain provisions or references to CCP leadership (although the preamble includes the “Four Principles,” but this is still somewhat different from the formal provisions); two, it stipulates term limits for the principal leaders of the state (including the President and Vice-President, the Premier and Vice-Premier, the President of the Supreme People’s Court, and the Procurator-General of the Supreme People’s Procuratorate). “The court can see our stance on the constitution: regardless of whether it was before or after the 2018 amendment, this constitution is far from our ideal of a truly democratic constitution, and it needs to be amended. However, the 1982 Constitution, compared to the 1972 Constitution, was moving towards reducing dictatorship—a step in the right direction.” The constitutional amendments before 2018 included provisions on human rights, “revising in the direction of ending this dictatorship,” but the 2018 amendments moved in the opposite direction.
Judge Lee noted that the article discussed the purpose of the 1982 constitutional amendment and the content of the constitution before 1982, but the court did not have the text of the constitution before 1982.
Lee Cheuk-yan’s barrister stated that relevant documents had been filed with the court during opening statements.
Judge Lee asked, “So you have a view on the Constitution, right?”
CHT: “Our view applies equally to both before and after the [2018] amendments.”
Judge Lee pressed: “You consider the 2018 constitutional amendment a step backward?”
CHT reiterated that the constitutional amendments before 2018 “were moving in the direction of ending one-party rule.”
Judge Chan then asked, “Do you consider the legal status of the 2018 constitutional amendments to be in dispute?”
CHT: “Of course. So, while on the surface the trial of the HK47 was held through seemingly constitutional means, can you actually dispute whether the National People’s Congress fulfilled its due diligence in deliberation? Is it [ie, the NPC’s imposition of the national security law on Hong Kong in 2020] therefore an illegal act? Of course, there’s no precedent...”
Judge Lee interrupted, stating that this issue should be addressed during the closing arguments.
10:17
Judge Lee told CHT that the court had no position on whether CHT’s interpretation of the Chinese Constitution was correct, “because we don’t have experts,” but was only interested in “your statement now represents HKA’s position.”
CHT then quoted Richard Tsoi’s article: “Some people say that even without amending Article 1 of the Constitution, the leadership of the Communist Party is already a fact.” CHT further quoted the article, pointing out that some parts reflected the HKA’s position, namely that “one-party dictatorship is a reality, and now it’s not just leadership but a one-party dictatorship; the constitutional amendments are intended to legalize one-party dictatorship.” CHT: “Indeed, the existence of ‘one-party dictatorship’ has always been a reality. However, I believe that including it in the Constitution to further legalize it makes it all the less acceptable.”
Judge Lee asked whether the cited passage reflected HKA’s view at the time that China was “in fact a one-party dictatorship.”
CHT affirmed this.
Judge Lee pressed further, asking if the article reflected the views of then-HKA Vice-Chair Richard Tsoi on the 2018 constitutional amendment, namely that the amendment legalized “one-party dictatorship.”
CHT nodded in agreement, stating, “But one of the so-called paradoxes of the Chinese Constitution is that there is no judicial procedure to test whether one-party dictatorship in reality is equivalent to the CCP’s leadership.” She added that the Constitution is essentially a “toothless tiger,” therefore HKA has long advocated that “the Constitution must be implemented, becoming a tiger with teeth.” CHT continued, pointing out that Tsoi’s article also questioned the inclusion of the phrase “Communist Party leadership” in the constitution, asking, “Does this truly legitimize dictatorship and leadership?” She asked, “Where is the line drawn between dictatorship and leadership? The constitution provides no answer whatsoever; it cannot be implemented.” This is precisely what Charter 08 is referring to when it calls for “upholding the authority of the constitution,” a position consistently supported by HKA.
Judge Chan noted that all those involved in Charter 08 were ultimately imprisoned,3 raising the issue of whether HKA still intended to promote Charter 08 in mainland China in 2018.
CHT: “Of course, the Charter 08 movement has never stopped, not even now.”
Judge Chan repeated his question.
CHT chuckled: “I think it’s more difficult for us to promote it in mainland China; we mostly promote it in Hong Kong.”
Judge Chan asked, “So, you’re supporting people to do things that would incur criminal charges?”
CHT: “I think we need to be careful what we say. Does Charter 08 incur criminal charges? There are many signatories [of the Charter], a five-figure number [more than 10,000 in all], and many of them aren’t in jail. It’s not that supporting Charter 08 itself is a crime; one can’t say that.” HKA believes, “Charter 08 is a constitutional right and shouldn’t incur any criminal charges whatsoever.”
Judge Chan then asked, “Do you still intend to promote anything in mainland China in 2018 that might bring you criminal charges?”
CHT replied, “I think the sentencing of some of the initiators of Charter 08 reflects the problem of this law being politically exploited. It’s about what should be done and what shouldn’t be done, and how to politically suppress you.”
Judge Chan pressed further, asking if HKA’s alleged support of mainland pro-democracy activists, “doesn’t consider... the impact on people in mainland China?”
CHT: “If they insist on fighting for democracy, we should support them. Fighting for democracy in a dictatorship is always risky, both in Hong Kong and in mainland China. But does that mean we shouldn’t do the right thing?”
Judge Chan concluded, “That means your emphasis is more on the fight for democracy than on [the effects of your actions] on other people in mainland China.”
CHT: “You can’t say it’s greater or lesser. The initiative or choice lies with them. They can do whatever they want, but we can’t make the choices for them. The risks they bear are their own. For example, regarding legal risks in mainland China—the risk of prosecution and detention—does that mean I shouldn’t support the Tiananmen Mothers [a group of relatives of victims of the Tiananmen Massacre] seeking justice for their children? Does that mean I’m pushing them to break the law? That’s not what I mean. Many things in mainland China that shouldn’t lead to imprisonment carry the risk of imprisonment, even commemorating or calling for vinication for June 4.”
Judge Lai: “So you believe that the actions you support, in mainland China, carry the risk of criminal liability.”
CHT: “There is a risk of arrest, but I don’t agree that there is criminal liability.”
Under further questioning from Judge Lai, CHT said she was aware that certain behaviors might incur criminal liability in mainland China, “but I think we can’t... use Hong Kong’s experience to understand what criminal liability means in mainland China.” She continued, “So I think we need to understand the mainland context. Frankly speaking, it doesn’t involve any strong political stance to assert it’s not a country with a strong rule of law. When you use any objective academic standard to measure it, it’s still a country without judicial independence. Therefore, criminal liability is often the consequence of political prosecution. You can’t directly apply Hong Kong’s understanding of criminal liability to the mainland situation. Sentencing in mainland China is based on the decision of the Political and Legal Affairs Commission.”
10:29
CHT cited HKA’s Lunar New Year campaign as an example: the joint signatures submitted to the National People’s Congress were not incitement to subversion. She displayed issue 119 of the Hong Kong Alliance Newsletter. It discussed the UN Geneva Conference, “explaining why we are doing this work, and explaining to the public what we are doing... promoting support for our reform direction.” CHT said that, overall, while some articles in the Hong Kong Alliance Newsletter are written by HKA’s standing committee members, staff, and volunteers, many more are written by civil society groups, experts, scholars, current affairs commentators, mainland authors, and even include reader submissions. “Therefore, the views and content of the Hong Kong Alliance Newsletter are not limited to HKA’s views; it’s not just about promoting our stance. What we... want to achieve is to provide a platform for everyone, an open platform, to let everyone understand the development of democracy in China.”
Judge Chan pointed out that the authors of articles published in the Hong Kong Alliance Newsletter were “at least individuals who had similar views to those of HKA.”
CHT joked that the phrase “similar views” was controversial, but described the authors as having a “friendly” relationship with HKA.
Judge Lee raised concerns about whether articles explicitly identifying the author as Chair, Vice-Chair, or Executive Committee member represented HKA’s position.
CHT stated that generally, articles written by the Chair or Vice-Chair represent HKAe’s position, while those written by Executive Committee members do not necessarily reflect HKA’s position; “it depends on the specific content.”
Judge Lee inquired whether the articles in issue 119 of the Hong Kong Alliance Newsletter, namely, “My Five Days in Geneva” by Albert Ho, “China’s Human Rights Trip to the UN in October” by Emily Lau in her capacity as a member of the China Human Rights Lawyers Concern Group, and “China’s Labor Rights Are Deteriorating” by the Hong Kong Confederation of Trade Unions, reflected HKA’s stance and whether the writing organizations belonged to HKA.
CHT confirmed that Albert Ho’s article reflected HKA’s stance, while China Human Rights Lawyers Concern Group was not affiliated with HKA. She also confirmed that she wrote the Confederation of Trade Unions article, which explained the work of the HKA’s human rights department, which she oversees.
Judge Lee further inquired whether CHT’s article, “Xidan Re-emerges, Modern-Day Extermination,” written in her capacity as a standing committee member, represented HKA’s stance.
CHT confirmed that the article described HKA’s position at the time.
Judge Lee said that it was difficult to determine HKA’s stance based solely on the author’s name.
Chow stated that the Alliance does not “declare” every article, therefore each article needs to be read individually.
Judge Lee asked twice how readers could be certain whether the article represented HKA’s position.
CHT explained, “Perhaps we didn’t particularly feel this matter was important. So we didn’t specifically declare it...” She said readers should pay attention to the background of the article in the Hong Kong Alliance Newsletter, and showed another article discussing HKA’s call for the Chinese government to stop monitoring Liu Xia and unconditionally release Pu Zhiqiang and other pro-democracy activists. CHT stated that the article discussed HKA’s Lunar New Year activities, hoping to use the Lunar New Year period to raise awareness among Hong Kong citizens about those who had lost their freedom and their families through activities such as putting up Spring Festival couplets and collecting signatures from citizens.
Judge Lee summarized that the article’s purpose “was not to incite hatred towards the Communist Party...not, as the prosecution claims, by using the name of the democratic movement to incite hatred towards the Communist Party.”
CHT nodded in agreement, stating that the article explained the content of the activities “and did not want to incite anything.” The article mentioned that HKA had collected more than 3,000 signatures from citizens and mailed the petition to the National People’s Congress. “Even if they were inciting people to do something, they were asking them to participate in the action and sign the petition; it’s impossible to say that they were inciting anything. I don’t know what kind of behavior subverts state power.”
Judge Chan asked, “Simply put, (this activity) has nothing to do with the slogan ‘end one-party dictatorship’.”
CHT stated, “Of course it’s related. Our actions are all under the ‘end one-party dictatorship’ platform.”
Judge Chan pressed further, asking if HKA was supporting the work of those involved in furthering the goal of “ending one-party dictatorship.”
CHT explained that they were providing very specific directions. “This includes signing petitions, setting up street stalls, and displaying Spring Festival couplets.”
Judge Lee asked if the petition could be understood as “not an attempt to slander the Communist Party.”
CHT laughed and said, “You can understand it that way,” adding that the campaign had already ended by the time the article was published. “The direct purpose wasn’t to encourage participation, but rather to introduce those who participated and what their story was.”
Judge Lee commented that the article’s title “seems rather sensational.”
CHT: “This is truly a matter of literary choice, but it’s also a real issue. Many cases have been reported; the person actually targeted is one person, but their wife, brothers, and colleagues are also affected. This phrase, ‘extermination of nine generations,’ is a simple way of saying what the problem we’re targeting is.”
Judge Chan summarized that the action involves submitting the petition to the National People’s Congress, while the people supported by HKA are directly confronting the “extermination of nine generations” issue, asking the National People’s Congress whether it constitutes “handling an incident involving the extermination of nine generations.”
CHT: “I think we need to face the facts, to stick to the facts. We’re saying that such a thing really happened, and we’re just stating the facts.”
Judge Lee: “But in ancient times, ‘extermination of nine generations’ really meant the execution of a person.”
CHT agreed, stating, “Whether it’s about facts or not, the article states it; it doesn’t say anyone was actually killed. The wording is problematic.” CHT said she also wrote the article titled, “One Year After the Umbrella Movement, Don’t Forget the Umbrella Catchers,” which echoed the sentiment of “Xidan Re-emerges, Modern-Day Execution of Nine Generations.” CHT: “Because the previous article discussed the ‘Umbrella Catchers,’ if you’ve read it and understand this group, and want to do something for them, this one-year anniversary article on the Umbrella Movement will be more specific about what you can do. The timing of this publication is quite short, as the campaign is still in progress and not yet finished. It will directly appeal to readers on how to support the ‘Umbrella Catchers,’ such as sending encouraging letters, initiating street actions… But anyone who does what we’ve appealed to them to do must first understand these people. Therefore, the main purpose of writing these articles is to tell who these people are, what they do… to tell their stories.”
10:47
CHT continued, citing an article from issue 114 of the Hong Kong Alliance Newsletter, titled “Sea Sacrifice for Liu Xiaobo: Loss of Freedom,” stating that HKA was still promoting Charter 08-related work in 2016 and 2017. For example, in the Alliance’s 2017 work report, the focus of the Human Rights Department’s work in the second half of the year remained promoting Charter 08 and advocating for Liu Xiaobo’s release. “It’s not like it ended after 2008; it’s been ongoing work.” In December of the same year, the Hong Kong Alliance Newsletter promoted the “One Person, One Photo” movement to demand Liu Xiaobo’s release, continuing to call on the Chinese government to release Liu Xiaobo and implement Charter 08.
Judge Chan asked whether the “One Person, One Photo” movement required people in mainland China, Hong Kong, and overseas to take photos to demand a series of actions from the central government.
CHT nodded in agreement and continued her recollection, recounting that Liu Xiaobo had served most of his sentence by 2016 and 2017. “We started planning to celebrate, but unfortunately, in mid-2017, we received devastating news that he was seriously ill and would pass away soon. We had hoped to try and save him...” CHT’s voice choked with emotion. She took a breath, sniffed, and said, “...before I die...I want to see his family,” before bowing her head.
Judge Lee, seeing this, asked CHT, “Do you need to rest? Do you have any tissues?”
CHT replied, “I do,” and wiped away her tears with a tissue, remaining silent for a long time.
CHT’s mother also lowered her head, her eyes slightly red. Lee Cheuk-yan, sitting in the dock, briefly looked at CHT, his brow furrowed with worry.
CHT continued her testimony with a nasal tone, mentioning that Liu Xiaobo died in custody on July 13, 2017, “and in the end, even his ashes couldn’t be kept.” HKA held a series of activities, including a seven-day memorial service, a sea memorial service, a search for Liu Xia, and an international petition, demanding a thorough investigation into Liu’s death and the release of Liu Xia and others arrested for mourning Liu Xiaobo. CHT stated that after the petition was signed, those arrested for the sea memorial service for Liu Xiaobo were gradually released. “Of course, I don’t know why the Chinese government made this decision, or even whether they knew we had this petition,” he said. Still, she still hoped to convey a message to the public: “Taking this action is not meaningless; there is a real chance to change the situation of some victims or persecuted friends… Even though Mr. Liu Xiaobo is no longer here, the Charter 08 movement is not over. I hope readers will continue to care about anyone affected by this matter, including those still imprisoned.” Subsequently, HKA continued to hold related activities, as can be seen from its December 2018 activity schedule, including events in support of Charter 08, focusing on those who had signed the petition but were still imprisoned, including Liu Xianbin and Jiang Tianyong. “So this matter has never been resolved.”
Judge Lee questioned whether CHT meant that HKA continued to support Charter 08 activities up to 2018, or whether the Charter 08 movement was still ongoing in mainland China.
