National Security Department Chief Superintendent Steve Li Kwai wah said Friday that the lengthy prison sentence imposed on former Hong Kong Alliance in Support of Patriotic Democratic Movements of China vice chairwoman Tonyee Chow Hang tung was expected, citing what he described as her continued defiance and complete lack of remorse.
Li spoke to reporters shortly after the West Kowloon Magistrates' Courts handed down sentences in the landmark national security case involving Chow, Lee Cheuk yan and Albert Ho Chun yan. He said the court had placed the case in the category of serious circumstances under the sentencing provisions of the National Security Law, where imprisonment can range from five to 10 years.
The sentences marked another major stage in a case that has drawn sustained attention in Hong Kong and overseas. The prosecution centred on the activities of the now disbanded Hong Kong Alliance and its senior figures, with the court previously finding that the defendants had engaged in conduct intended to undermine the country's constitutional order.
Police defend severity of sentence
Li said the punishment reflected the seriousness of the offences and the degree of responsibility attributed to the three defendants.
He referred to the court's earlier findings, which described the defendants as having maintained long standing opposition to the Communist Party of China and the central government. According to the judicial findings cited by Li, their conduct went beyond the expression of political views and involved efforts that authorities said could deepen divisions within society and encourage hostility and distrust towards the central authorities.
The police official also pointed to the defendants' actions following the introduction of the National Security Law in June 2020.
Li said their conduct did not stop after the legislation came into force. Instead, he argued, their continued activities demonstrated a persistent refusal to accept the new legal framework and contributed to the court's decision to treat the offences as particularly serious.
The distinction matters because sentencing under the national security legislation takes account not only of the offence itself but also of circumstances surrounding the conduct and the level of responsibility attributed to those convicted.
For Li, Chow's conduct after the law took effect was particularly significant. He argued that the absence of remorse and continued defiance explained why she received what he described as the heaviest sentence.
Foreign governments criticised over case
Li also used the press conference to respond to criticism from overseas governments and organisations that have condemned the convictions.
He accused foreign forces of mounting what he called malicious attacks against Hong Kong's legal system throughout the investigation and court proceedings. According to Li, criticism intensified after the defendants were found guilty on August 21, with foreign governments and organisations calling for the convictions to be overturned and the defendants released.
Some foreign critics have also called for sanctions and other measures against individuals involved in the case, including judges.
Li rejected those demands and defended the proceedings as fair, open and transparent.
He said the prosecution had been required to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, the standard used in criminal proceedings in Hong Kong, while the defendants were given time and procedural opportunities to present their cases and challenge the prosecution's evidence.
The police chief said the authorities had acted within Hong Kong's legal framework and rejected suggestions that political pressure from outside the city should influence the outcome of criminal proceedings.
He also accused foreign jurisdictions of applying inconsistent standards when discussing Hong Kong's national security laws.
Li argued that many countries maintain their own legislation designed to protect national security, yet some of those same jurisdictions have criticised Hong Kong for enforcing its own laws.
He urged foreign governments and organisations to respect Hong Kong's legal system and warned those who might seek to interfere with national security enforcement that the authorities would continue to act firmly.
Case follows years of political controversy
The proceedings involving Chow, Lee and Ho have become one of the most closely watched national security cases in Hong Kong since the National Security Law came into effect in June 2020.
The Hong Kong Alliance had for decades organised the city's annual candlelight vigil commemorating those killed in the 1989 crackdown in Beijing. The organisation was later disbanded after coming under pressure from national security authorities.
Its former leaders became central figures in the government's investigation into activities that prosecutors said threatened national security.
The defendants maintained their positions throughout the legal proceedings, while the authorities argued that their activities crossed the line from political expression into conduct prohibited under the national security legislation.
The court's findings therefore carry significance beyond the individual defendants. They form part of a growing body of judicial decisions defining how Hong Kong's courts interpret and apply the national security framework introduced in 2020.
For supporters of the defendants, however, the case has raised concerns over political expression, civil liberties and the future of opposition activity in the city. International governments and rights groups have repeatedly questioned whether the national security legislation has been used too broadly against political activists.
The authorities have consistently rejected those allegations, arguing that the law targets conduct that threatens national security rather than legitimate political expression.
Dispute over the Pillar of Shame
Questions also remain over the future of the "Pillar of Shame", a sculpture that became closely associated with Hong Kong's annual commemoration of the 1989 Tiananmen crackdown.
Reporters asked Li about the ownership and eventual disposal of the sculpture after it was seized in connection with the case.
Li said the court had not yet issued a formal decision concerning the property. As a result, he said, there was limited scope for him to comment on what would ultimately happen to the artwork.
From the prosecution's position, however, Li said the sculpture belonged to the Hong Kong Alliance and was connected to the alleged incitement offences. He described it as an exhibit and an instrument relevant to the case.
He expressed confidence that the judiciary would deal with the property in accordance with the law once the appropriate determination had been made.
The sculpture has particular significance because of its history in Hong Kong. Created by Danish artist Jens Galschiot, it depicts a mass of distressed human figures and was installed at the University of Hong Kong for many years. Its presence became closely linked with the city's annual remembrance of the 1989 events.
Its removal from the university campus in 2021 became another major point of dispute in the debate over Hong Kong's changing political environment.
Police signal continued enforcement
Li's remarks after the sentencing made clear that the authorities regard the case as part of a broader effort to enforce the national security framework rather than as an isolated prosecution.
His comments also indicate that police intend to maintain a firm position in response to criticism from abroad. He rejected claims that international pressure should affect the handling of national security cases and warned potential agitators against challenging the authorities.
For the defendants, the sentencing closes one stage of a long running legal battle while leaving wider questions about political activity, public commemoration and the boundaries of dissent in Hong Kong.
The dispute over the Pillar of Shame also remains unresolved until the court makes a formal decision on its ownership and disposal.
As the authorities defend the convictions and foreign critics continue to challenge them, the case is likely to remain a reference point in debates over Hong Kong's national security framework and the limits of political expression.
Do you think the sentencing reflects Hong Kong's national security laws as applied by the courts, or does it raise wider concerns about political freedoms?