Chow Hang-tung and Lee Cheuk-yan, former leaders of the Hong Kong Alliance in Support of Patriotic Democratic Movements of China, were convicted of incitement to subversion on August 21, 2026, under Hong Kong’s Beijing-imposed national security law in connection with their efforts to organize vigils commemorating the 1989 Tiananmen crackdown in Beijing.
During mitigation proceedings on Friday, August 28, Chow was stopped by the judge after reading only the first few sentences of her mitigation statement. However, her full statement was later uploaded to her Patreon page. Read her full statement translated into English and simplified Chinese from the original Cantonese by Human Rights in China.
[?????]
 |
Statement to the Court by Chow Hang-tung
- The 206-page judgment, stripped to its essence, says only this: pursuing democracy is a crime.
- I do not believe that any political party may treat the sovereignty of a nation as its private property, proclaim itself the people’s choice and the nation’s sole leader, and then declare that everyone is legally obliged to uphold the throne it has bestowed upon itself. Such “law” is merely another name for tyranny.
- To believe that dictatorship is wrong and democracy is right—what is that, if not a conviction? The Court and the Government may repeat like an incantation that our convictions are not on trial. But that cannot change the reality that, under this judgment, there is no longer any place for those who believe in “ending one-party dictatorship.” In the eyes of such “law,” merely holding this belief is unconstitutional, unlawful, and an original sin. Even when we do something entirely legitimate—such as commemorating June Fourth—it becomes a crime because our thoughts are deemed “incorrect.”
- But the law cannot control anyone’s thoughts. Not only will it fail to do so; when the law insists on setting itself against conscience, it is the law that will lose, and the law alone that will forfeit its legitimacy.
- Human beings must have moral boundaries, and so must the law. The distinction between democracy and dictatorship is among the most fundamental of those boundaries, because there can be no rule of law under a dictatorship. When the Court strips the call to “end one-party dictatorship” of all its factual origins and all questions of right and wrong, and blindly emphasizes only the will of the regime and a supposed duty to obey the law, it is effectively saying that those who lived under Nazi Germany had a duty to participate in the extermination of the Jews. That is absurd. Such an approach deprives the law of its soul—the pursuit of justice—and reduces it to a puppet manipulated by power.
- It was precisely this attitude—asking nothing about right and wrong and demanding only obedience—that produced tragedy after tragedy under Nazism and other totalitarian regimes. Today, both the Court and the state are following the same dangerous path. Indeed, with technological advances and the growing power of the state, and with the country now widely recognized as a “great power,” the danger today is even greater than it was then.
- As citizens, we have a responsibility to place state power back within the confines of democracy. As the true masters of the country, we have a duty to control and scrutinize that power. We must do so not only to seek justice for the wrongs of the past, but also to prevent even greater catastrophes from occurring again. If, in the name of national security, we continue to feed a state machinery that we cannot control while allowing it to devour our humanity and conscience, tragedy will be only a matter of time.
- Ending one-party dictatorship is therefore an inescapable responsibility of our generation, whether we identify as Hongkongers or as Chinese. We must accomplish this ourselves. Only we can accomplish it. No outsider can do it for us.
- These are my sincere thoughts and convictions. They are not mine alone: thirty years of candlelight vigils in Victoria Park have already proved that. “Ending one-party dictatorship” is a fundamental demand of the people and a universal aspiration. If the law overestimates its own power and attempts to defy that aspiration, it will succeed only in humiliating itself.
- The Court seeks to portray the issue as one not of spreading ideas, but of allegedly spreading hostility. Yet the conviction that one-party dictatorship must end has never depended upon dividing the world into enemies and allies, nor upon inciting hatred. We need only present the facts and reason our case. That is enough to win the support of all who are willing to see reason.
- Dictatorship is itself one of the greatest and most obvious forms of injustice. It disregards the equality and autonomy of every individual. It imposes a system of rule for which no rational justification can be offered, reducing free citizens to slaves without a choice. Ending one-party dictatorship is simply a struggle to reclaim the dignity that belongs to every human being. Anyone who is not merely pretending to be asleep should be able to understand this.