CHT: “I don’t know if I can say it’s still ongoing in mainland China. My understanding is... I’m only qualified to speak about HKA... I’m not really qualified to be a witness about this matter (whether the Charter 08 movement is still ongoing in mainland China).” She confirmed that HKA continued to support Charter 08.
Judge Chan questioned whether HKA continued to support Charter 08 during the period of the case, from July 1, 2020, until the arrest of the defendants [on September 8, 2021].
CHT affirmed this.
11:00
CHT emphasized that her articles for HKA were not primarily intended to incite any behavior, but mainly to tell stories and help Hong Kong friends understand who these mainland activists were and what was happening on the mainland. HKA organized lectures, group activities, writing articles, and distributing leaflets. “What I hoped to achieve is that when Hong Kong people looked at China, they would not only see those grand national narratives, but also see individuals, especially those whose contributions to democracy had been erased by the government. I hoped Hong Kong people could see that democracy was not only our goal, but also the wish of countless Chinese people. I hoped even more that we could stop being held hostage by the narrow nationalism propagated by the authorities, and break free from the mindset of identifying each other as either friend or foe. We should talk about ordinary values and common humanity, so as to transcend barriers of geography and identity to unite and focus on fighting for democracy… Clearly, I didn’t want to incite hatred; I wanted to promote understanding between friends in Hong Kong and mainland China. For us, these aren’t negative stories at all. I think these are some of the most positive stories about China. We’re talking about some of the most outstanding people in China.” At this point, CHT’s voice choked with emotion, and after a moment of silence, she continued her testimony, citing an article titled, “The Chinese Democratic Movement After 1989,” which she said she shared at a lecture she attended on the eve of June 4 in 2019. “Hong Kong people didn’t really understand what HKA supported in the Chinese democracy movement for over 30 years. They even thought the Chinese democracy movement was just the 1989 movement, and that’s all. So, to explain what the Chinese democracy movement was, the best way is to talk about the people’s stories.” Therefore, in her lecture, she mentioned pro-democracy activist Chen Xi, saying, “In the terrifying atmosphere of the 1989 massacre, he insisted on organizing strikes and protests and was sentenced to three years in prison. After his release, he joined an opposition party, was quickly arrested again, and served another 10 years in prison. After his release, he no longer directly engaged in politics, but instead spoke at human rights forums and even ran for the National People’s Congress. But using this method to promote democracy, he couldn’t escape Xi Jinping’s rule and served another 10 years in prison.” CHT then cited the examples of Gao Zhicheng, Xu Zhiyong, Xie Wenfei, and Wang Mo, pointing out that Gao and Xu transitioned from legal rights activism to political opposition, while Xie and Wang learned from Hong Kong’s social movements but were ultimately arrested and subjected to torture for supporting the Hong Kong Umbrella Movement. “Telling these stories reflected the strategic and morphological shifts the Chinese democracy movement has undergone over the years. On the other hand, it was also to let Hong Kong friends hear these stories and realize that we on both sides may be facing similar struggles and controversies, facing the same systemic oppression. This might allow friends in mainland China to see their own reflections, resonate with them, and become the starting point for their attention. Our HKA supported so many democratic movements because we supported these concrete people and issues. We never engaged in empty talk about grand political reforms, nor do we shout indulgently self-congratulatory slogans like ‘Down with the Communist Party.’ The democratic movement was about people, caring for people, supporting people, and building connections between people. This was always the first step in ending dictatorship and building democracy.”
11:10
Judge Chan cited the article titled “The Chinese Democratic Movement After 1989,” focusing on whether HKA provided technical and resource support to mainland human rights activists: “We should be thinking about how to support them in taking action and achieving their goals, including technical, resource, experiential, and discourse-based exchanges and support, rather than stopping at the point of trying to put out fires when someone is in trouble, or merely expressing admiration for those in prison.”
CHT said the article shows HKA’s support was “very concrete,” “not just coming up with slogans... not anything, not illegal means. At that time, the focus was on the constitutional amendment movement. If you really look at it from the perspective of the Chinese democratic movement, the constitutional amendment movement was actually the most sensitive and least direct opposition movement. In that phase, people were very brave to do this, and then they were...thrown into prison, leaving no room for it. So, in the last ten years or so, we saw protest movements talking about human rights and democracy... But whether it’s directly talking about constitutional amendment, the opposition party, or even just rights-defending actions, without such a high-minded stance, different forms of movements are all part of the democratic movement we support. Now, the prosecution is saying that constitutional amendment is the only legitimate democratic movement...”
Judge Chan interrupted CHT, stating that the prosecution did not mean “constitutional amendment is the only legitimate (means).”
CHT stated that the prosecution alleged HKA “did not promote a constitutional amendment movement, therefore its means were illegal...because constitutional amendment is the most sensitive issue, the one with the least political room for maneuver.”
Judge Chan asked, “You mean, you’re not talking about constitutional amendment?”
CHT: “That’s not what I mean. I mean the form in which the democratic movement in China expressed its agenda depended heavily on the current political environment. The more oppressive the environment, the less likely it is that there will be any openly provocative suggestions for constitutional amendment.”
Judge Chan pressed further, asking whether HKA had proposed constitutional amendments at the time.
CHT affirmed this, but pointed out that in the context of China, calling for “constitutional amendment is the most unacceptable thing.”
Judge Chan then asked whether HKA’s support for democratic movements beyond constitutional amendments during the period in question was aimed at changing the fundamental system of the country.
CHT: “You can say that the ultimate ideal is something like that, but of course I can’t represent...”
Judge Chan interrupted again, asking whether CHT’s reference to the “fundamental system of the country” meant “the fundamental system of the country led by the Communist Party.”
CHT: “I don’t mean the fundamental system in a legal sense; I mean democratic transition. Those involved in the movement didn’t look at what the law said. People involved in the movement said they want democracy. I don’t know how to answer your question. They didn’t set out to pursue something based on the constitution.”
Chan: “I’m talking about HKA, not other people.”
CHT: “HKA always adhered to the Constitution when discussing its goals. Our goals were ‘ending one-party rule’ and ‘building a democratic China.’ Regardless of what rights defense actions we supported, whether against land expropriation or protests against the suppression of Falun Gong, it wa all within the long-term framework of ‘ending one-party rule’ and ‘building a democratic China.’ Of course, vindication of June 4 also falls under this framework.” CHT noted that an article in the HKA Newsletter discussed different forms of support for the democratic movements, but this article did not represent HKA’s position; it was purely explanatory material, “merely explaining the different stances that had emerged in the democratic movements.”
Judge Lee said that if the article did not represent HKA’s position, and HKA did not agree with its views, “then what’s the point of reading this article? If you tell us (the court) that HKA shared and agreed with certain viewpoints at the time, OK, then tell us where you agree, because we don’t want to wrong HKA, we shouldn’t wrong HKA, because it wasn’t written by HKA.”
CHT reiterated that the article did not state HKA’s views or positions, “but rather explained to everyone the different forms the Chinese democratic movements took,” including the formation of political parties, charters, etc.
Judge Lee asked if HKA, besides supporting constitutional amendments, also supported the various forms of democratic movements mentioned in the article
CHT affirmed this, adding that it was HKA’ long-term strategy. “The constitutional amendment proposal was also part of the civic movements we support.”
11:23-11:59 Court adjourned
11:59
CHT cited an article she wrote in her capacity as HKA vice-chair in the 108th issue of the newsletter in 2016, which was also one of the articles relied upon by the prosecution in its opening arguments. She said the article explained the theme of that year’s June 4 rally: “Vindicate June 4, Stop Arbitrary Arrests, End Dictatorship, Strive for Democracy.” She described that year’s theme as “frankly, a fairly standard theme; basically, it reiterated our five principles in different terms, without any particularly outstanding events.” She said the article mentioned events in 2016 including the 709 crackdown, the enactment of China’s National Security Law, legislation for overseas NGOs, the arrests of “umbrella protesters,” and the Causeway Bay Bookstore incident [five people associated with the bookstore were disappeared by Chinese authorities, apparently because it published books about supposed scandals involving top CCP leaders]. She emphasized that “the article itself doesn’t incite anyone to do anything specific; the only thing it might encourage is to broadly call for support for HKA.”
Judge Lee asked CHT for her response to the part cited by the prosecution in their opening statement.
CHT said each sentence [on its own] is meaningless; the article’s overall meaning must be understood. The overall purpose is to explain the theme of that year’s rally, namely, “the five principles have been repeated multiple times using the same formula, so the prosecution’s focus on those six characters about ending one-party rule is meaningless, as there are many ways to express the same meaning.”
Judge Chan said the prosecution was focusing on the following passage: “The hand of dictatorship has already extended to Hong Kong… The dictator’s promises can no longer protect us. We can only resist, and standing with the protesters in mainland China is our greatest protection. The dictator’s greatest fear is his own people; only the Chinese people can overthrow the Chinese Communist Party.” Chan was concerned about the sentence, “…only the Chinese people can overthrow the Chinese Communist Party.”
CHT explained this referred a “hypothetical situation.” In reality, if the CCP were to be overthrown, “it can only happen this way… So why talk about fear? The greatest fear is this reason, not about inciting people to do anything,” reiterating that the article’s main point was “resisting this dictatorship.”
Judge Chan pressed further, asking why HKA used the word “overthrow” instead of “confront,” “(If) they only meant confrontation, not overthrow”?
CHT explained that the article referred to the outcome dictators fear most: “Dictators fear their own people. Why? Because the people have the ability to overthrow them… It’s not about what we’re going to do, it’s about why they’re afraid, because that possibility exists.” She reiterated that the article explained the theme of that year’s rally, like explaining the meaning of the five principles, and the Hong Kong Alliance frequently explains the five principles, “so that it doesn’t become an empty slogan open to interpretation.”
12:08
Judge Chan continued to question whether HKA was involved in supporting illegal activities in mainland China.
CHT cited another article written by Albert Ho in his capacity as HKA chair, titled “How to End One-Party Dictatorship.” She read the following: “Based on historical experience, the end of an authoritarian regime usually follows one of the following three scenarios: 1. The leader reforms himself, opening up power to achieve democracy. 2. A violent revolution overthrows the dictatorship. 3. Peaceful resistance from civil society forces the ruling party to continuously reform, achieving democratic transition. The phenomenon of the ‘third wave of democracy’ at the end of the last century lay in the fact that the people’s continuous peaceful and rational resistance successfully forced the ruling authorities to compromise and reform, thus gradually moving towards democratic transition. This type of social resistance is diverse: from rallies, marches, demonstrations, and petitions by dissidents and human rights activists to online connections, petitions, online exposure and criticism, and the struggles of human rights lawyers both inside and outside the legal system, all of which have become a force driving democratic development.” CHT believes that the article’s description of HKA’s action model is not illegal. “You could even say that our current defense in court is a form of legal resistance mentioned therein. We are using our testimony and statements to defend the legitimacy and legality of ‘ending one-party rule,’ providing a legal space for related actions. But you absolutely cannot say that this legal resistance, or that our current denial of guilt, is an illegal means.”
Judge Chan Chung-hang questioned the article’s mention of methods not only within the legal system but “both inside and outside the legal system.”
CHT argued that methods outside the legal system are not necessarily illegal. For example, a human rights lawyer’s article revealing their inability to meet with their clients is also an outside-the-legal-system tactic, “because it simply doesn’t qualify them to even enter the legal system.”
Judge Chan further questioned whether the article’s mention of “people constantly sacrificing their freedom” meant that some had lost their freedom due to legal consequences.
CHT pointed to Liu Xiaobo, Xu Zhiyong, and others as examples of lost freedom, stating, “These are factual statements.”
Judge Chan pressed further, asking if this implied that certain facts were determined through mainland legal procedures, leading to the loss of freedom.
CHT disagreed, pointing to Liu Xia’s years of unfreedom, asking, “What legal procedures did she go through?” She argued that loss of freedom can occur through legal procedures or outside the legal system, like “through black jails?” She cited similar examples such as human rights activists being “forced to travel” and the Tiananmen Mothers being monitored.
Judge Chan clarified that his focus was on whether the nonviolent resistance mentioned in the article included behaviors that would be classified as illegal in mainland China.
CHT pointed out that HKA’s focus was “not on how the government classifies such activities, but on the nature of those behaviors. Petitioning, assemblies, marches, and demonstrations are not inherently criminal acts.” She added that grassroots resistance methods were often suppressed by “weaponized” laws in authoritarian countries. “Whether those in power use the law to suppress these peaceful protests is beyond our control; we can only control the principles and methods we use.”
Judge Lee summarized that the above discussion involved the Hong Kong courts’ handling of “illegal means” as referred to in Article 22 of the National Security Law, specifically whether it is “illegal” in Hong Kong or mainland China, and said this should be addressed during closing arguments. “I think we have no way of determining what is illegal in mainland China because we don’t have mainland legal experts… We have a difficulty; we cannot judge, and should not judge, whether a conviction in mainland China is appropriate. We can only treat it as an appropriate conviction.”
CHT agreed that it should be addressed during closing arguments.
12:19
CHT continued by submitting an article explaining the theme of the 2015 rally, titled, “Unite for Democracy! Support the Redress of June 4 Together,” mentioning that redressing June 4 included striving to establish a Historical Truth Committee, a Committee for the Restoration of Justice, investigating historical facts, establishing a memorial hall, compiling historical facts, and demanding an apology from the government.
Judge Chan questioned whether the “restoration” in the “Committee for the Restoration of Justice” meant “it originally existed.”
CHT jokingly replied, “Restoration of justice... to restore justice... we are endowed with (justice).”
Judge Lai asked if the article meant “to reinstate this committee, calling it the ‘Justice Committee,’ is that not what you mean?”
CHT clarified that it meant establishing a committee to “restore justice.” She continued, quoting the article, stating that the rehabilitation of June 4th was a project and system aimed at restoring justice, requiring investigation, accountability, and compensation through open, institutional, and transparent methods. “It’s not simply about blaming those in power, much less about private settlements or revenge outside the system. This kind of goal can only be achieved through the rule of law.”
Judge Chan expressed concern that the article “pre-determines a conclusion before making demands, such as an apology. The conclusion is that the government is wrong, and only then should an apology be made... Everything is already settled before making your demands, isn’t it?”
CHT laughed and said, “A normal person should be able to judge basic right and wrong. Regarding what happened on June 4, the basic fact is that the government killed many people.”
Judge Lee pressed further, asking why a truth-finding committee was needed if a conclusion had already been reached. “Since your first step is to establish historical truth, it’s not about establishing a pre-established investigation committee.”
CHT reiterated that she never advocated for investigation only after a conclusion was reached. “The conclusion isn’t just that people died. What happened, who died, how many died—there’s no truth to any of that.”
Judge Lee summarized that HKA’s position was that the government was wrong, hence the way their demands were written.
CHT nodded in agreement.
Judge Lee continued, stating that the court would not spend too much time processing “rehabilitation of June 4.” Although CHT’s testimony mentioned that the five major principles needed to be considered together, this was not the prosecution’s argument. “We don’t require the court to say whether rehabilitation of June 4 is appropriate or not... We don’t favor any conclusion on this aspect.” The court mainly judges whether the prosecution can prove its case, while CHT’s statement concerns the “rehabilitation of June 4” and that HKA has always pursued a procedure conducted under the rule of law.
