Tiananmen memory on trialーNHK WORLD-JAPAN NEWS

Key Concepts

• Tiananmen Square Incident (1989): The military crackdown on pro-democracy protesters in Beijing on June 4, 1989.
• Hong Kong Alliance in Support of Patriotic Democratic Movements of China: A now-disbanded organization that held annual vigils and operated the June 4th Museum.
• Hong Kong National Security Law (2020): Legislation enacted by Beijing to criminalize acts of secession, subversion, terrorism, and collusion with foreign forces.
• Inciting Subversion: The legal charge brought against the Alliance members, centered on the slogan "ending one-party rule."
• Collective Memory: The shared historical consciousness of a community, currently under pressure due to censorship and legal restrictions.

---

1. Historical Context and the Role of the Alliance

The Hong Kong Alliance was established in 1989 to support student protesters in Beijing. For three decades, it served as the primary vehicle for commemorating the victims of the June 4th crackdown.

• The Incident: While Beijing officially cites a death toll of 319, independent estimates suggest the actual number is significantly higher.
• Commemoration Efforts: The Alliance organized annual vigils in Hong Kong and founded the "June 4th Museum," which housed personal artifacts and educational panels regarding the 1989 events. These activities were central to Hong Kong’s identity as a space for free expression.

2. The Legal Framework: National Security Law

In 2020, China’s top legislative body implemented the National Security Law in Hong Kong following widespread anti-government protests. This law fundamentally altered the legal landscape for civil society groups.

• The Raid: In 2021, Hong Kong police raided the June 4th Museum, confiscated its collection, and subsequently charged the Alliance and three senior members—including former chairperson Lee Cheuk-yan—with "inciting subversion."
• Prosecution Argument: The state argued that the Alliance’s slogan, "ending one-party rule," constituted an illegal attempt to subvert state power.
• Defense Argument: Lee Cheuk-yan pleaded not guilty, asserting that the slogan was a call for democratic political reform rather than a violent overthrow of the Communist Party. He maintained that the group’s activities were strictly focused on historical remembrance and posed no threat to national security.

3. Perspectives on Civil Liberties

The trial has become a focal point for the erosion of civil liberties in Hong Kong.

• Lee Cheuk-yan’s Stance: Lee views his resistance as a moral imperative. He stated: "The only thing we can do is to show that we will not retreat, will not give up, and will stick to our convictions."
• Tong Yin-O’s Perspective: As a civil rights figure and Lee’s wife, she expressed deep sorrow over the loss of public discourse. She noted that Hong Kong, once a place of free thought, has become a place where commemorating history is now effectively banned.

4. Broader Implications and Media Censorship

The trial is viewed as a bellwether for the future of historical memory in Hong Kong.

• Media and Institutional Impact: The climate of fear has extended to the media and cultural institutions. The sentencing of Jimmy Lai (founder of Apple Daily) and the removal of 1989-related exhibits from the Hong Kong History Museum demonstrate a systematic effort to erase the event from public record.
• The Challenge of Memory: NHK Bureau Chief Odama Makoto highlights that the annual vigils were essential for cementing a "collective memory." With these vigils banned and museums overhauled, the challenge of passing this history to the next generation has become increasingly "complex and delicate."

5. Synthesis and Conclusion

The trial of the Hong Kong Alliance represents a critical juncture in the city's history. By criminalizing the commemoration of the Tiananmen Square incident, authorities are not only targeting specific political slogans but are also attempting to dismantle the collective memory of the 1989 pro-democracy movement. As the verdict approaches in July, the case serves as a stark indicator of the narrowing space for dissent and historical inquiry under the National Security Law. The core conflict remains between the state's definition of "subversion" and the activists' commitment to preserving historical truth.