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.
[后附中文版]
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.
陈情书——邹幸彤
206页判词，说来说去，就是追求民主有罪。
我不认为任何政党可以将国家主权私相授受，自称代表人民的选择，自称是唯一的领导，然后还宣称每个人在法律上都有义务拥护它这个自封的王位。这样的所谓法律，不过是暴政的同义词。
相信专政是错的、民主是对的，这不是信念，又是什么？即使法庭和政府不停念咒，声称我们接受审判的并非信念，也改变不了一个事实：在这份判决之下，相信“结束一党专政”这一理念的人，再无立足之地。在这样的“法律”眼中，我们只要抱有这种思想，就已经违宪、非法，犯下了原罪。即使我们所做的只是一件完全正当的事情，例如悼念六四，也会因为我们思想上的“不正确”而变成犯罪。
但是，法律无法控制任何人的思想。不但控制不了，当法律执意与良知为敌，输的只会是法律，失去公信力的也只会是法律。
做人要有底线，法律同样要有。民主与专政之辨，就是其中最重要的一条底线，因为专政之下没有法治。当法庭完全抽空“结束一党专政”这一诉求之所以产生的事实背景和是非对错，只是一味强调政权的意志和所谓守法的义务，其实就等于说，生活在纳粹德国统治之下，就有义务参与屠杀犹太人一样荒谬。这样的做法，只会使法律失去彰显公平正义的灵魂，沦为任由权力驱使的傀儡。
纳粹和极权统治之下一次又一次的惨剧，正是这种不问是非、只求服从的态度造成的。如今，无论是法庭还是国家，都在重走同一条危险的老路。甚至随着科技进步、国家力量增强，随着国家成为公认的“大国”，今天的危险只会比当年更加严重。
作为国民，我们有责任将国家权力重新关进民主的牢笼，履行我们作为国家主人的义务，对它加以控制和监督。这样做，不仅是为了替过去的伤害讨回公道，也是为了防止更大的灾难再次降临。一味以国家安全之名，喂养一部我们无法控制的国家机器，任由它蚕食人性与良知，悲剧的发生只是迟早的事。
因此，结束一党专政，是我们这一代香港人也好、中国人也好，都无可回避的责任。这件事必须由我们自己完成，也只能由我们自己完成，没有任何外人可以代劳。
这是我真诚的想法和信念，而且不只是我一个人的信念——维园三十年的烛光已经证明了这一点。“结束一党专政”是人民的底线，是普世的诉求。当法律不自量力地试图挑战它，只会自取其辱。
法庭假装问题不在于传播思想，而在于所谓散播敌意。但是，“结束一党专政”这一信念，从来不需要依靠什么敌我思维，也不需要煽动仇恨来维系。我们只需要摆事实、讲道理，就足以得到所有明事理者的支持。
因为专政本身就是最大、最明显的一种不公义。它无视每个人的平等和自主，将一套毫无道理可讲的统治秩序强加于人，把自由的公民统统贬低为无权选择的奴隶。结束一党专政，不过是要争取人之为人应有的尊严。这个道理，任何不是装睡的人都应该看得明白。
只有道理讲不通的人，才总要依靠仇恨进行动员，而我们根本不需要这样做；只有毫无自信的人，才会看什么都充满敌意，而我们也根本不会这样看待世界。对于我们所相信和坚持的一切，我们有绝对的信心。专政依靠仇恨维持统治，不等于所有人都必须采用它的那一套，也不等于这个世界真的围绕仇恨运转。对平等与正义的信念，对人性与真相的尊重，从来都是比仇恨更加强大、更加持久的力量。
信念是无法计算、无法交易的。为了自己所相信的一切而求情、道歉，是最虚伪的事情，也是对所有抱有同样信念者的侮辱。所以，我不会这样做，也不能这样做。连屠城的刽子手都还没有站出来道歉，什么时候轮到我们道歉？！即使世道颠倒，我们也不应该为政权做错的事情道歉，让自己也成为颠倒是非的一部分。
对于过去的一切，我拒绝使用犯罪的语言和概念，去分析我们所做的事情有多么严重或不严重。如果法庭真的需要什么参考，可以去问由共产党领导的国安公署。他们才真正懂得如何用犯罪的眼光看待争取民主和人权的努力。他们还一直毫不避讳地声称，本案性质严重，必须严惩，完全不认为自己是在干预司法独立。无论如何，如果法庭最后真的裁定我们属于“情节严重”，我会把它当作对我们的赞美，因为这说明我们确实做出了一些成绩。
能够找到自己所相信的使命，找到可以并肩作战的伙伴，是人生最幸福的事情。因此，对于我与支联会、与香港人共同走过的道路，我一点也不后悔。只是辛苦了我的家人和爱我的人，我唯一需要请求原谅的，也只有他们。
至于将来，无论身在狱中还是狱外，我都会继续为释放民运人士、平反八九民运、追究屠城责任、结束一党专政、建设民主香港与民主中国而努力。我会继续学习、充实自己，进行各种尝试，直到民主到来的那一天。这是我曾经无数次公开作出的承诺，也是我在烛海之中向死难者许下的庄严誓言。我不打算做一个言而无信的人。
如果这样做会使我成为永远的罪犯，如果法律真的容不下我们的信念，那么我宁愿做一个罪犯，也不愿做一个背叛良知的人。我会和所有不认命的香港人一起，继续走完这条尚未走完的民主之路。
烛光如海，
人心成涛；
粉身拍岸，
不平不休。