12:30
CHT pointed out that the circulation of the HKA newsletter was limited. Therefore, the annual June 4 candlelight vigil was “the most important expression of HKA.” HKA relied entirely on public donations, and its funds were insufficient to hire “professional writers.” Therefore, the declaration and eulogy for each annual vigil were first decided by the standing committee members, who then drafted the document before submitting it to the standing committee for approval. She described the writing style as “very consistent,” and said that it was usually read by the chair or vice-chair on the day of the vigil. The declaration and eulogy she read at the vigil, as presented by the prosecution, were written by her. Regarding the declarations and eulogies read by others, she could not explain the writing process or the meaning of the wording, “but as a member of the standing committee, I accepted it.”
The court played CHT’s speech at the 2016 June 4 vigil: “In Hong Kong, June 4 enlightened a generation. The annual June 4 commemoration was for many the first experience of participating in a social movement, conveying Hong Kong people’s insistence on justice, their dedication to truth, their fearlessness against tyranny, and their care for humanity. Those who walked out of Victoria Park carried these values and these emotions with them, participating in various social movements and becoming the most important force in protecting Hong Kong. Suppression inspires resistance, and resistance leads to even greater suppression. This seems like a vicious cycle, but as long as the memory of resistance remains and the experience of resistance is not forgotten, each instance of suppression is an accumulation of grassroots power. Protecting memory is protecting the seeds sown by our predecessors. As long as the flame is not extinguished, one day the spark will surely ignite a prairie fire. On the road to resisting the CCP’s special offensive, they are at the forefront, shielding us from the most violent storms. Now that the CCP has revealed its true colors regarding Hong Kong, can we possibly expect to remain unscathed? This is precisely the moment when we should stand with countless activists within China. Ending one-party rule is not only for democracy in China, but even more so for freedom in Hong Kong. We cannot allow those on the front lines, the pioneers on the road to democracy, to fight alone.”
In court, CHT stated that the declaration, as a whole, “is about responsibility and choice. It emphasizes that responsibility is not innate, nor does it mean that you bear responsibility based on your status. It is a choice based on conscience. There are always things you cannot pretend not to see, and there are always lines you have crossed that you cannot forgive yourself for… Believing in democracy and in the civic movement means believing in everyone’s decisions and everyone’s conscience. But choice and responsibility are never trivial matters; they come with costs and negative consequences. The declaration honestly tells everyone that we have seen a generation of Chinese...” A generation has stepped forward to shoulder the responsibility of democracy, only to be imprisoned, suppressed, and even killed time and again. Given this, why should we persist? Where is the hope? This is the question my manifesto aims to answer. My first answer is that each instance of suppression and resistance, though seemingly repetitive, can be seen as an accumulation of experience and energy, much like the Tiananmen Square massacre of June 4, which forged the perseverance of a generation of witnesses. I conclude by stating that “accumulated experience is a reason, but it’s not the most important thing; what’s important is doing the right thing.” CHT pointed out that another paragraph of the declaration also emphasized that “the most important thing is that what is right is worth doing, and that we are convinced that building democracy is not a crime.” “I think we should clearly explain how we understand our actions, and that we believe what we are doing is not a crime, not a criminal act”: Of course, these are not the most important reasons we are here today. The most important thing is that what is right is worth doing, worth persisting in. It is because we are convinced that resisting the massacre is not a crime, remembering the dead is not a crime, and building democracy is not a crime.
Judge Lee pointed out that the declaration used phrases like “the map is unrolled and the dagger is revealed,” a phrase originating from Jing Ke’s assassination attempt on the King of Qin. “I think you’re not saying you’re an assassin,” he said, questioning whether CHT’s use of a more negative description “places the CCP on the opposing side, that is, the enemy.”
CHT joked, “I don’t think we’ve ever used the word ‘enemy.’ The target is definitely the object of our resistance. To paraphrase Liu Xiaobo, we don’t have enemies; we oppose the system. We are indeed opposing it, a certain opposing stance.”
Judge Lee: “But it sounds like you’re talking about enemies.”
CHT: “I don’t see the implication of enemies. The main point is to stand with the protesters, not to hate anyone, but rather to care about them.” CHT said the prosecution alleged the 2016 manifesto incited others to subvert the constitutional system. “But even if you say these manifestos... are all about civic responsibility, about doing the right thing, and don’t seem to incite others to commit crimes, even if you say these manifestos are about continuing to stand with HKA and continuing candlelight vigils, that’s not inciting illegal means. Actually, the manifesto’s purpose is to encourage people to hold candlelight vigils… Those who heard the declaration at the event were already seated; we don’t need to incite them to come. The declaration’s purpose, rather than inciting others, is to state our own position, what we represent, and why we are doing this. Those who hear it can judge for themselves what values we represent, whether they should support us, oppose us, or ignore us—it doesn’t matter. This is a commitment we make to the public based on our own principles and ideals.” She then quoted another passage from the declaration: “We cannot promise dawn, but we can promise to walk together, until the truth of June 4 is revealed, until the executioners face trial, until the end of one-party rule…”
Judge Lee Li asked if the declaration encouraged everyone to stand with HKA.
CHT: “You could say the declaration has that effect, but talking about it isn’t the main purpose.”
Under further questioning from Judge Chan, CHT summarized the 2016 declaration, stating that it “encouraged everyone to take responsibility, not to pretend June 4 never happened; it truly encouraged doing so, it is a genuine civic responsibility.”
12:57
Judge Lee asked CHT if she “still wanted to say more” regarding the two remaining pieces of evidence she intended to submit.
CHT said she would continue tomorrow.
Judge Lee said the hearing would begin on Tuesday afternoon. He also noted that CHT had added three more documents to the evidence register today, “bringing it up to over a thousand pages... are you going to use every single one?” He further asked CHT which pages she planned to have the court review, allowing the judges to add notes.
CHT said there were three books. “It’s difficult to extract even a few pages...the nature of the books is more important.”
Judge Chan asked, “Do you expect thousands of pages... (to be read through)?”
CHT: “That’s not my expectation.” The three books were from the June 4 Memorial Museum’s collection, later confiscated by the police and used as evidence, but were “unused material,” hence the prosecution didn’t “display them.”
Judge Chan then requested the prosecution to provide one copy to each judge.
Judge Lee joked that if there were no objections, there was no need to photocopy them, “Otherwise, I think I’d have to cut down a lot of trees.”
Senior Counsel Lam Chi-ying, representing Hong Kong Alliance, also expressed her hope to be provided with one copy. T
The lead prosecutor, Deputy Director of Public Prosecutions Lai Ka-yee, indicated that arrangements would be made later depending on the quantity.
Judge Lee then adjourned the court at 12:59.
Tuesday, March 24, 2026 (Day 17 of the trial)
The following has been translated from this transcription of the trial proceedings.
14:33 Hearing begins
The first part of the hearing involves Lee Cheuk-yan’s counsel raising an issue with a judge regarding matters that arose during Chow Hang-tung’s testimony on the 23rd; in particular, CHT faced a line of questioning from the judges regarding whether or not Hong Kong Alliance had “incited” mainland activists to use “illegal means” in furthering their cause in China. LCY’s position is that the prosecution never accused the defendants of having violated mainland law and so this should simply not be a consideration in the trial.
14:44
CHT continued her testimony for a third day, discussing the declaration of the 2018 June 4 candlelight vigil.
The declaration was displayed in court.
CHT stated that she wrote it. “In this 2018 declaration, I specifically wanted to explain our stance in regard to the goal of ‘ending one-party dictatorship.’ The reason is precisely the constitutional amendment in March 2018. After that amendment, some voices argued that this demand was unconstitutional, that it had crossed a red line, and that we must abandon it. Simply put, they were using the constitution to force us to say that we could no longer be ourselves. I wrote the declaration to refute these arguments and explain to the public why that was neither possible nor acceptable… There was a compromise in our stance. One-party dictatorship is the current reality in China, and we believe that this reality is absolutely unreasonable and must end. ‘Ending one-party dictatorship’ is just a very ordinary statement about striving for democracy; it’s not something earth-shattering. The declaration aims to emphasize that.”
Judge Johnny Chan, citing the 2018 June 4 declaration, asked: “’How does the 2018 Constitution explain the concept of a change of the ruling party? What does ending one-party rule mean? Isn’t it just demanding a change of the ruling party, returning power to the people, and demanding genuine democracy?…I’m not explaining the 2018 Constitution here, I’m explaining what we’re demanding.’ So, you mean ‘ending one-party rule’ is demanding a change of the ruling party? If I wanted to be very precise, I would write it clearly, ‘demanding a change of ruling party becomes possible,’ but the manifesto might be more concise.”
Judge Anna Lai Yuen-kee: “After all, you wrote it in black and white: you demanded a change of ruling party: ‘A democracy can absolutely have a change of ruling party.’”
Judge Alex Lee: “Is there a possibility of a change of ruling party?”
CHT: “It’s not that Hong Kong Alliance wants one party to come to power. Chair Lee Cheuk-yan said it’s about letting the people choose. Strictly speaking, it’s not that we’re demanding a change of ruling party, but it has to be possible.”
Judge Chan” “What you’re saying is that achieving the ‘end of one-party rule’ would allow for a change of ruling party.”
CHT affirmed this. “Regarding the extent of the Communist Party’s leadership under the Constitution, and whether it’s unconstitutional, I’m not in a position to discuss that in testimony, but the submission stated there would be a change of ruling party, not that the Communist Party will rule forever. As for whether the Constitution guarantees the Communist Party’s eternal rule, that’s another issue.”
14:48
CHT: “I also wanted to emphasize in the declaration that the struggle for democracy is not something HKA specifically advocated, but rather an ideal for which countless Hong Kong people and Chinese people have sacrificed. So, returning to the timeline from the 1989 Tiananmen Square protests to the Umbrella Movement, our analysis shows that one-party rule, with its lack of checks and balances, is precisely the source of countless tragedies throughout history. Ending this cycle of tragedy means ‘ending one-party rule.’ Of course, no ruling party in the world would readily say, ‘You’re taking my power!’ Therefore, the opposition of dictators is never a reason to give up or back down, but rather a to-be-expected, long-awaited difficulty to overcome. Back in 2018, HKA was facing this kind of pressure stemming from those in power. At that time, it wasn’t yet a matter of breaking the law, but they threatened that if one continued to advocate ‘ending one-party rule,’ one wouldn’t be eligible to run for the Legislative Council; one would be disqualified. Given that kind of pressure in society, it was a normal reaction for the public to hesitate due to concerns about the pressure. Therefore, the declaration emphasized that we would absolutely not abandon this stance just because those in power didn’t like us wanting to ‘end one-party rule.’”
Judge Lee: “Does that mean that since 2018, there have been constant voices from the outside world saying that the platform of ‘ending one-party dictatorship’... how to put it... it might... conflict with the constitutional provisions of 2018, right? Because in 2018, people asked you the same questions, and some even told you not to mention ‘ending one-party dictatorship’.”
CHT: “Hmm... if I remember correctly, it was Tam Yiu-chung [then a member of the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress from Hong Kong], right? People of that status and position said it.”
Judge Lee: “It’s unimportant who said it. In short, since 2018, there have been voices saying that ‘ending one-party dictatorship’ is problematic and that you should stop mentioning it.”
CHT affirmed this.
Judge Lee: “Did this kind of talk occur around 2018 and continued afterwards?”
CHT: “I wouldn’t say it was a continuous occurrence, but it certainly happened around 2018. At that time, people were talking about the impact of the constitutional amendment, saying our platform was no longer acceptable. So, our declaration is actually a commitment to the public, outlining what we ourselves would do, rather than asking others to do it.” She quoted from the declaration: “HKA’s five-point platform is not just a slogan, but a promise.”
Judge Chan: “The final avalanche is powered by every single snowflake.”
CHT: “The goal is ultimately to ‘end one-party rule.’”
Judge Chan then asked whether the “snowflakes” referred to “the power of all supporters” in relation to HKA’s goals.
CHT: “Every citizen, or everyone.”
Judge Chan pointed out that CHT testified that HKA didn’t demand anything of others, “But these snowflakes are your supporters,” the ultimate goal was an “avalanche.”
CHT: “So we’re talking about what we ourselves should do, encouraging everyone to stand with us and do something, not telling people to do something they don’t know. HKA was, at least, an organization supported by the masses.” Regarding whether the ultimate goal is an “avalanche,” CHT stated that this represented the “state” of “ending one-party rule.” “It’s the same approach we’ve taken all along—accumulating consensus and strength within civil society through a gradual, sustained effort to achieve democratic transition. To use an analogy, it’s like continuously adding water to a communal pond, hoping that one day the water level will be high enough for the transition to success.” HKA’s petitions and street stalls were part of this strategy. She read out another excerpt from the 2018 declaration: “We cannot give you a roadmap to end the dictatorship simply by following certain steps, but we know that what makes the dictatorship endure is individual silence, obedience, and compromise.” CHT: “That is to say, we frankly acknowledge our limitations. We cannot provide a roadmap or a timetable, nor can we say whether the floodwaters will actually be released. We can only speak of general principles and directions, saying that we continue to commit to working in this direction. If you say our purpose is to incite... hatred, we will not say anything that diminishes our prestige. Our principle in doing things is to speak the facts and the truth. What we share with the public is our own sincere thinking and analysis.”
Judge Lee: “Wouldn’t you also hope that people support your ideals?”
CHT: “Of course. But our way of doing things, these ideals, we took the initiative to do them ourselves, not tell others to do things without knowing what the purpose is.”
Judge Lee cited the example of HKA raising funds at the June 4 vigil, saying, “Actually, you did appeal to people to support you.”
14:57
CHT continued her testimony, referring to her eulogy delivered at the 2019 June 4 rally: ”The eulogy was about paying tribute to the victims of June 4. The biggest characteristic of the victims was that we didn’t know the names of many of them, nor their stories.” She added that the Tiananmen Mothers, under immense pressure, collected the names of over 200 victims, but conservatively estimated the overall number to be between 2,000 and 3,000. “That would be less than one-tenth of the whole picture.”
Judge Chan pointed out that the eulogy was related to June 4, “but it didn’t mention anything having to do with the prosecution’s charges against you at all.”
CHT responded that the prosecution had played the aforementioned clip during their opening statement, and therefore she wanted to address it here, saying, “If the prosecution hadn’t relied on it, then I wouldn’t mention it.”
Judge Lee stated that he believed the prosecution’s intention in playing the video was to “suggest that you are spreading hatred or expressing dissatisfaction with the Communist Party.”
CHT said that was why she needed to explain the purpose and background of writing the eulogy. “Just now, we mentioned paying tribute to the victims of June 4, but when many of us don’t even know the truth, names, or numbers, writing this eulogy can only vaguely refer to those people whose circumstances we don’t know. But every scene mentioned in the eulogy... the blocking of military vehicles in May... and then dying... the young people under the PLA military vehicles—these are all real events, not fabricated to smear the government.” Choking back tears, CHT said, “On the anniversary of the deaths of these victims, telling their stories and promising to seek justice for them is simply a basic human responsibility. It cannot be categorized as inciting criminal activity.” CHT also pointed to a section of the eulogy that she said “most got on the prosecution’s nerves,” but that part addressed the issues of legality and legitimacy. “As far as we see it, a dictatorial regime...” “There’s no real legitimacy to this definition because it’s not authorized by the people; it’s based on force. Besides, how can the current regime maintain its power by massacring people?”
Judge Lai: “What does that situation have to do with the time period covered by the charges, or the time period covered by your prosecution?”
CHT: “This matter has never been resolved. Ordinary people who kill others go to jail. Just that year, Hong Kong police brought back someone from Thailand who killed someone. In the same year, the [Chinese] government killed even more people… How could they still be in power?”
