According to the Tiananmen Mothers group, the authorities notified family members of people who lost their lives in the 1989 crackdown that they cannot travel to Beijing’s Wan’an Cemetery or conduct any commemoration in the cemetery. Sarah Brooks, Amnesty International’s deputy regional director for Asia, described the ban as “heartless,” saying:

The Tiananmen Mothers were not previously blocked from cemetery visits on the 4 June anniversary, and it is deeply troubling that this year the suppression of Tiananmen commemoration appears to be escalating—reflecting the government’s deep-seated insecurity about people’s demands for accountability.

Ahead of the anniversary, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio issued a statement commemorating the Chinese civilians who lost their lives for exercising their right to peaceful assembly. He said in the statement: “No amount of censorship can erase the past.” Foreign embassies in China, including those of the UK, Canada and Australia, made similar social media posts to support survivors and families of those who lost their lives in the crackdown.

In a press conference on June 4, Mao Ning, spokesperson for China’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs, accused Rubio of distorting historical facts, smearing the Chinese political system, and interfering in China’s internal affairs.

In a June 1 press release, Human Rights Watch (HRW) also reported China’s intensifying efforts to quell commemorative activities. This includes preventing a gathering of the Tiananmen Mothers in December 2025, which has never happened since the group started meeting in 2009. HRW urged the Chinese authorities to permit an independent public inquiry into the killings, and respect the right to free speech and peaceful assembly.

The Tiananmen Mothers is an activist group made up of family members of people who lost their lives in the 1989 massacre and its aftermath. In May, the group urged the Chinese authorities to disclose the full truth of the crackdown, provide compensation for the victims and their families, and hold all responsible parties accountable.

On June 4, 1989, troops and tanks forcefully entered and cleared Tiananmen Square, where thousands of unarmed protesters, mostly students, had established an encampment. The occupation of the square began in April, when students gathered to commemorate the death of liberal Communist Party official Hu Yaobang, and call for political and economic reforms. The Chinese Communist Party called the movement a “political turmoil” that “Western hostile forces” instigated to counter socialism and the party. Hundreds and perhaps thousands were killed in the clearing of the square, with tens of thousands arrested in the subsequent repression across China.

Detained Hong Kong activist Chow Hang-tung has launched a 37-hour hunger strike in jail to commemorate the massacre. She has been in custody since September 2021, facing a charge of “incitement to subvert the state power,” with judgment expected in July. The prosecution has included footage of the annual candlelight vigils commemorating the massacre as evidence in the trial. The annual June 4 vigil in Hong Kong has been prohibited by authorities since 2020.

From JURIST, June 4. Used with permission. Internal links added.

See our last reports on the legacy of Tiananmen Square.

Photo: Hong Kong Alliance via Amnesty International

See our last report on Hong Kong’s National Security Law.

Photo: antha26/Pixabay via JURIST

Photo: The Moscow Times

Hong Kong issued written notices to two organizations on Nov. 24 that the government has promulgated orders to prohibit their operation, citing “reasonable grounds” to believe that they aim to subvert state power. The organizations can make representations in their defense before the prohibitions take effect.

In a statement, the Hong Kong Secretary for Security said the government reasonably believes that the  self-declared Hong Kong Parliament and Hong Kong Democratic Independence Union aim to subvert state power by promoting “self-determination” for the territory and their drafting of a “Hong Kong Constitution.” The government deems these acts as falling under the prohibition on “overthrowing or undermining the basic system or authority of the People’s Republic of China or the authority of the Hong Kong SAR.”

This is the first time the government has invoked section 60 of the Safeguarding National Security Ordinance since its unanimous vote of approval by the Special Administrative Region’s legislature last year. The law empowers the Secretary of Security to prohibit the operation of organizations if it reasonably believes that the prohibition is necessary to safeguard national security. The Secretary, however, must give an opportunity to the organization to make representations before ordering the prohibitions under section 60(4) of the ordinance.

Once the prohibition is in effect, it is considered a criminal offense if a person acts as a member of, participates in any activities of, or provides assistance of any kind to the prohibited organization. A conviction may carry a fine of $1,000,000 and imprisonment for 14 years.

Although this is the first time the government has used this law, this is not the first time the government has cited national security concerns to disband a group. In October 2021, then Chief Executive Carrie Lam disbanded the Hong Kong Alliance in Support of Patriotic Democratic Movements of China, stating that it was necessary in the interest of national security under section 360C of the Companies (Winding Up and Miscellaneous Provisions) Ordinance.