- Only those who cannot persuade through reason must constantly mobilize people through hatred. We have no need to do so. Only those utterly lacking in confidence see hostility everywhere. That is not how we view the world. We have absolute confidence in what we believe and what we stand for. The fact that a dictatorship depends upon hatred to sustain its rule does not mean that everyone must adopt its methods, nor does it mean that the world truly revolves around hatred. Faith in equality and justice, and respect for humanity and truth, have always been forces more powerful and enduring than hatred.
- Convictions cannot be calculated or traded. To plead for mercy or apologize for what one believes is an act of profound hypocrisy and an insult to everyone who shares those convictions. I will not do so. I cannot do so. Even the executioners responsible for the massacre have yet to come forward and apologize—how could it possibly be our turn to apologize? Even when right and wrong have been turned upside down, we must not apologize for the wrongs committed by the regime and thereby become part of that moral inversion ourselves.
- As for everything we have done, I refuse to use the language and concepts of criminality to assess how “serious” or “minor” our conduct may have been. If the Court truly seeks guidance, it may consult the Office for Safeguarding National Security, led by the Communist Party. Its officials certainly know how to view efforts to advance democracy and human rights through the lens of criminality. They have repeatedly and openly declared that this case is grave and must be severely punished, apparently without the slightest concern that they are interfering with judicial independence. In any event, if the Court ultimately finds that our conduct was “of a grave nature,” I will take that as a compliment, because it would mean that our work truly made a difference.
- To discover a cause in which one believes, and to find companions with whom one can struggle side by side, is one of life’s greatest blessings. I therefore have no regrets whatsoever about the path I have walked with the Hong Kong Alliance and with the people of Hong Kong. I regret only the hardship endured by my family and by those who love me. They are the only people from whom I need to seek forgiveness.
- As for the future, whether inside or outside prison, I will continue working for the release of pro-democracy activists, the vindication of the 1989 Democracy Movement, accountability for the massacre, the end of one-party dictatorship, and the building of a democratic Hong Kong and China. I will continue to learn, strengthen myself, and pursue every possible course of action until democracy arrives. This is a promise I have made publicly countless times. It is the solemn vow I made to the victims amid a sea of candlelight, and I have no intention of breaking my word.
- If doing so makes me a criminal forever, and if the law truly cannot tolerate our convictions, then I would rather be a criminal than a person who betrays her conscience. Together with all Hongkongers who refuse to surrender to fate, I will continue along this unfinished road to democracy.
- A sea of candlelight,
Hearts surging like waves;
Though shattered against the shore,
We will not rest until injustice ends.
???——???
- 206??????????????????
- ??????????????????????????????
????????? ??????????????????????????? ?????????????????? - ?????????????????????????
?????????????????????????? ????????????????????“??????” ??????????????????“??”??? ?????????????????????????? ?????????????????????????? ??????????“???”?????? - ???????????????????????
??????????????????? ????????????? - ??????????????????????
???????????????????????? ???????“??????” ???????????????????? ??????????????????????????? ???????????????????????????? ??????????????????????? ???????????? - ???????????????????????????
???????????????????????? ????????????????????????????? ?????????“??”???????????????? - ?????????????????????????
???????????????????????????? ???????????????? ?????????????????????????? ??????????????????????????? ???????????? - ????????????????????????????
?????????????????????? ?????????????????????? - ????????????????????????——
?????????????????“??????” ???????????????????????????? ??????? - ???????????????????????????“
??????”??????????????????? ????????????????????????? ??????????????? - ?????????????????????
????????????? ??????????????????? ?????????????????????????? ????????????????????? ???????????????? - ??????????????????????
????????????????????? ?????????????????????????? ??????????????????????? ???????????????????????????? ??????????????????????????? ?????????????????????????????? - ????????????????????????????
?????????????????????????????? ?????????????? ????????????????????????????? ???????????????????????? ??????????????? - ??????????????????????
???????????????????? ????????????????????????????? ???????????????????????????? ????????????????????????? ????????????????????? ??????????????“????”? ?????????????????????????????? - ?????????????????????????
????????????????????? ???????????????????? ?????????????????????????? ?????? - ?????????????????????????????
????????????????????? ??????????????????????????? ?????????????????? ???????????????? ???????????????????? ?????????????? - ????????????????
?????????????????????????? ???????????????????????????? ???????????????? - ?????
?????
?????
?????