Judge Lee asked if CHT was “making a fair comment and exercising your freedom of speech.”
CHT: “I didn’t say that just now, but of course that is the case.”
Judge Lee pointed out that during his opening statement, [Lee Cheuk-yan’s legal counsel] also mentioned some aspects of the case, stating that when examining speech, “(the court) needs to grant more allowance because of freedom of speech.” “From your perspective,” Lee asked CHT, “you believe what you said was a fair comment.”
CHT: “In the context of this matter, yes. The reason for criticizing the current regime is that as long as there are no democratic elections and no accountability for June 4, the regime has no real legitimacy.”
15:03
CHT said that the eulogy was the main focus of the June 4 candlelight vigil. “After all, [the vigil]’s about what happened back then. Whether it’s a eulogy or a declaration, it’s just a starting point or a way of describing the whole event.” She expressed her hope that the court would broadcast Ms Lee Lan-kui’s speech at the 2019 June 4th vigil to “understand the context of the eulogy.”4
Judge Lee: “We won’t discuss the rights and wrongs of certain matters within this case. If we did, this case might not even get to the trial. We don’t know how many days it would take to review the Tai Po fire case data; there are tens of thousands of boxes of documents. We don’t know how much data we would have [if we were to review it], because we have no way to judge it. Is showing this clip actually not very helpful to this case?”
Judge Chan asked whether Lee Lan-kui’s statements constituted factual evidence of what CHT “said.”
CHT stated that the clip did not prove whether or not the events were true, but rather provided background for the eulogy.
Judge Lai asked what Lee Lan-kui’s relationship was with HKA.
CHT said Lee Lan-kui was not a member of HKA but someone who had traveled to Beijing in 1989.
Judge Lai: “She isn’t even a member of HKA, so what’s the point of us listening? What does it have to do with our case?”
CHT: “It’s not about asking the court to hear HKA’s stance, but about providing context—the context of this eulogy—to understand the context of the eulogy.”
Judge Lee: “But I think you’ve already explained the context. You have some views on the 1989 pro-democracy movement. You believe that certain events happened, and you’re responding to express your stance. We understand that very well. I don’t see how looking at one person narrating an event here helps us.”
CHT: “I think because the prosecution’s charges include incitement to certain crimes, we need to present the entire event, scene, and activity. We need to see the effect of these texts on the whole event scene, not just a few segments.”
Judge Lai: “If that’s the case, do we have to listen to the entire event? Every year?”
CHT: “Actually, we should. The best approach would be to do so, but I’m not demanding that.”
Judge Lee: “We didn’t approve of the prosecution showing all that footage. We won’t approve it here either. Of course, we understand that you have certain views on certain events, leading you to express your stance. We understand that.”
15:11
CHT explained the purpose of the June 4 Museum, citing the prosecution’s accusation that HKA established the memorial hall to promote its demands. “Of course, this is not true.”
Judge Lee interrupted: “Wasn’t the June 4 Museum established to promote your demands?”
CHT denied this. “Whether the museum was established for that purpose is debatable.” The museum’s mission was to safeguard and pass on the truth, “not to promote any particular ideology.”
Judge Lee asked if this ideology included “rehabilitating June 4.”
CHT agreed that it would “help” in rehabilitating June 4, “but it’s not for advocacy; the whole purpose is to present the facts.” CHT said the museum was to preserve the truth and materials “because the truth cannot be a tool used by anyone, it cannot exist for other purposes... What we do, whether good or bad, cannot violate or distort the facts. If the June 4 Museum is established solely for advocacy, then it would have the whole thing backwards.” CHT described the core of HKA’s work as compiling materials on the 1989 Tiananmen Square protests and other Chinese pro-democracy movements, stating that it was “even the foundation of our core.” Initially, the China Democracy Movement Center was responsible for compiling these materials, which were later used to establish the June 4 Museum, “ensuring that every word we utter, every action and every demand has a substantial basis. Simply put, if there’s no evidence of a massacre, it’s very difficult to hold anyone accountable.” CHT reiterated that the museum’s purpose was to “preserve and disseminate the truth.”
Judge Lee pressed for a distinction between “dissemination” and “propagation.”
CHT explained that the prosecution claimed HKA was “propagating” its views, but HKA “didn’t mean to indoctrinate or propagate its views; we were just stating the facts.”
Judge Lee asked if it meant “disseminating what you believe to be the truth.”
CHT: “I wouldn’t use that term,” reiterating that it’s about “disseminating” information, “showing everyone some factual information and historical records.”
15:17
CHT said that at the time [covered by the charges; ie, from July 1, 2020 to September 8, 2021, due to the pandemic, opening hours [at the museum] were irregular, and at one point, a reservation system was implemented.
Judge Lee explained that the opening hours were crucial because the prosecution alleged that public access to the museum was one of HKA’s incitement tactics, jokingly adding that if the museum hadn’t been open during the time period covered in the charges, the charges wouldn’t stand.
CHT continued to try to recall the circumstances surrounding the incident, stating that the memorial was closed for renovations before June 4, 2021, with a new exhibition. It was open for three days around June 4, but was immediately shut down again by the Food and Environmental Hygiene Department on grounds that it lacked an entertainment license, and had not been officially open to the public since. Chow reiterated that HKA collected historical materials on the 1989 pro-democracy movement with the initial intention of sharing them with the public, because “maintaining a culture of public discussion within a democratic system requires, first and foremost, truthful and shared information.” CHT also submitted three books published or co-published by HKA before the establishment of the museum. Among them, “A Collection of Front Pages from Newspapers on the 1989 Democracy Movement” compiled the front pages of major newspapers from April to June 1989, allowing readers to understand the situation at the time through firsthand reports. CHT stated that the publication was “not for promoting any particular stance or proposition.”
Under questioning by Judge Chan, CHT clarified that the submitted books were not intended to prove facts, but rather to prove HKA’s involvement in these publications.
The prosecutor, Assistant Director of Public Prosecutions Cheung Cheuk-kan, pointed out that the prosecution had no objection to CHT submitting these books, but hoped to “first politely then forcefully” express their view regarding the relevance of the books and whether they constituted hearsay evidence.
Judge Chan said that CHT had stated the books were not intended for use as hearsay evidence in court.
CHT said that the second book, “An Eyewitness Account of the 1989 Chinese Democracy Movement,” is a real-time investigative report on the 1989 pro-democracy movement, including reports from official institutions such as the United Nations, discussions on June 4, and official Chinese statements. Its purpose is to allow readers to understand the entire event; “it’s not about making any demands, just about understanding the event.” The third book, “Twenty Years of Separation and Suffering: The Heartfelt Journey of the Families of the June 4 Victims,” is authored by “Tiananmen Mothers Movement (Hong Kong),” a Hong Kong support group, of which HKA was a member. The book also includes a brief introduction to the “Tiananmen Mothers” organization.
Judge Lai expressed concern that the three books were published between 1989 and 2009, far removed from the date of the charges and the 2018 constitutional amendment, and “completely unrelated.”
Judge Lee then inquired whether the three books were sold at the museum during the period in question.
CHT said that HKA’s work did not end after the books’ publication. Its subsequent work has relied on the records in the books, which are also displayed in the museum as an important part of the collection.
Judge Chan said the books are related to “rehabilitating June 4” and “holding those responsible for the massacre accountable,” “but what we are focusing on now is the platform for ‘ending one-party rule.’”
CHT explained that the foundation for “ending one-party rule” requires solid factual evidence and is linked to the work of preserving the facts. Collecting evidence of the 1989 pro-democracy movement requires a race against time; “we cannot wait until there is no risk, we cannot wait until the matter is unbanned before we start.” For example, “Twenty Years of Separation and Suffering: The Heartfelt Journey of the Families of the June 4 Victims” records the stories of 23 family members, six of whom are no longer alive. Collecting evidence and testimonies was a continuous task for HKA.
Judge Lee indicated his preference for the electronic version, suggesting the hard copy be returned to the prosecution, jokingly adding, “Since these things are so rare, don’t leave them here.” He further inquired about the publication’s purpose, specifically whether it was to disseminate certain propositions.
CHT said it depends on what “disseminate” means. For example, it includes People’s Daily propositions. She laughed, “We don’t intend to disseminate those, but that’s inevitable.”
15:38-15:55 Court adjourned
15:56
CHT discussed the June 4 Museum. The physical museum housed materials collected and organized by HKA over a long period, allowing the public to find all relevant information about 1989 in one place. This also allowed related historical documents to reach more citizens, including the general public and foreign friends, through multiple channels, “instead of being stored away in a warehouse gathering dust.”
Judge Chan pointed out that, based on the admitted facts, the items seized by the prosecution from the museum “appear to be souvenirs or items for sale,” including T-shirts, hats, postcards, and leaflets. “The purpose of these items is not to preserve information...but to distribute or sell them to the public.”
CHT responded that many history museums and exhibition halls sell souvenirs.
Judge Lee questioned whether the June 4 Museum was HKA’s headquarters. Even when it was not open to the public, were there people working inside?
CHT affirmed this. She said the June 4 Museum, besides providing a physical space for the public to explore, could also exhibit precious historical artifacts donated over the years by relatives of victims, the injured, or journalists. “It needs a physical space for people to see and observe before it can play a role.” CHT cited an April 2015 issue of the HKA newsletter, mentioning that the June 4 Museum had previously held an exhibition of artifacts donated by survivors of June 4 and the deceased. The exhibits included items donated by the Tiananmen Mothers, such as the helmet worn by a deceased son, shattered glass from a bullet, a photograph taken by Fang Zheng (a pro-democracy activist) after being run over by a tank, and a bullet lodged in the thigh of Zhang Jian (a pro-democracy activist, now deceased). CHT said, “The families of the victims and those who experienced June 4 trusted us so much, entrusting us with very important items belonging to their loved ones... Only those who are truly working on June 4 can recognize the purpose of our actions, and only then would they give us such priceless gifts. It’s just a pity that we are now unable to uphold the responsibilities they entrusted to us, so we truly feel very sorry to them.” CHT: “The June 4 Museum was a site of a very significant historical event... its significance was similar to Hong Kong as having a history museum or the Nazi memorial; it displays history so that future generations won’t repeat the same mistakes. It’s wrong to say the February 28 Memorial [in Taiwan] was established to incite hatred against the Kuomintang, or, as the prosecution has, that we incited people to join HKA. That’s not the purpose. Preserving historical facts and conveying what happened to the next generation is the government’s responsibility, but the government has fails to fulfill these responsibilities and has even tried to whitewash history. So HKA filled this historical gap.”
Judge Chan expressed concern that while CHT claimed the June 4 Museum’s primary purpose was to preserve historical materials, the museum’s promotional text, “Walking on the front lines of the resistance against totalitarianism, from 1989 to the anti-extradition bill movement,” seemed to indicate that HKA was moving towards “resistance.”
CHT explained, “Any museum...of course, you have an underlying ideology, but that doesn’t mean its purpose is to incite any particular ideology. For example, mentioning ‘being at the forefront of the resistance against totalitarianism’ is just reiterating historical facts.” The exhibition compares the Tiananmen Square Massacre and the anti-extradition bill protests, “showing what happened.” CHT continued, “There is no completely neutral description of the facts in the world. Our presentation of these related events is precisely the historical situation that we, as HKA, are concerned about. We are not a comprehensive historical organization; we won’t comprehensively introduce Chinese history. We don’t have the resources or the ability to do that. We focus on the part of the democratic movement—the part that the government doesn’t talk about, but that we feel must be talked about.”
Judge Chan, citing another passage from the promotional text, questioned whether the museum’s primary purpose was to document history: “In 1989, Hong Kong people fully committed themselves to supporting Beijing’s democracy movement. After the 1997 handover, the CCP’s totalitarian reach extended further. In the summer of 2019, Hong Kong launched a battle against political violence and for freedom, beginning with opposition to the extradition bill. Both movements faced the same authoritarian regime...”
CHT said that this passage was only for informational purposes.
Judge Lee asked whether the June 4 Museum would exhibit items not only related to June 4 but also host other activities.
CHT affirmed this, adding that the exhibition’s purpose was to compare June 4 to the anti-extradition bill protests. “The logic behind the curatorial work is to encourage people to focus on June 4 through relatable events, making the issue less distant and allowing for comparison. Historically, similar or recurring events are happening, which makes them more relevant,” she said. She added that relying solely on promotional leaflets to claim the museum isn’t doing this is unfair. CHT recalled that the exhibition didn’t comment on the various stances or rights and wrongs of the anti-extradition bill protests, but rather discussed the democratic movement through a chronological presentation. “Overall, you could say it’s a more positive description... just trying to bring the issue to life, which is what the museum is for.”
16:07
CHT recounted the background of the June 4 Museum’s establishment, pointing out that before its official establishment in Tsim Sha Tsui in 2014, HKA had set up temporary exhibitions in Sham Shui Po and at City University of Hong Kong.
Judge Lee said the court did not need to know the detailed establishment process of the June 4 Museum, such as when it was established and the relocation process. “The prosecution isn’t saying that opening a museum is illegal,” he said, adding that CHT had previously explained the purpose of the museum.
CHT: “The process was full of difficulties and twists and turns.”
Judge Lee: “I understand it might have been difficult for you, but we don’t really need to know those things.”
CHT said that the June 4 Museum in Mong Kok opened before June 4, 2019, but it had already been vandalized upon opening. Shortly after, social movements and the pandemic occurred, and it was “closed down by the National Security Department [the office of the Hong Kong police responsible for the area of “national security,” created by the 2020 national security law imposed on Hong Kong by the CCP] not long after. Therefore, the new museum never had much time to truly open to the public. Actually, our work on the museum was fraught with setbacks and a huge burden, especially given Hong Kong’s high property prices. From a business perspective, it was a losing proposition; we consistently lost money. During my time as a standing committee member, there were many debates about whether to continue the museum and how to proceed. Whether to buy or rent property, costs, long-term operations, manpower, and resources—all a significant investment. Because of the sensitivity of this matter, we anticipated potential vandalism and disruption. There were indeed many instances of administrative difficulties from the government, such as fire prevention, entertainment venue licenses, and land deeds. There were never perfect solutions, but we did everything we could to get it done. It’s not about inciting ourselves for some pointless purpose; it’s about recognizing the necessity and urgency of this matter. History is constantly disappearing; if we didn’t do it then, it wouldn’t be possible later.” CHT quoted the HKA newsletter. The exhibits reflected HKA’s original intention in establishing the June 4th Museum. These exhibits included printed materials, media reports, advertisements from various sectors, bullets “held” by students in Tiananmen Square, and T-shirts signed by students in the square—”all emphasizing this event.” CHT said HKA designed the exhibition at the memorial hall to complement the learning experience of general education. “It’s all about having an educational purpose, helping students understand the nation, rethink the relationship between the nation and its people, and continue the spirit of China’s democracy, prosperity, and self-reliance.” HKA exhibited over 6,000 photos of the pro-democracy movement, over 300 CDs, testimonies from exiles, and testimonies collected by the Tiananmen Mothers from victims. “These are materials collected by the public to share at the June 4 Museum. After the June 4 Museum archives were closed, there were no other ways to access this information. Closing the June 4 Museum hindered the flow of much of this information.”
16:19
CHT recounted that when HKA’s first June 4 Museum closed, she was “very worried that it might never be open again.” Therefore, she invited (veteran media professional) Joseph Tse to film a documentary about the museum, hoping that even if the public could not visit it again, they could still virtually visit it through the video. She hoped to play the documentary in court to “officially evaluate what the museum showed and conveyed,” to determine whether it had a seditious effect as the prosecution claimed, and to consider “what we really wanted people to see at this museum.”