On July 11 of this year, prosecutors charged three defendants with conspiracy to commit secession under the 2020 China-imposed National Security Law. Among them was a 15-year-old student, whom judge Lin Kam Hung said was an “active participant” for having contacted the founders of the Hong Kong Democratic Independence Union. The defendant pleaded guilty, and the sentencing hearing is scheduled for Nov. 27. The other two defendants will also have their pre-trial hearing on the same day. In response, the Democratic Independence Union stated that it has never operated in Hong Kong and has no members based in the region, but mostly operated overseas.

From JURIST, Nov. 25. Used with permission. Internal links added.

See our last report on the National Security Law.

Photo: antha26/Pixabay via JURIST

The new legislation imposes Mandarin language dominance in public life and education across all regions of the People’s Republic. Article 15(3) of the law requires that “if it is necessary to issue documents in minority languages and scripts,” the documents must be accompanied by Mandarin versions, with clear indication that “the national common language” is given “prominence.”

Furthermore, the law introduces mandatory requirements in education, for families and home life as well as schools. Article 12 instructs authorities to “organize education” to ensure “correct views of the state, of history, of the nation, of culture and of religion.” Article 20(2) creates legal obligations for parents to educate minors to “love the Chinese Communist Party.”

Maya Wang, associate Asia director at HRW, noted concerns regarding the new law:

The Chinese government’s draft law on promoting ethnic unity seeks to mobilize the bureaucracy and society to unite people under Chinese Communist Party leadership at the expense of human rights… Tibetans, Uyghurs, and others who speak out for minority populations can expect even greater government repression.

The proposed legislation, entitled the Law on Promoting Ethnic Unity & Progress, was submitted to the National People’s Congress on Sept. 8. The law would fundamentally alter China’s legal framework for minority rights. China currently observes a 1984 statute called the Law of the People’s Republic of China on Regional National Autonomy, which guarantees minorities the right to “use and develop their own spoken and written languages and their freedom to preserve or reform their own folkways and customs.” The new law would effectively overturn the 1984 statute.

Particularly concerning is the new law’s extraterritorial reach. Article 61 establishes legal penalties for “organizations and individuals outside the territory of the People’s Republic of China” that “undermine national unity.” HRW warned that the provision formalizes China’s “transnational repression” practices under domestic law. The vague terminology used in the provision may enable arbitrary enforcement against peaceful expressions of cultural identity even for those outside China’s borders.

HRW called for international pressure to prevent the law’s passage, arguing it would codify systematic oppression of ethnic minorities while expanding China’s authority to suppress dissent globally.

From JURIST, Sept. 29. Used with permission. Internal links added.

Photo of Uyghur family in Kashgar: Todenhoff/Flickr

Maya Wang, associate China director at HRW, said, “The arrest…reflects the broadening repression radiating from China to Hong Kong and Macao under Chinese leader Xi Jinping.”

On July 30, former lawmaker and pro-democracy activist Au Kam San was arrested after authorities accused him of violating Article 13 of the national security law, which carries a maximum penalty of 10 years imprisonment and criminalizes the establishment of “links with organizations or groups” outside Macau to “conduct activities endangering national security.”

This presumably refers to Au’s work with the Macau Union of Democratic Development, which for years organized annual commemorations of the 1989 Tiananmen Square massacre. Members have repeatedly met with threats and harassment from the authorities.

The wording of the national security statute is notably ambiguous and does not provide a threshold as to what actions constitute “national security” threats, making it susceptible to abuse. Under a textualist lens, a panel of judges could theoretically find that mere criticism of the government triggers the statute. Rights experts warn that authorities may weaponize the law to silence any and all dissent.

Hong Kong and Macau enjoy a high degree of autonomy in certain administrative affairs under the “one country, two systems” framework, conceived by Chinese leader Deng Xiaoping in the 1980s to preserve these cities’ distinct status as former British and Portuguese colonies, respectively. However, sovereignty ultimately remains with China. As the 41st anniversary of the December 1984 Sino-British Joint Declaration approaches—a treaty that outlined China’s obligations ahead of the 1997 handover of Hong Kong—the territory has experienced one of the sharpest declines in freedom of expression in the world, dropping 49 points into the “crisis category,” according to the Article 19 Global Expression Report 2025.

Similar guarantees were pledged for Macau in the 1987 Sino-Portuguese Joint Declaration, setting terms for the 1999 handover. But these have also significantly eroded, with the territory’s judiciary exacerbating the anti-democratic climate. In 2021, Macao’s courts upheld a government ban on the annual Tiananmen Massacre vigil, ruling that political slogans violated the Chinese Constitution by inciting the public to “overthrow the existing political system.”