The Prosecutor said that the video did not show the June 4 Museum during the period covered by the charges in the trial, but rather before the 2018 constitutional amendment.
Judge Lee repeated that this case was not about the June 4 Museum, but rather about the advocacy of “ending one-party rule.” He said CHT had already explained the purpose of establishing the memorial hall and the nature of the exhibits. “We know there are many artifacts inside the June 4 Museum, and you might want to use this opportunity to let people see what was on display, but that’s not the purpose of this trial,” he said, arguing against showing the footage.
CHT said the prosecution used leaflets, souvenirs, and exhibition panels from the museum as evidence, but argued that these did not represent the entirety of the museum, and also included screenshots from the documentary, emphasizing that these were all prosecution evidence.
Judge Lee reiterated that the court is focused on the museum’s use during the period covered in the charges. “What you did, what slogans did you, weren’t they illegal?” Judge Lee said the court would not consider all of the prosecution’s evidence, and initially believed that the museum’s situation before 2018 would not significantly help the court in determining the charges.
Judge Lai then asked the prosecution to explain why the documentary was included in their evidence.
Prosecutor Lai Ka-yee explained that the opening statement had already stated that the case mainly relied on CHT’s public expression of the “end of one-party rule” stance in her capacity as a member of HKA, with the June 4 Museum “fully demonstrating that they used it to strengthen their advocacy of ‘ending one-party rule’.”
Judge Lee questioned whether the footage was relevant only if it occurred during the period in question. “Advocating ‘ending one-party rule’ before the enactment of the National Security Law was not a crime in Hong Kong,” he argued.
Judge Lai explained that the police also searched the June 4 Museum during their enforcement actions. Lai stated that if that footage was relevant to the case, “then we should watch it.” Lai said the prosecution had a transcript of the documentary. Lai ultimately stated that the three judges unanimously agreed that “this footage should not appear in this trial at all, neither the prosecution nor the defense can use it, because we do not believe the footage is relevant to the case and does not help us handle the charges in this case.” Therefore, they would not watch the documentary and would not consider it evidence.
Before the court adjourned, Lai instructed CHT to select that evening footage of June 4 rallies after 2018 for screening, indicating that she would not approve the screening of footage from rallies before 2018.
Wednesday, March 25 (Day 18 of the trial)
The following has been translated from this transcription of the trial proceedings.
10:09 Hearing begins
10:09-10:35
After Chow Hang-tung testified in previous days that Hong Kong Alliance supported democratic movements in China such as Charter 08, the judges said this raised the question of whether the “incitement” part of the “inciting subversion” charge could apply to these cases, and asked the prosecution for its view on this. The first twenty-five minutes of today’s hearing was given over to a discussion of this. Essentially, the prosecution said it could, and Lee Cheuk-yan’s lawyer disputed this because, first of all, the prosecution had introduced no evidence and made no allegations in regard to this, and secondly, the national security law can only apply to Hong Kong laws, not laws of any other jurisdiction. If activists in China supported by Hong Kong Alliance have been convicted of crimes, those were crimes in China, not Hong Kong. The judges said they would reach a decision on this eventually.
At the end of this discussion, Chow Hang-tung expressed her gratitude to the court for giving her time to choose to play the June 4 protest footage in court but said she was unable to use her computer at Tai Lam Correctional Institution after yesterday’s adjournment and requested a 30-minute recess to handle this. The judges granted her request.
10:35—11:20 Recess
11:21
Chow Hang-tung continued her testimony regarding the June 4 Museum, stating that she hoped to clarify three points regarding the items in the museum, especially promotional leaflets and items for sale. “Firstly, I have never denied that the June 4 Museum embodiesd our ideals and propositions, including ‘ending one-party rule’ and ‘building democracy.’ These ideals and principles are reflected in our wording and the content of the exhibits...”
Judge Johnny Chan interrupted, saying, “I’ll say it again; you only need to focus on the period of the charges.”
CHT: “Of course.” She said the items mentioned earlier were “items found inside the museum.”
Judge Alex Lee said the prosecution and defense only admitted these items were found in the June 4 Museum “without addressing the accuracy of the information on the leaflets.”
CHT affirmed this, stating the leaflets Judge Chan focused on yesterday were all “propaganda” from the June 4 Museum. “This reflects our own principles and beliefs, the most important of which is respecting facts and the truth. Ignoring the solemnity of the truth, seeing it as a tool that can be used for politics, is precisely the logic of dictatorship, and it’s a state of affairs we want to end. This is reflected in the museum. But of course, saying that I acknowledge the June 4 Museum embodies some of our principles and beliefs does not mean I agree that the museum was established for the purpose of advocating and spreading...”
Judge Lee: “I think we should have made it clear yesterday that we’re not concerned with the purpose of establishing this museum. We’re concerned with what this museum was used for during the period covered by the charges. You may have many purposes for establishing it, there may be other purposes, but that’s not the subject of the prosecution. The subject of the prosecution is incitement.” He then asked, “Do you have any evidence of what the Hong Kong Alliance standing committee members, the chair, and the vice-chair did at the museum? Or what they used the museum for? That’s what we’re concerned about. Do you understand? They can still achieve this effect [of incitement].”
CHT: “I think the wording is different. I’m still using the prosecution’s terminology. Even without using the word ‘purpose,’ it’s still not about inciting or advocating the behavior in question. It’s actually an example Judge Lee used before: giving up one’s seat demonstrates respect for the elderly, not incitement...”
Judge Lee: “But it can still have that effect.”
CHT: “It has an effect, but it doesn’t constitute incitement, whether it’s personal thought or action.”
Judge Lee: “These two things are no longer mutually exclusive because your behavior may be based on one reason, but it may have more than one motive.”
CHT: “Of course, theoretically they aren’t mutually exclusive, but I’m saying that’s not the case in reality, especially since the prosecution’s accusations aren’t limited to us using the museum to promote ‘ending one-party rule,’ but even include using the museum to promote HKA and to raise funds for HKA.”
Judge Lee: ”Please don’t go too far afield. They aren’t saying that fundraising itself is illegal, there’s no such argument. We shouldn’t go too far afield; we’re only addressing this case.”
CHT: “Anyway, that’s what they said, that we built the museum to promote HKA... to raise funds.”
Li noted that Prosecutor Lai Ka-yee frowned, adding, “I think the prosecution said the defendants used the museum to promote their platform (ending one-party rule).”
CHT affirmed this, then said, “But this is an accusation that has been raised before, unless the court decides it’s completely unnecessary to address it.”
Judge Lee: “The prosecution has many points, but not all of them are related to the charges. We only look at things related to the charges; we don’t want to go too far. We won’t make a judgment on whether you opened the June 4 Museum to raise funds; we won’t handle that issue. Of course, whether you used this museum to promote ‘ending one-party rule,’ or... used this museum as a venue to make statements mentioning ‘ending one-party rule,’ we’ll take that into account. Of course, we’ll also handle whether your slogan is illegal. For example, if the museum charges people a certain amount for a ticket, we won’t handle that.”
CHT nodded to indicate she understood, explaining that she was responding to Judge Chan’s concerns yesterday regarding HKA selling souvenirs. “If you think it’s irrelevant, you don’t need to say anything. The museum wasn’t set up for fundraising; because we didn’t raise funds, it had difficulty operating. The roles of the prosecution and defendant have reversed.”
Judge Lee: “To be clear, you wouldn’t use this museum to incite anyone to do anything, nor to incite anyone to do anything illegal. That’s your point of view, I understand.”
CHT affirmed this.
11:31
CHT stated that the items presented by the prosecution and seized by the police from the museum “have the slight problem of being a side dish turned into the main course. Because the main exhibits of the museum aren’t there; only the peripheral merchandise was shown to the court… If we base our arguments on these items… to determine the main purpose of the museum, there might be a slight risk of bias.” She said the effectiveness of the museum can be seen in the reports written by the staff.
Judge Lee: “But this is unacceptable because it’s hearsay evidence.”
CHT: “It’s not unlike those are articles from our HKA newsletter, which are the same as my personal observations.”
Judge Lee: “Then let’s see what you have. You can’t just take the content of an article and say that what they said proves it’s true. That won’t do.”
CHT: “Or perhaps we shouldn’t say it proves what they said is true, but rather say we’ve received feedback?”
Judge Lee: “You can only say that the stance expressed in it might represent HKA’s stance. That’s a different matter. Just because they said that doesn’t prove that something happened that way, that’s not acceptable.”
CHT: “Or perhaps we should look back at the content and see what’s acceptable and unacceptable.”
Judge Lee: “Bring it out for us to see first, but there might be a potential issue of hearsay evidence. I’ll see what you want to do with it first.”
The court presented a 2014 sharing session by staff from the June 4 Museum.
CHT: “Actually, it’s about looking at the whole picture. What people learn from the museum is about understanding the facts, understanding the truth of June 4. For example, staff noticed many people would take out original documents, linger in the library, and take out those thick documents that we thought no one would look at. Looking at the whole sharing session, what people get from the museum doesn’t mean HKA is some kind of organization.”
Judge Lee interrupted CHT, saying, “Here we’re not even discussing secondary information but tertiary information. Because you said HKA staff described the visitors’ experiences, but it wasn’t the staff themselves speaking; they were quoting the visitors. Do you understand?”
CHT said she understood. “Let me explain. I’ve had the same observations because I’ve volunteered at the museum.”
Judge Lee: “But it’s difficult to tell what people gained just from observing them. It’s hard for them to tell you if they can’t tell you what they gained.”
CHT agreed this could become hearsay evidence.
Judge Lee: “You could say that’s the purpose of our opening the museum.”
CHT: ”Yes...that’s possible.”
Judge Lee: “I don’t want to put words into your mouth. What do you want us to see?”
CHT: “I want to stress this key point. We’re not here to be swayed by information, to learn about HKA, or to gain an impression of June 4 after the visit. That has already achieved our goal.” He added that due to HKA’s limited financial resources, “the space we can buy is very small,” making it impossible to exhibit all the items. The exhibition area of the museum is 800 to 900 square feet.
11:36
CHT said the sustainability of the June 4 Museum was a major issue. HKA had “a huge question mark” about whether it had sufficient resources to operate the museum. Therefore, they digitized the data, creating June 4 memory sticks from the most crucial collections to “facilitate the dissemination of information and historical materials” and sell them to the public, “but often they were given away at events.” The content of the June 4 memory sticks focused on “original historical materials,” including three books published or co-published by HKA before the museum’s establishment, testimonies from victims and their families, photos, pictures, and recordings of June 4, as well as some “introductory” briefings promoting June 4, not HKA. “Even if the June 4 Museum didn’t last long, everyone would have the materials in their hands, achieving the effect of a mobile June 4 Museum.” The memory sticks were always stored in the museum, and “many were confiscated [by the police] when the museum was searched.” Before July 1, 2020, HKA noticed that “the so-called ‘suspicion’ was getting increasingly intense,” and “felt that both the museum and HKA were being targeted.” This spurred on preparations to create an online June 4 Museum. “Besides displaying everything from our physical museum, from the beginning, this digital museum would operate independently of HKA. Fortunately, this was done before all the HKA standing committee members were arrested.”
Judge Lee asked when the standing committee members of the Hong Kong Alliance were arrested.
CHT said around August 2021. She cited a press release dated August 4, 2021, titled “Memories of June 4.” “Due to the rapidly changing political environment in Hong Kong and the escalating political repression, the June 4 Museum is currently closed. Reopening will be considered only when a suitable method or location is found. The”June 4 Museum has been independent of the HKA since its opening, and is operated independently by its curatorial team.” CHT said the purpose of the online museum was to preserve historical materials, not to promote HKA. She joked, “It’s impossible to promote something to the point of disappearing from sight; that would be very illogical.” She emphasized that the June 4 digital museum has been independent of HKA since its opening, but confirmed that the initial preparations were handled by HKA.
11:42
CHT turned her attention to the June 4 candlelight vigil. She hoped the court would play a one-and-a-half-hour clip of the 2018 vigil. “I want the court to see the complete record of the vigil, because after all, the vigil was intended to incite hatred or hostility towards the Chinese government. The emotional impact cannot be judged solely by a single statement or a few strong words; the entire event’s setup and atmosphere must be considered. Many things cannot be conveyed through text alone.”
Judge Lee said the chanting and singing segments could be skipped or played at a fast pace.
CHT said that during some singing segments, the organizers would play video footage, “which may need to be played and watched together.”
Lead Prosecutor and Assistant Director of Public Prosecutions Cheung Cheuk-kan hoped CHT would specify “roughly what” the content to be broadcast was about and “what we should pay attention to” before the footage was shown.
CHT said she would make a statement after the footage was played.
Judge Anna Lai Yuen-kee: “We already said what we should pay attention to.”
Judge Chan: ”If we don’t watch it first, then we’ll watch it again...”
CHT laughed and said, “I think the whole process involves watching it.”
Judge Lai pressed CHs on which part of the footage she mainly wanted the court to pay attention to.
CHT: ‘The main purpose is to help the court understand the activity and what the overall message is.”
Judge Lee: “Is it inciting anyone to do anything?”
CHT: “And is it, as the prosecution said, an event that incites hatred?”
11:44
The court began playing footage of the 2018 June 4 candlelight vigil. The proceedings started with a short video produced by HKA that summarized the history of the 1989 pro-democracy movement.
As soon as the video began, Prosecutor Cheung Cheuk-kin immediately said, “This is exactly what I was initially concerned about... I believe the next part concerns other content and materials related to June 4. To put it purely neutrally, unless the prosecution says that this case is about the rights and wrongs (related to June 4), I believe the court should not be required to watch these matters; it would be unfair to both sides.”
Judge Lee said the court needed to determine whether the rally was seditious. “This particular segment might be very emotional and seditious, making it impossible for us to decide without watching it; we have to watch this segment as well.”
The court then continued playing the video. After the historical footage of the 1989 pro-democracy movement finished, the flower-laying ceremony began.
The Prosecutor interrupted again, stating that the court could refer to the program for the procedure and that the video was unnecessary. “Because we know these segments, laying flowers is laying flowers… I suspect that if we continue playing like this, with the music and such, the prosecution might object,” he said, suggesting the court skip to the parts where someone was speaking.
Judge Lee instructed that the video be played at double speed, switching to normal speed when someone spoke.
The footage showed the assembly laying flowers at the Monument to the Martyrs of Democracy, during which someone read aloud the Hunger Strike Declaration of Beijing university students, the June 2 Hunger Strike Declaration of the Four Gentlemen, the background of the Tiananmen Mothers group, and the life stories of Li Wangyang and Liu Xiaobo.
After the speeches, Judge Lee instructed that the video of the flower-laying and torch-lighting ceremony be played again at double speed.
Albert Ho read his eulogy.
The Prosecutor objected, stating that the prosecution already had a transcript of the eulogy.
Judge Lee argued the transcript might not be sufficient “because we need to consider whether the content of the rally is inflammatory, and we need to consider the speaker’s tone and the atmosphere of the scene,” suggesting that it be played at double speed, “quickly skip this part, and relive the atmosphere of the scene.”
The court played Albert Ho’s eulogy at double speed.
Judge Lee: “We’ve already seen this, haven’t we?” He asked how long the video was.
CHT said several minutes long.
Judge Lee instructed that it continue playing.
The subsequent proceedings included a minute’s silence and a pre-recorded speech by Tiananmen Mothers member Di Mengqi.
Judge Lee Yunteng instructed that the moment of silence could be played “a little faster.”
The Prosecutor objected to the playing of the Tiananmen Mothers’ speech, stating, “To put it bluntly, in principle, relevance is very important. The court cannot be asked to handle matters that shouldn’t be handled,” and said the speaker was not a member of HKA.
Judge Lee said CHT requested the the court observe the entire rally to determine whether it was seditious. If the court had already seen the footage, it could skip it, but “since Ms Chow requested we watch it all, we should watch it all. Otherwise, it’s difficult to determine whether the entire rally was seditious.” Lee further stated that it was HKA that wanted the rally participants to watch the video footage, and CHT was not relying on the footage to prove the speakers’ claims were true. The court needed to see the footage to determine whether the content was seditious.
The Prosecutor insisted the entire case revolves around HKA’s call to “end one-party rule,” reiterating that it is not about dealing with “rights and wrongs.”
Judge Lee said the prosecution could rest assured, “There are some issues we’ve stated we can’t handle, and we won’t handle them,” but the current focus is on whether the entire rally was seditious. Judge Lee instructed that songs from the rally could be played at triple speed, “so we can hear the slow songs turn into fast ones,” but speeches should be played at double speed, “I think it’s important to understand the content and tone of voice.”
CHT suggested playing the speeches at normal speed, especially the Tiananmen Mothers’ speech, which was in Mandarin and even more difficult to listen to at double speed, “It’s difficult to even hear, and the emotional atmosphere is hard to grasp at double speed.”
Judge Lee instructed that they be played at double speed initially, and then adjusted as needed.
12:29
The court continued to play footage of the rally, showing participants singing “Freedom Flower.”
Judge Lee instructed this part be played at triple speed.
CHT stated that the organizers would display a briefing on a large screen for this part, “If it’s too fast, the footage will be missed.”
Judge Lee instructed the court to play it at double speed.
Shortly after the footage started playing, Judge Lee instructed the court to stop, stating that the footage was not a complete recording of the briefing and required oral court recording. “We saw a PowerPoint presentation, which seemed to contain information about some dissidents.”
The court continued to play the rally footage at double speed, showing others speaking.
CHT: “Excuse me, could you please stop for a moment? I don’t know if Your Honors could hear it clearly. I couldn’t hear very clearly... I didn’t digest it very clearly.”
Judge Lee asked if all the speakers were members of HKA.
CHT said Chan Kin-man and Tse Chun-yin were not, but Wong Nga-man had been a member of HKA, but she couldn’t confirm if she was a member at the time.
Judge Lee inquired whether the three individuals had provided HKA with prepared speeches or coordinated their content before speaking.
CHT confirmed that HKA invited them to speak but did not coordinate the content with them, only stating that the content needed to be related to June 4.
Judge Lee: “Don’t their statements represent HKA?”
CHT: “They just wanted to give everyone a voice at the rally.”
Judge Lee: “But didn’t you know what they were going to say beforehand?”
CHT said she didn’t, saying this precisely reflected HKA’s attitude towards the candlelight vigil.
Judge Lee: “I understand, but I can’t. If they weren’t speaking on behalf of HKA, then can I take their statements as representing HKA’s stance?”
CHT: “Of course not, but I was trying to say... about the overall effect or incitement of the rally, what I wanted to express or convey at the rally.”
Judge Lee: “But if what they say isn’t what you expected, isn’t what you wanted to say, I can’t include the effect of what they said in calculations regarding incitement.”
CHT: “It’s not about including it in our calculations, it’s about what effect we wanted to achieve when planning who to invite to the rally.”
Judge Lai said CHT was present that day and had heard the speeches of Chan Kin-man and others, so could CHT confirm whether their statements represented the position of HKA.
CHT: “Of course not! We invited so many groups to the rally every year; not all of them represented our position. No, no, no!”
12:45 Lunch Break
14:32 The hearing recommences
Judge Lee instructed that playback of footage from the 2018 June 4 candlelight vigil continue.
The video showed the host’s speech and Boyz Reborn singing “Song of Freedom,” with Judge Lee instructing that the singing portion be sped up.
The next part of the video showed the host’s speech, which the court played back at its original speed.
Subsequent footage included a video speech by Li Wenzu, wife of Wang Quanzhang, a mainland human rights lawyer involved in the “709 crackdown,” a memorial video of Liu Xiaobo, a key initiator of Charter 08, singing the song “Democracy Will Triumph and Return,” and chanting slogans. This part was then played at double speed.
Judge Lee initially suggested that, according to the initial agreement, the footage should include segments on June 4 and Chu Yiu-ming’s speech.
CHT: ”I think you might have misread the year?”
Judge Lai: “Did you misread it?”
Judge Lee: “Oh dear, sorry, I misread the year... because everything else is the same, I’m sorry.”
The court continued playing footage of the 2018 June 4 candlelight vigil at normal speed, showing Albert Ho recounting the number of attendees.
The next part of the footage showed CHT reading the rally’s declaration.
Prosecutor Cheung Cheuk-kin stated that the prosecution relied on this part in opening arguments, and the court had a transcript. “Let’s see if the court needs it...”
Judge Lee: “To ensure a smooth flow, we might listen at double speed.”
The court played CHT reading the rally declaration, the cremation condolence book, and another speech at double speed.
Prosecutor Cheung said there were transcripts for the subsequent speech by Lee Cheuk-yan, so the video was played at normal speed until the song “For Freedom” was sung, at which point it was switched to double speed.
15:05
After the court finished playing footage of the 2018 June 4 candlelight vigil, CHT said, “The entire candlelight vigil was designed with the core of mourning in mind, so mourning-related rituals made up a large proportion, including flower offerings... The entire rally program had 18 formal procedures, plus some transitional activities, singing, and chanting slogans. Not counting those, mourning accounted for half. That’s why we were often criticized for being overly ritualistic; there are indeed many rituals involved. But we believed that rituals shouldn’t be abandoned; they should be preserved...so the rituals remained. The most important speech at the rally is actually the Tiananmen Mothers’ speech. This is an annual segment, because the Tiananmen Mothers are the most directly affected participants and victims of June 4. Their wishes and demands are the foundation of all June 4 commemorations and related activities. Since the Tiananmen Mothers officially began operating under this name in 2000, they have officially spoken under this name every year, except for 2014, when they completely disappeared and could not be contacted. These mothers have persisted in demanding the truth for so many years, and as a support group, we don’t have much to support them with. The foundation of the June 4th rehabilitation activities is the demands of the Tiananmen Mothers.”
The court displayed a program from the 2006 June 4 candlelight vigil containing transcripts of speeches.
CHT: “When Tiananmen Mothers discussed how to handle June 4, including their basic demands and methods, they consistently maintained that the resolution should be based on the rule of law.” Zou quoted a representative of Tiananmen Mothers from the 2006 June 4 rally, indicating that their remarks reflected the direction HKA had supported for many years: “We have consistently maintained that a just resolution to June 4 must adhere to the principles of peace and rationality, and be conducted within the framework of democracy and the rule of law.” Zou then quoted another representative of Tiananmen Mothers from a speech at the 2008 June 4 rally, stating that Tiananmen Mothers, including those whose children had died, “felt that sincere mourning should include demands for transformation; this is the root of the problem. The rally was about ‘ending one-party rule,’ not about exploiting June 4, not about a mother using her son to promote political agendas. This is what mourning sincerely demands. ‘Today, as we commemorate the 19th anniversary of June 4, we aim to awaken the Chinese people’s respect and care for life, and to instill awe and fear of death; we aim to make every effort to ensure that our system achieves a peaceful transformation in accordance with universal human values. Only in this way can the most basic guarantee of each of our lives be obtained, and only then will we no longer feel that death may come at any moment.’”
15:11
CHT said besides Tiananmen Mothers, HKA invited June 4 survivors to speak at its annual vigils. In 2018, Wu Renhua was invited to speak. “Sometimes it’s witnesses recounting what they witnessed, sometimes it’s student leaders, like Wang Dan… and Mr. Fang Zheng, a victim of the June 4. They were parties involved in this event, mourning those who were there… their voices are still heard at candlelight vigils. Whether it’s Tiananmen Mothers or witnesses, although their testimonies have never appeared in the trials of the ‘executioners,’ at least they have been heard by countless people in this way…”
Judge Chan interrupted, saying, “Now you are testifying based on the facts. This kind of trial of ‘executioners’ is not a chance for you to use this as an excuse to express your views on the event.”
CHT: “The trial of the murderers then? I’m just stating the facts. If you’re not satisfied with the wording, I’m just stating the facts.”
Judge Chan: “These words are completely unlike those used by someone objectively recounting the events during an interrogation.”
CHT: “The objective event is that someone killed someone, and then there was no justice. This is an objective fact; I don’t know how to describe it in more objective language.”
Judge Chan: “You have the ability, but you choose not to do it that way.”
CHT: “Anyway, we have to explain why these things are necessary. At least these testimonies need to be heard by countless people through candlelight vigils, and they can’t be erased. But ultimately, what we are commemorating are the victims of the June 4 massacre, not those who died in accidents, but those were deliberately killed.”
Judge Lai: “Ms Chow, what does your long-winded speech have to do with the platform of ‘ending one-party rule’?”
CHT: “I was explaining the design of our entire vigil. As mentioned earlier, because the deceased we are mourning are those who have not received justice, such sincere mourning cannot ignore the fact that the matter is unresolved. Therefore, every year the rally includes some segments related to the pro-democracy movement, such as inviting family members of prisoners of conscience from mainland China to speak, or showing videos explaining the situation of prisoners of conscience in mainland China, or Hong Kong student groups involved in social movements. That year’s rally invited young people to share their thoughts. After everything is finished, it’s HKA’s turn as the organizer. They make a statement of their position, the declaration. Every year, the declaration was placed at the very end of the entire program. We all understood that many citizens might not stay until the very end. The most important thing was to fully commemorate June 4. The most important thing was to fully carry out the relevant ceremonies and procedures, and to hear Tiananmen Mothers’ speech. Whether or not everyone heard HKA’s own declaration was not so important. Therefore, if the June 4 candlelight vigil was intended to promote or publicize HKA, or to promote or publicize any hidden criminal activities, the entire process wouldn’t be as it was. I mentioned that we wouldn’t censor what the invitees said, and we wouldn’t ask them to submit prepared speeches. As long as the person who came was willing to come and to speak at the commemoration of June 4, they were free to say whatever they wanted.”
15:17
Judge Lee inquired whether the 2018 June 4 vigil video played in court was an edited recording, not a live broadcast.
CHT: “Not a live broadcast? Is that right? There are definitely camera movements.”
Judge Lee stated that the clip was not a live broadcast because there were camera movements.
CHT responded that HKA uploaded the June 4 vigil video clip to YouTube.
Judge Lee: “So every year the vigil is edited and then uploaded to YouTube?”
CHT stated that she recalled live broadcasts also involved changing camera angles, but she was unclear about the technical specifics. “Live broadcasts also have some editing and subtitles [are added].”
Judge Lee asked whether HKA would upload the edited vigil video clip to its website in addition to YouTube.
CHT said the HKA website wasn’t able to directly upload videos, but only include YouTube links.
Judge Lai inquired whether the live stream was only available in Hong Kong.
CHT: “I think it’s difficult to receive live streams online... (only available in Hong Kong).” She added that HKA uploaded videos to YouTube annually before she joined. “As far as I know, those from 1990 are there (i.e., YouTube),” but the earlier videos were “not very complete.”
Judge Lee asked if he could “watch all your videos” on YouTube in 2020 or 2021.
CHT: “At this moment, I really don’t know... I think it was definitely there when the incident occurred.” CHT continued, regarding HKA’s stance on whether to “manage” or not manage speakers, “Our position is that June 4 means different things to everyone. HKA’s understanding is one, but it shouldn’t be the only one.”
Judge Lee: ”Have you ever tried inviting speakers, and regardless of what they said, you faithfully recorded their remarks and posted them online?”
CHT affirmed this.
Judge Lee: “Have you ever tried to edit them?”
CHT shook her head, saying, “I don’t remember, but I don’t think so.”
Judge Lee: ”If you don’t edit it, even though you didn’t know what they were saying beforehand, if you later record it and upload it exactly as it is, then what is your stance on what they said? You wouldn’t object, right? You would agree with what they said?”
CHT said disagreement is a form of agreement. “For example, there have been people who went on stage to protest against us, even though their stances were opposite, but they felt they had to present the facts.”
Judge Lee: “That is, if you keep the record, you won’t say that because their stance is different from yours, you cut it out.”
CHT affirmed this.
Judge Lee: “Even if you didn’t know what they were saying at the time, you’d definitely know what they said after it was uploaded online.”
CHT agreed, stating, “Because we always say that June 4 doesn’t belong to HKA but to the public memory of Hong Kong people, HKA shouldn’t and cannot monopolize the discourse surrounding June 4. We hope the candlelight vigil is a sufficiently open platform—of course, not infinitely open, but open enough that anyone who wants to commemorate, regardless of political opinion, is welcome. Therefore, we won’t impose a stance or force a particular view. As the organizer, we see ourselves as servants, assisting everyone in doing this, even though everyone’s reasons for commemorating may differ.”
Judge Lee: “You said the declaration is usually placed towards the end of the event, almost at the very end. So what is the purpose of the declaration? Why is a declaration necessary?”
CHT: “As the organizer, you also need to have your own stance, and this is necessary.”
Judge Lee: “So it’s just a statement of one position?”
CHT affirmed this, saying, “So for us, the fact that the rallies had more voices different from those of HKA was actually a success. But in reality... time was very limited. Every year we held a lot of ceremonies and speeches, so it was not really possible to get so many people to express different viewpoints. But apart from the formal procedures on stage, there was also space offstage. Every year at the entrances and exits of Victoria Park, there were many different civic groups setting up stalls. As long as the people who came weren’t causing trouble and respected the occasion, we basically welcomed everyone. Although we were the renters of the Victoria Park venue and theoretically could refuse, it was precisely because we felt that democracy should be a cacophony of voices, and we shouldn’t monopolize this matter.”
15:24-15:40 Court Recess
15:40
CHT continued to testify regarding the 10 videos relied upon by the prosecution during the period of the charges, stating, “As far as I understand, they refer to criminal acts.”
The court presented a transcript of Lee Cheuk-yan’s speech on December 10, 2020, at a mobile street booth organized by HKA and Civil Human Rights Front to commemorate the 70th anniversary of International Human Rights Day.
CHT explained that on that day, International Human Rights Day, HKA and a civil society group “set up a propaganda vehicle” to call on citizens to pay attention to the issue of torture and to participate in a petition to be submitted to the United Nations. “Overall, I disagree with the prosecution’s entire case. The clips, the occasion, along with other posts and articles, all constitute the same act of sedition, inciting the same criminal behavior or methods. I completely disagree with this accusation. I disagree with their claim that all the clips constitute the same act of incitement. Each situation and each clip has its own context and purpose. You can’t lump everything together and call it incitement to a particular act, let alone a criminal act. Some situations involve calling on people to do something, but many others don’t. You have to consider the context; you can’t just force it into some kind of arbitrary construction.”
Judge Chan: “The background is an International Human Rights Day event; what you need to consider is what was said at the time.”