The right to freedom of expression is protected by Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil & Political Rights (ICCPR). China is a signatory to the ICCPR, but has yet to ratify it.

From JURIST, Aug. 7. Used with permission.

See our last posts on Macau, the Hong Kong National Security Law, the crackdown on dissent in China, and the legacy of Tiananmen Square.

Image: Macau police block annual Tiananmen vigil, June 2020. Credit: Choi Chi-chio/United Social Press via HKFP

National security offenses are codified in the highly controversial Law of the People’s Republic of China on Safeguarding National Security in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, which was passed by China in response to the 2019-2020 protests in Hong Kong. The law has been widely criticized as arbitrary, with charges intentionally ill-defined, and  is seen by many as a means to crack down on political opponents of China’s government.

The EU System for an Enabling Environment for Civil Society (EUSEE) in May issued an early warning for the then-proposed measure over fears it would degrade the freedom of civil society organizations.

China’s crackdown on Hong Kong unions and other civil society organizations has been escalating over the past years. Since 2019, many union organizers have fled or been arrestedfor their role in the protests and greater civil society activism and mobilization. In 2021, Hong Kong’s largest pro-democracy union confederation, the Hong Kong Confederation of Trade Unions (HKCTU), with around 145,000 members from 93 unions, was forced to disband as a result of “political pressure.”

The Hong Kong government maintains that the amendment is needed to ensure national security and will not affect “law-abiding trade unions.” The law will take effect on Jan. 6, 2026.

From JURIST, June 26. Used with permission. Internal links added.

Note: Amnesty International research released on June 30 concluded that more than 80% of the  76 persons convicted under the Hong Kong National Security Law in the five years since the law was passed have been “wrongly criminalized” for legitimate self-expression. (Jurist)

Photo: HKFP

Human Rights Watch (HRW) expressed deep concern April 7 over the continued detention of Taiwanese publisher Li Yanhe in China since 2023, citing violations of freedom of expression, access to information, and the right to a fair trial. For nearly two years, no official information was released about his case until Chinese authorities revealed in March that he had been secretly sentenced to an unspecified term.

HRW emphasized that Li’s detention is part of a broader pattern of transnational repression and intimidation by the Chinese government. The organization has called on China to immediately release Li Yanhe, grant him access to legal counsel and family, and uphold its obligations under international human rights law.

Li, who writes under the pen name Fu Cha, is the editor-in-chief of Gusa Publishing, a Taiwan-based company known for producing books that critically examine the Chinese Communist Party (CPP) and cover politically sensitive topics, such as the Tiananmen Square massacre and human rights abuses in Xinjiang, subjects effectively censored in mainland China.

Although Li was born in China, he moved to Taiwan in 2009 to establish Gusa Publishing. In 2023, he obtained Taiwanese citizenship, a process that required him to return to mainland China to formally cancel his household registration. During his visit to Shanghai, he was detained by Chinese police on allegations of “engaging in criminal activities to incite secession.”

In March 2025, authorities confirmed that Li was secretly sentenced in February, following what they described as an “open trial.” However, no court documents or evidence that due process was followed have been made public, not at the time of his arrest nor since. Chinese authorities have refused to provide further details about his case, citing “respect for the family’s wishes.”

Reports suggest that Li’s family was threatened to prevent them from revealing the length of his sentence; they were allegedly warned that if they released any information, he could face a harsher punishment or even be “eliminated.” In response, the Taiwanese government condemned the lack of transparency, but because China does not recognize dual nationality, Taiwanese authorities have been denied consular access to him.

Li’s secret sentencing has drawn comparisons to the 2015 disappearances of five Hong Kong booksellers, who were abducted and secretly charged for distributing banned political literature. Lam Wing-kee, one of the five, who was given temporary leave to return to Hong Kong and fled from there to Taiwan where he resettled, commented on Li’s situation: “From the perspective of mainland China, they believe you’re from where you were born. Li published books in Taiwan that violated the laws of his own country.”

According to Taiwan’s Mainland Affairs Council, at least 15 Taiwanese citizens have been detained or put on trial in China since July 2024, and another 51 have been interrogated by border officials. Analysts warn that China’s recent expansion of its Anti-Espionage Law and Law on Guarding State Secrets show a wider effort to punish people who speak out, suppress freedom of speech in Taiwan, and stop Chinese-speaking writers globally from expressing critical views.

From JURIST, April 9. Used with permission.