CHT agreed, stating that the activity did indeed involve urging citizens to “do something, in particular, jointly signing a letter to the Commissioner for Human Rights, then distributing leaflets... The leaflets contained the content of the joint signature campaign, urging everyone to participate in a UN-sponsored petition. It’s not an illegal means at all; China itself is a UN member... So, a petition is not an illegal means at all.”
Judge Lee said the prosecution mainly relied on individuals present, namely Lee Cheuk-yan, who discussed HKA’s adherence to the “five core principles” at the event, “rather than discussing International Human Rights Day; that’s my understanding.”
CHT: “That’s why I said this occasion was not an occasion for inciting others to commit a crime.”
Judge Lee: “I think it wasn’t incitement, but rather a declaration that you would adhere to the ‘five core principles.’”
CHT: “Then I don’t know how this declaration can be used by the prosecution as evidence of alleged criminal acts.”
Judge Lee: “It shows your mentality; you will insist on the ‘five core principles.’”
CHT: “Then I don’t know if I’ve misunderstood the prosecution’s case. If this isn’t criminal behavior, but criminal mentality, then what exactly constitutes criminal behavior?”
Judge Lee: “Uh, you should ask the prosecution about that.”
Judge Chan: [The idea is,] “We still insist on the ‘five core principles’ even after the National Security Law.”
CHT said it’s necessary to understand what constitutes HKA’s “criminal behavior, “and if it’s not what the prosecution discussed at the opening of the case, the prosecution needs to clarify the definition of ‘criminal behavior.’”
Judge Lee: “So it’s possible that because you’ve consistently adhered to your ‘five core principles,’ I understand there might be a misunderstanding. In fact, you’ve indirectly encouraged others to support your ‘five core principles,’ including ‘ending one-party rule,’” and then ask, ‘Why are you’re not targeting the International Human Rights Day declaration?,’ right?”
Prosecutor Lai Ka-yee stated that Lee Cheuk-yan’s remarks in this video precisely demonstrate that even after the National Security Law came into effect, HKA continued to adhere to its “five core principles.”
Judge Lee stated that the video shows HKA will not abandon or cease adhering to its “five core principles” because of the National Security Law. “This is what the prosecution alleges.”
CHT: “So, does this constitute a criminal act in this case? Does it mean that our adherence is a ‘criminal act’?”
Judge Lee: “This isn’t really the place for rebuttal.”
Judge Chan: “This is your time for testimony.”
CHT: “If the prosecution alleges this is ‘criminal conduct,’ and this is inciting criminal conduct...”
Judge Lee: “This is your time for testimony. We can’t answer for the prosecution. If you ask me about this, I’ll say your anti-torture day propaganda is irrelevant to this case. We won’t listen to the prosecution’s current reliance on Mr Lee’s statement that he will adhere to the ‘five principles.’ If you want to talk about anti-torture day propaganda, we won’t listen.”
CHT: “So I was just stating the facts of that day, not inciting any behavior. It was just a human rights day propaganda activity. That’s the factual supplement.”
15:50
Regarding Lee Cheuk-yan and Zou Xing-tong’s statement on February 6, 2021, in response to the termination of HKA’s contract for a booth at the Victoria Park Lunar New Year Fair, CHT said text and circumstances need to be explained to understand whether the statement constituted sedition.
Judge Chan said the background was the setting up of Lunar New Year Fair booths.
Judge Lee: “You applied for a booth, and then it was canceled.”
CHT affirmed this, stating, “That event was canceled in the middle of the night, just before we were about to open. That’s why I had to meet with reporters then... So, that occasion wasn’t about inciting anyone to do anything; it was just about clarifying our position and our response. The only action we took was asking people to come and buy flowers, because after our stall was cancelled, we really didn’t know what to do with the flowers. So, this Lunar New Year event—not just this year, but every year—reveals the difference between spreading an idea and inciting someone to do something. Motivationally, we wanted to spread an idea, using the act of selling flowers to deliver a message… What meaning or significance do people get from buying these flowers? It can be used in conjunction with a story about a prisoner of conscience, so they can understand what kind of person he is. Motivationally, spreading this message is more important than selling flowers. Our action is solely about buying flowers; it’s not ‘illegal means,’ and it has absolutely nothing to do with incitement or subversion. Whether you’re selling flowers using flower language, political ideology, or wishing people prosperity, it’s all about buying flowers.”
Judge Lee: “I don’t think it’s solely about you selling flowers. Of course, you took this opportunity to declare your stance... Ms Chow, you yourself mentioned ‘five hydrangeas’—the five demands are definitely hydrangeas...”
CHT laughed and said, “Because of hydrangeas.”
Judge Lee: “These ‘five hydrangeas’ symbolize the five demands. Also, HKA’s ‘five core principles,’ etc., using the homonym of ‘hydrangea’ means you’re using this occasion to reiterate your commitment to the ‘five principles.’ I think we shouldn’t misinterpret this; it’s not about preventing you from selling flowers, but about using this occasion to promote your core principles.”
CHT: “It’s a matter of not misinterpreting the message. The call to action was incitement; the action was telling people to buy flowers, and the belief was telling people to buy flowers.”
Judge Chan: “I think what you said in your speech was what the prosecution relied on, not that you actually wanted to sell flowers at the Lunar New Year Fair.”
CHT: ‘The question is, what’s the point of us saying all this is just promoting the flowers?”
Judge Chan pointed out that the prosecution was targeting CHT’s remarks that day, not the issue of HKA selling flowers.
CHT said her remarks were explaining the meaning behind the flowers purchased by citizens, “using political ideology to encourage people to buy flowers.”
Judge Lee: “You used that occasion to promote your ideology.”
CHT: “Of course, the motive for getting a the Lunar New Year fair stall is to promote a message, but the action we encouraged people to take was to participate in the Lunar New Year fair stalls.”
15:56
CHT responded to the prosecution’s opening statement citing a February 23, 2021 TVB News report of CHT responding to a reporter’s question at the June 4 Museum, asking whether HKA would adhere to the five principles. CHT said, “Yes, we will adhere to them, that’s right. In other words, I think even you, then your organization—well, even if it exists—is not the same organization, so it’s meaningless.”
Judge Lee said the video was edited, and other speakers like Ip Kwok-him were likely not speaking in the same setting. The reporter probably asked more than one question, but the video only showed a single sentence of her response.
CHT affirmed this, stating, “That’s exactly the point.” The video shows a brief response. “I answered what the reporter asked.”
Judge Chan said the court would only consider CHT’s own statements and not the rest of the video.
Judge Lee said the video only showed CHT “saying she would stick to her word.”
CHT: “So it’s unreasonable to just pick one sentence and call it a crime or incitement. It has no context, no background. The statement itself didn’t incite anyone to do anything.”
Judge Lee said the court needs to determine “whether this statement, taken out of context, constitutes sedition.”
CHT agreed, stating that she “basically answered whatever people asked; I didn’t mean to incite anyone,” and that she couldn’t control what questions reporters asked.
16:01
The next prosecution clip was from HKA’s demonstration outside the Convention and Exhibition Centre on April 15, 2021, National Security Education Day. This clip was not played in court.
CHT said National Security Education Day was the first time Hong Kong officially celebrated national security. Therefore, HKA’s demonstration on that day “reflected our concern about the political repression following the passage of the National Security Law. So, was the demonstration intended to incite or provoke action? Yes, but the target was to urge the government to do something.”
CHT also presented the joint statement from HKA and the League of Social Democrats on that day for the court to understand the purpose of the demonstration, including repealing the National Security Law and releasing political prisoners. “I don’t see it as an illegal means.”
CHT then commented on her remarks with Albert Ho at the “Washing the Pillar of Shame” event at the University of Hong Kong on May 2, 2021. She said HKA held the “”Washing the Pillar of Shame” event annually. The Pillar of Shame, created by Danish artist Jens Galschiøt, is approximately two to three stories high. CHT explained that she had originally hoped to present a photographic display of the Pillar of Shame [to the court], “but this pillar, this artwork, was confiscated by the police. The prosecution refused to provide us with photographs of this evidence, and we don’t know why,” she said, adding that she could only describe the Pillar of
Shame from memory.
Judge Lee asked what the action was meant to convey.
CHT explained that HKA cleaned the Pillar of Shame every year to prevent it from rusting when displayed outdoors, and also to promote June 4 commemoration activities, “to remind that the date was approaching.” However, regarding the 2021 event, “that was the year the appeal was least concrete, because that year we didn’t know if we would receive a letter of no objection [from the police; a form of approval of a demonstration required by law] to hold the rally, so we couldn’t have a specific appeal. That year we could only vaguely tell everyone to mourn June 4 and to light candles on the night of June 4… but of course, it wasn’t ‘illegal means.’” CHT described the footage provided by the prosecution as showing the white terror under the National Security Law at the time. “My call for everyone to exercise their inherent rights... is not a specific action, and even if it is, it is by definition a legal action.”
Judge Lee said, to be precise, even if CHT called for participation in the June 4 rally, it would not be an illegal act in this case, because this case is not a prosecution for unlawful assembly.
CHT agreed.
Judge Lee added that the prosecution’s reliance on this footage might be based on the defendants chanting slogans, including the five principles. The court needs to determine whether chanting slogans constitutes sedition.
16:10
Regarding CHT’s speech at HKA’s Mother’s Day street stall in Mong Kok on May 9, 2021, CHT said HKA set up street stalls every year around Mother’s Day to remind citizens to support the Tiananmen Mothers. CHT said her speech that day mainly called for concrete action. “The street stalls were about very concrete appeals,” such as lighting candles on June 4, taking candles distributed by HKA, and the “one person, one photo” campaign. “Of course, it’s about inciting others to act, but it’s not inciting any ‘illegal means;’ it’s just about distributing candles at the street stalls.” CHT said the prosecution relied not only on appeals from the street stalls but also on responses to reporters’ questions. “I answered whatever the reporters asked; it wasn’t about inciting anyone to do anything, it was just a response.” Regarding CHT’s speech at the Sha Tin street stall on May 23, 2021, she stated that the content was the same as at the Mong Kok street stall. “Street stalls are all the same; different places saying the same things.” She jokingly added, “There’s nothing new; inciting and urging everyone to do something reasonable.”
16:12
CHT responded to a clip of her meeting with reporters before the June 4 rally trial on June 11, 2021, stating that many of the HKA standing committee members were involved and that “it’s not about inciting people to do anything, it’s about our stance and views on the specific case, and our stance on the recently passed June 4. The only specific thing we did was to call on people to donate to HKA,” she said with a laugh, “but donating is not an ‘illegal means.’”
The court also played a recording of a June 12, 2021, telephone interview with
CHT by Cable News, in which NPC Standing Committee member Tam Yiu-chung expressed his hope that citizens would stop using slogans such as “end one-party dictatorship.”
CHT stated that this clip was a news interview about the “end one-party dictatorship” demand and “did not involve any seditious behavior.”
Judge Lee: “So you just answered whatever they asked, you were simply answering the reporter’s questions, there was no seditious intent? It was a telephone interview, and then they brought back those old photos of you?”
CHT affirmed this, saying, “I couldn’t control what they asked, I couldn’t control what they broadcast.”
16:16
CHT said the trial of herself and other HKA standing committee members for “refusing to submit information upon demand to the police” is a good example of how, under one-party rule, “even those who have committed no crime are imprisoned.”
The last segment of the prosecution’s case is from September 5, 2021, when HKA held a press conference to respond to police allegations that it was a foreign agent.
CHT said that at the time, they received a letter from the National Security Department of the police accusing HKA of being a foreign agent and demanding that it submit information in accordance with to the “Implementation Rules” of the National Security Law. HKA judged this demand to be illegal and refused to comply. Therefore, they held a press conference at the June 4 Museum. “The main purpose was to explain our reasons and stance, not to ask anyone to do anything. The only thing we wanted everyone to participate in was to discuss whether HKA should be disbanded. Disbanding would not be an ‘illegal means.’” CHT jokingly added that she had hoped to “incite the National Security Bureau to stop its abuse of power, but unfortunately, the incitement failed, resulting in several months of wrongful imprisonment for some of our standing committee members, indirectly leading to the organization’s disbandment due to a lack of leadership... If we had succeeded in inciting them, we would have saved a lot of public funds.”
CHT concluded that the prosecution’s allegation that HKA “knowingly violated the National Security Law” was completely wrong, because HKA standing committee members “said several times that they anticipated possible imprisonment and potential government intervention, not because they knew they had broken the law, but because they knew they had offended those in power.” CHT pointed out that this reflects the reality under one-party rule: “If they wanted to, they could get us imprisoned. ‘Foreign agents’ are a good example; we clearly didn’t commit any crimes, but all five standing committee members were imprisoned.” CHT also presented a press release distributed at the press conference that day, showing that the standing committee members “have never considered that they broke the law, but do believe that there is a possibility of being suppressed by the government in the name of the law; the two things are different.”
16:23
CHT said she had already testified regarding her statements after the National Security Law came into effect. In this regard, she ultimately wanted to submit to the court a report from the now-defunct media outlet Stand News—”【The HKASPDMC’s Battle. 1】The Life and Death of a Patriotic Organization: Peaceful and Rational Actions, International Lines, and Spreading Across Districts”—for the court’s reference.
Judge Lee stated that whether the report could be cited depended on whether CHT intended to use it to prove the report’s content was true. If so, it was not permitted according to the principle of evidence. If CHT only used the report to express his stance, the court could refer to the report.
CHT said the report was a lengthy piece published between June 1st and 3rd, 2021, which “thoroughly outlined the history of HKA and the methods we used over the years.”
Judge Lai: “Was it published by HKA?”
CHT: “No, it was published by Stand News.”
Judge Lee: ”So, was Stand News’s source HKA?”
CHT: ”I was just about to say that this report actually interviewed many standing committee members and volunteers, both current and former, and I was also interviewed.”
Judge Lee: “Since that’s the case, after reading this report, do you agree with and adopt its statements? Which part concerns you?”
CHT: ”You have to look at where it was written, because I can’t say whether its quotations of others are completely accurate; I can’t say that here. As a standing committee member, I stand behind what HKA has done.” CHT pointed out only a few “very minor errors” in the report, involving two infographics. The first was a table on “Hong Kong Civil Support Activities after the June 4 Massacre,” which listed the date of the “Chinese Democracy Movement Cycling March” as May 2, 1990, when it should actually be May 20. She jokingly remarked, “Looking at its layout, it’s correct, just a zero is missing.” Regarding Past HKA June 4 Anniversary Themes graphic, CHT said it “isn’t entirely wrong, but sometimes there is more than one theme per year.” Therefore HKA’s internal records in the trial documents will prevail.
Judge Lee asked whether the passages in the report mentioning CHT, stating that she was born in the 1980s and was a vice-chair, were provided and agreed to by CHT.
CHT affirmed this. She also intends to introduce a letter originally presented at the 2014 Tiananmen Mothers rally, but nothing else.
16:29
CHT said all articles have been submitted. The only remaining issues are other June 4 rally clips.
Judge Lee said the court is unlikely to consider clips from rallies before 2018. “For the sake of fairness,” he said, “other rallies require complete transcripts for reference. If we extract parts, we can’t provide sufficient weight for evidence.” If only the 2019 June 4 rally remains, the court can view it in its entirety.
The Prosecutor added that the prosecution also prepared a transcript of the 2018 June 4th rally broadcast this morning.
Judge Lee: “The transcript is supplementary; the real evidence is the video recording.” He suggesting that the 2019 rally clip be played tomorrow. He asked which part of the rally CHT hoped the court would focus on.
CHT said the whole rally and confirmed that 2019 was the last June 4 rally held by HKA, with no formal rallies held since.
Prosecutor Cheung Cheuk-kin added that although there were no formal rallies in 2020, testimonies showed that there were rallies held both in person and online.
16:35 Court adjourned; trial to continue on Thursday
Thursday, March 26 (Day 19 of the trial)
10:01 Hearing begins
10:03
Senior Counsel Lam Chi-ying, representing Hong Kong Alliance, stated at the start of the hearing that she needed to attend the funeral of Senior Counsel Graham Harris at 2:30 PM.
Judge Alex Lee: “If the client permits, we have no objection.” He asked Chow Hang-tung if she intended to play footage from the 2019 June 4 candlelight vigil.
Chow Hang-tung affirmed this.
Judge Lee: “We will use a similar method as yesterday.”
The Prosecutor, Assistant Director of Public Prosecutions Cheung Cheuk-kan, indicated that an additional folder had been submitted to the court.
Judge Lee stated that the transcripts in the folder were only “supplementary,” instructing CHT to “keep an eye on the recording and check the transcript for errors,” and thus directed the defense to play footage from the 2019 rally.
Prosecutor Cheung Cheuk-kan requested a brief overview of the folder’s contents, indicating it included a complete transcript of the 2018 candlelight vigil, transcripts of the 2020 in-person and online vigils, and statements from other individuals.
Judge Johnny Chan said the statements from the other individuals were “entirely a news program,” and the footage had been edited. “They weren’t actually a group of people in the same room talking; their statements are completely irrelevant to this case.”
Prosecutor Cheung: “Your Honor is absolutely right,” but because CHT’s testimony touched on related parts, the document was presented.
10:05
Before playing the clip, CHT it could begin at 57:57. “That’s when the official rally begins.”
The clip was initially played at double speed until the host spoke, at which point it was returned to normal speed.
Prosecutor Cheung then requested a pause to focus on the transcript section, which showed the actual start of the rally.
CHT said she had only received the transcript that morning and needed time to review it.
Judge Lee instructed that playback continue and asked which part of the transcript the clip was from.
Prosecutor Cheung: “We don’t control the screen.” CHT “can play whichever part she likes.”
The video continued playing in court, showing the flower-laying ceremony.
Judge Anna Lai Wan-kee: “Actually, which item are we talking about now…? If there isn’t one, just tell us that’s it, it’s okay.”
Prosecutor Cheung Cheuk-kan said the prosecution originally thought CHT would play the entire video, but CHT indicated before the playback that it could start at the 57th minute of the clip, “but it doesn’t matter because she testified that she could choose where to start playing.” He provided the judge with the transcript’s item numbers.
CHT also provided the court with the transcript’s item numbers, and pointed out that the beginning of the transcript was the host’s speech to maintain order and create atmosphere before the event began.
The court continued playing the flower-offering ceremony at normal speed.
During this time, Judge Lee suggested, “The flower-offering segment can be sped up a bit,” and the clip was then played at double speed. He then asked whether the background music for the flower-offering ceremony was live or added in post-production.
CHT claimed it was live music.
The next part of the program was CHT’s eulogy, which was played at normal speed, then switched to triple speed for the moment of silence.
During the proceedings, CHT looked down at the transcript, while Lee Cheuk-yan rested his head on his hand to look at the screen.
The court then proceeded with a fast-forwarded speech by the host, followed by a recorded statement from Zhang Xianling, a member of Tiananmen Mothers, who said: “The Tiananmen Massacre happened 30 years ago… The perpetrators will forever be nailed to the pillar of historical shame, and cannot be erased by a simple ‘political storm’… Despite us having repeatedly proposing dialogue through legal channels… they have publicly used the nonsensical excuse, ‘The Party and the government have already made a decision,; as a pretext… Truth will ultimately triumph over lies, and justice will surely prevail over evil.”
10:33
The court continued playing the segment of singing “The Blood-Stained Glory” and chanting the “five principles” at double speed until the speech by Lee Lan-kui, a [Hong Kong] student representative during June 4, which was then played at normal speed.
In her speech, Lee Lan-kui said, “...But during the Umbrella Movement, I was disheartened...So when HKA contacted me, I was very reluctant to stand up and give my testimony. At the time of the petition from the Umbrella Movement Nine and Reverend Chu Yiu-ming’s petition letter, as a person of faith, I had to stand up and take as many steps as I could.
Lee Cheuk-yan wiped away tears with his hand.
In her speech, Lee Lan-kui said: “But every time we think of the candlelight vigil in Victoria Park, I have the courage to persevere. Hong Kong is not just a commercial society. Every candle you light truly illuminates the name of Hong Kong people in the international community, and truly reflects the spirit of Hong Kong people… Tonight, I want everyone to remember these people by their names outside of China. I am here to bear witness to everything they deserve that each of you should remember. June 3, 1989. That evening, four of us from the student union [Hong Kong Federation of Students] were preparing to go to Tiananmen Square from the Beijing Hotel. As soon as we entered the lobby, we were surrounded by Hong Kong reporters who told us not to go to the square because they had received word that the military would clear the area. But we felt we were already part of the Beijing students… A male student cried out, “Classmates, they really opened fire! They shot at us unarmed people! The classmate next to me was shot! I’m bringing his blood-stained clothes to you to report!’ The army had already reached Tiananmen Square. What should we do now? A vote was held among the students. The majority wanted to stay in the square, because since some students had already sacrificed their lives, they felt even more obligated to commit to not retreating. Several of us student union members decided to join the group, but when we got to the front of the History Museum, we found that there were already troops blocking the way. There were hundreds of armed soldiers lined up in front of the History Museum, but there were still dozens of citizens and students forming a human wall in front and staring them down. The army was relatively restrained, and I thought I saw hope. But then I saw signal flares in the distance, and many dead and wounded being carried to the aid station. Many young workers grabbed weapons, trying to protect the students, but some students told them to put down their weapons. We were peacefully protesting; we would persevere. We couldn’t give anyone an excuse to accuse us of rioting. A middle school student grabbed a rock and tried to rush towards the army, shouting, “Brother! My brother has been killed! I’m going to fight them to the death!” I pulled him back with all my might, saying, “Little brother, please don’t!” He clung to my shoulder, crying. He chased after the ambulance, calling “Brother, brother,” and then disappeared down Chang’an Avenue. Half an hour later, I heard someone say that this young man, covered in blood, was carried to the first aid station. I was shaking all over, feeling dizzy and nauseous. I felt I couldn’t go on. I was carried to the first aid station. ‘Hong Kong students, please get in the ambulance!’ We said we were fine and we would stay in the square. The second ambulance arrived, and there was an even larger crowd and louder voices shouting, “Hong Kong students, get in the ambulance!” We refused. Then a female doctor grabbed my hand and said to me, “You must return to Hong Kong safely,” and that the whole world should hear everything that happened tonight. So, I took my place in the ambulance and left Tiananmen Square. For 30 years, I have required of myself that I remember every detail. I remember every face, every voice, their sweat, their tears… but I don’t know their names. For 30 years, their only name has been that of rioters, called that by the CCP in the name of the people and China. They were not rioters; they were citizens of the world in 1989. They were brave and resolute citizens of the world, demonstrating the brilliance of humanity. Their deeds shook the world back then, tearing down the Berlin Wall in Eastern Europe. Thirty years later, the world’s media still focuses on this unfinished democratic movement. We, in the name of God’s human rights, in the name of the dignity that makes us human, declare: We reject darkness and choose light.”
Some listeners wiped away tears, and CHT also wiped away tears with a tissue. Near the end of the clip, Lee Cheuk-yan scratched his hand and looked up at the ceiling; his eyes and nose were red.
10:51
A clip from the 2019 June 4th vigil was played in court, featuring singer Anthony Wong speaking and performing “Memories Are Guilty.”
As soon as Wong began speaking, Judge Lee immediately suggested in court, “I think we can speed up this part a bit, since he’s not a member of HKA.”
Next [during the vigil], a short film, “I Am a Journalist,” was screened. It included speeches by reporters. The clip showed former Hong Kong Journalists Association chair Mak Yin-ting saying, “We are a group of journalists who witnessed the truth. Of course, we cannot remain silent... We told everyone that there were shots fired and bloodshed in Tiananmen Square... The number of dead and injured is certainly not like what Yuan Mu said back then, that there were only 23. That’s why I wrote ‘The People Will Not Forget’ in 1989. Thirty years later, we hope the truth can be spread in a newer way.” Another reporter then asked, “Why did we publish the book ‘I Am a Journalist’? Because the lies fabricated by the authorities are countless.”
The clip continued with a segment of the singing of “Freedom Flower” played at triple speed.
Afterwards, CHT said that next, a letter by Chen Bing, a “prisoner of conscience from mainland China,” was read, but this segment was not mentioned in the program, “because we received his letter very late and it was not included in the formal agenda.”
This part was seen in court at normal speed. The subsequent proceedings included a speech by Pastor Chu Yiu-ming and the singing of “The Battle for Democracy Returns.”
Judge Lee instructed that two parts be played at high speed.
The court then resumed playing the video at normal speed, showing Tsai Yiu-cheng recounting the number of attendees that evening and Albert Ho reading the vigil declaration. In his declaration, Ho said, “Tonight, we are once again in Victoria Park, holding high the candles of conscience, to commemorate the 1989 Democracy Movement that took place thirty years ago and to mourn the victims of the June 4 Massacre. We also take this opportunity to reflect on the May 4 Movement a century ago and to review the people’s struggle for democracy. The 1989 Democracy Movement began with demands to ‘oppose corruption and official profiteering,’ and subsequently developed into a movement to fight for democratic reform. The democratic ideals pursued and the spirit of resistance displayed in the 1989 Democracy Movement are indeed a continuation of the spirit of the May 4 Movement. The May 4 Movement, the 1989 Tiananmen Square protests, and even Liu Xiaobo’s Charter 08 movement all demonstrate the Chinese people’s unwavering and relentless pursuit of democracy and freedom! The people’s ideal of democracy, though extinguished by the flames of tyranny, has been reborn with the spring breeze! The magnificent and tragic democratic movement of 1989 must never be forgotten. The 1989 Tiananmen Square protests touched the hearts of Chinese people and Hong Kong people alike. The events of that year are still vivid in our minds, not forgotten! Thirty years ago tonight, amidst flying bullets and bloodshed in the streets, Beijing citizens sacrificed their lives to protect Hong Kong students and journalists, tearfully pleading: ‘You Hong Kong people, leave safely quickly and tell the world what you have witnessed tonight!’ They knew that a regime that massacres its people would destroy evidence after the violence. The perpetrators, on the one hand, use totalitarianism to erase memory, and on the other hand, fabricate lies to deny their atrocities. The citizens of Hong Kong remember the trust our mainland compatriots placed in us that night, and we will never forget it! For thirty years, with our remaining freedom, we have spoken out for the people of the mainland whose voices have been silenced, and for the truth about the massacre that has been erased from history! This cause of conscience that we have persisted in shall continue until the 1989 pro-democracy movement is vindicated, the perpetrators receive their due punishment, and the victims, survivors, and their families receive the apologies and compensation they deserve! This is the historical mission and civic responsibility that we, the people of Hong Kong, have inescapably and resolutely shouldered. The candlelight vigil in Hong Kong commemorating June 4 has set a record for local mass movements, leaving a great legacy in the history of human civilization! We firmly believe: those who remain silent under tyranny will lose their freedom in their silence, and may even disappear in their silence! The people of Hong Kong will never remain silent in the face of tyranny in their fight for democracy, freedom, and justice! We exercise our rights to assemble and demonstrate, the rights of the powerless to continue our struggle, and we will never give up! The repression by the dictatorial regime has not ceased in the past thirty years, and the Xi Jinping era has brought unprecedented oppressive rule. We must speak out for the powerless on the mainland who have been silenced; otherwise, we will become accomplices to tyranny. The claws of dictatorship have continued to extend to Hong Kong, and now they are even attempting to forcibly pass the extradition bill amendment in Hong Kong, trying to destroy the rule of law and threaten the personal safety of Hong Kong people. For the future of Hong Kong, we will definitely fight to the end. For thirty years, we have commemorated June 4 and opposed authoritarianism. The democratic spirit and spirit of resistance of the May 4 Movement and the 1989 Tiananmen Square protests, along with our efforts in democratic struggle over the past thirty years, are all interconnected and consistent! We stand on the side of historic justice, and we follow the great historic trend of democracy and freedom! Therefore, we firmly believe that June 4 will be redressed, the dictatorship will end, and democracy will be realized. As long as we persevere, democracy and justice will prevail, and the people will not forget.”
The court played the cremation and condolence book process at triple speed until Lee Cheuk-yan and Tsai Yiu-cheung spoke. Lee Cheuk-yan said, “Tonight we condemn this regime that massacred a city, but the essence of an authoritarian regime is to rule the people with fear. The people of the world, the people of China, and the people of Hong Kong—we all have the freedom from fear. But this extradition bill is an attempt to rule Hong Kong with fear. Carrie Lam has betrayed Hong Kong. We will show them what’s what on June 9, right?”
Judge Lee said subsequent parts were “similar to last year,” including appealing to citizens to donate to the June 4 Museum and recruiting volunteers. “We heard similar things last year; we can play them a little faster.”
11:33
The court played footage of the 2019 June 4 rally.
Judge Lee focused on the “zoom in/zoom out” effect in the footage.
CHT explained that the effect was not post-production: “There was zoom in and zoom out during filming, and there was editing between different cameras.”
Judge Lee also inquired whether the footage had been uploaded to the internet.
CHT said it should have been uploaded to HKA’s YouTube channel, and HKA’s Facebook account also had a link to the footage.
In response to the judge’s questioning regarding the 2019 vigil, CHT stated, “The theme and slogan of that vigil were ‘The people will not forget.’ Therefore, the vigil’s proceedings focused on recounting the events of that year. Whether planning the vigil or writing the declaration and eulogy, what we had to confront was, as Ms Lee Lan-kui said, a wound that hadn’t been closed for 30 years, a lifelong trauma, requiring long-term medication. So every word we said had to be worthy of that young man who chased after the ambulance and yelling for his brother...” CHT’s voice choked with emotion as she went on, “It must be worthy of every brave person who, despite their trembling bodies, came to share. By these standards, HKA’s stance can only be described as too moderate, not too radical. If even the most basic principles of remembrance and inheritance, condemnation and commitment, cannot be adhered to, then what kind of memorial activity would it be?”
CHT said her testimony had concluded.
After the conclusion of her testimony, cross-examination began. The lawyer for Hong Kong Alliance briefly cross-examined CHT. Lee Cheuk-yan’s lawyer did not cross-examine. Then the prosecution began its cross-examination.
In Chinese, the phrase, ‘end one-party dictatorship’ consists of six characters: 結束一黨專政.
Here, CHT is criticizing the prosecution’s main allegation without explicitly mentioning the prosecution.
This is incorrect. In fact, only one person was formally charged, convicted and sentenced to prison for his participation in Charter 08. That was Liu Xiaobo and he got 11 years. Approximately 70 of the 303 initial signatories were summoned or interrogated and many were subjected to house arrest and/or temporarily detained to prevent their participation in other activities upon which the regime frowned.
Lee Lan-kui was a representative of Hong Kong Federation of Students in 1989. She was in Beijing on June 4 and witnessed the clearing of Tiananmen Square. In 2019, on the 30th anniversary of the Tiananmen Massacre, she gave a speech at the candlelight vigil.