Image: Gusa Publishing 

Listen on SoundCloud or via Patreon.

Production by Chris Rywalt

We ask listeners to support us at one of our three tiers via Patreon: Become a Basic Subscriber for just $1 per weekly podcast ($5 per month), or a Special Supporter for $2 per podcast ($10 per month), or a Major Rant Enabler for $5 per podcast ($25 per month). We now have 70 paid subscribers. If you appreciate our work, please become Number 71!

Photo of Seoul protests via Twitter

The case stems from pro-democracy activists’ efforts beginning in January 2020 to gain a majority in Hong Kong’s Legislative Council. Their goal was to pressure the government to meet five demands: withdrawing a pending bill to ease extradition to mainland China, stopping the labeling of protests as “riots,” dropping charges against activists, investigating police brutality, and implementing universal suffrage for Legislative Council and chief executive elections. In June 2020, Beijing imposed a National Security Law (NSL), broadly viewed as a means of stifling the ongoing protests. Hong Kong has in recent decades operated under a unique framework that grants it congertain autonomy from mainland China’s political system, an arrangement stemming from its 156-year history as a British colony before its 1997 handover to Chinese sovereignty.

Despite the NSL’s enactment, pro-democracy activists in Hong Kong proceeded with a primary election in July 2020, aiming to secure a majority of seats in Hong Kong’s Legislative Council. The unofficial election drew over 600,000 voters—about 13% of registered voters in the Special Administrative Region. Ultimately, the legislative council election was postponed, with local officials citing public health concerns related to the COVID-19 pandemic. Shortly thereafter, dozens of the primary’s organizers were arrested. The subsequent prosecution of these activists marks one of the largest crackdowns on Hong Kong’s opposition under the NSL.

In May, the court convicted 14 of 16 democracy activists of conspiring to commit subversion under Article 22(3) of the NSL. The court concluded that the defendants, together with 29 other activists who pleaded guilty, agreed to a scheme to gain a controlling majority in the 2020 Legislative Council election and force then-chief executive Carrie Lam to resign under Article 52 of the Basic Law. The scheme came following the series of protests against the now-withdrawn extradition bill.

In imposing th sentences, the court first noted that it did not accept the improbability of the activists’ goals as a mitigating factor, holding that all defendants “had put in every endeavor to make it a success.” The court also took into account conduct that took place before the enactment of the 2020 NSL to assess the seriousness of the plan and the role of each defendant. However, the court emphasized that it did not sentence the defendants for their pre-NSL conduct.

In addition, the court highlighted the seriousness of the crime, stating that if the scheme had been carried out, it would have caused “far-reaching consequences no less serious than overthrowing the Government of the HKSAR.”

However, the court did accept that “ignorance of the law” was a mitigating factor for some defendants, as they were repeatedly reassured by “Benny” Tai Yiu-ting, a sympathetic lawyer, that the primary election was lawful.

Having set out the sentencing principles, the court categorized the defendants into “principal offenders” and “active participants.” The court found “Benny” Tai Yiu-ting, a former associate law professor at Hong Kong University, to be the initiator and organizer of the primary election and therefore one of the “principal offenders.” The court imposed 10 years of imprisonment, with a starting point of 15 years and a one-third discount for the timely plea. The court gave the other three “principal offenders”–Au Nok-hin, Chiu Ka-yin Andrew and Chung Kam-lun–further reductions for giving evidence at the trial, their “ignorance of the law,” and previous community contribution. Accordingly, they received 81, 84 and 73 months of imprisonment, respectively.

Regarding “active participants,” the court further distinguished between primary election candidates and those who took a more proactive role in persuading others. For instance, the initiators of the “Inked Without Regret” declaration–Leung Fong-wai Fergus, Cheung Ho-sum, and Chow Ka-shing–and the former Civic Party leader Yeung Alvin Ngok-kiu were all set to be sentenced at a starting point of 96 months, with the final sentence ranging between 59 and 93 months, varied by different mitigating factors. The starting point of other primary election candidates was set at between 50 and 84 months. Student leader Josua Wong, already imprisoned on other charges, received 54 months (four years and eight months) behind bars.

Responding to the court’s ruling, Secretary for Security Chris Tang Ping-keung said the sentence signaled to the public that serious crimes undermining national security will not be tolerated. Tang also affirmed that the Department of Justice is still considering whether to appeal the acquittal of defendants Lau Wai-chung and Lee Yue-shun.

From Jurist, Nov. 19. Used with permission.

See our last reports on the Hong Kong 47 and the National Security Law.

Image: HKDC