Ex-local councillor asked by police about Tiananmen crackdown anniversary plans; lawmakers say marking date in private is lawful
Hong Kong Free Press
A former Hong Kong pro-democracy district councillor has said that she was asked by police about her plans on June 4, which will mark the 35th anniversary of the 1989 Tiananmen crackdown in Beijing. Meanwhile, a top government advisor has said commemorating the incident in private would not constitute an offence under the city’s domestic security law.
According to ex-Sai Kung district councillor and frequent runner Debby Chan, a police officer called her last week and asked if she was “going to run on June 4.” The officer was also said to have asked for details about any plans to go for a run on Tuesday, and whether there would be anything special about her run.
The Tiananmen crackdown occurred on June 4, 1989 ending months of student-led demonstrations in China. It is estimated that hundreds, perhaps thousands, died when the People’s Liberation Army cracked down on protesters in Beijing.
“Officer, we usually just run casually… what is so special about next Tuesday? Does it matter where I run? Isn’t it more odd for someone like me, who makes last-minute decisions, to schedule appoints so early?” Chan wrote on the Facebook page of her shop Sai Kung Store last Thursday.
She added the officer reminded her not to breach the national security law and not to “change the nature” of the healthy activity.
Article 23
Tuesday will mark the first Tiananmen crackdown anniversary since the city passed domestic security legislation, more commonly known as Article 23.
Police invoked the new law for the first time last week to arrest former Tiananmen vigil organiser Chow Hang-tung and six others over alleged sedition. They stand accused of using an “upcoming sensitive date” to incite hatred against the central and Hong Kong authorities through social media posts. Police made an eighth arrest in connection with the case on Monday.
Hong Kong used to be one of the few places on Chinese soil where annual vigils were held to commemorate the people who died in the 1989 crackdown. But police banned the gathering at Victoria Park for the first time in 2020 citing Covid-19 restrictions, and imposed the same ban in the following year.
No official commemoration has been held since the vigil organiser, the Hong Kong Alliance in Support of Patriotic Democratic Movements of China, disbanded in September 2021.
Occupying Victoria Park – historically the site of Hong Kong’s vigils – is a five-day patriotic carnival organised by 28 pro-Beijing groups.
Private commemoration
On Monday, lawmaker Doreen Kong, who is also a lawyer, told HKFP that no one could stop people from commemorating the Tiananmen crackdown at private premises. But people would face higher legal risks if they mourn in public, she said.
“You don’t know if chaos would ensue. You also cannot control what other people do… Some people may do something seditious. How would you know?” Kong told HKFP in Cantonese by phone on Monday.
Executive Council convenor and legislator Regina Ip told HKFP that people would risk committing the offence of “incitement to disaffection” or “acts with seditious intention” if they did something to incite hatred of the country or the established system in Hong Kong.
“If a person does anything in private without the intention of inciting hatred of the government, I don’t think an offence is committed,” she said.
She went on to say that some people had “preyed on the emotions of the people and weaponised June 4 commemorations” to stir up hatred against the central government. It was “high time” that such activities stopped, she said.
When asked if she would commemorate June 4, the top government advisor said: “I never commemorate June 4. I think there has been too much misunderstanding of June 4 due to political and media manipulation.”
ID check at bookstore
On Sunday, Hunter Bookstore, operated by pro-democracy former district councillor Leticia Wong, said that a team of police officers had visited the shop and alleged that chairs next to the entrance were blocking the street.
According to the bookstore, the seats were removed but the police officers remained and took down the personal details of individuals entering and leaving the shop.
The bookstore has displayed an installation with “35/5” in its shop window since last Thursday. May 35 is a euphemism referring to June 4.
Wong told HKFP on Monday that she asked an officer if police were concerned that there might be criminal activities in the neighbourhood. The officer replied “yes,” but said “I don’t have to explain myself to you” after the ex-district councillor asked what were the suspected crimes.
In response to HKFP’s enquiries, police said officers in the Sham Shui Po district saw a shop had put a sofa on the pedestrian road and issued a warning to the proprietor. Officers requested that the seating be removed as soon as possible, and took down the personal information of the proprietor.
Police did not respond to questions on whether personal details of the patrons were also recorded.
When asked if the police action was linked to the window display, Wong told HKFP she did not want to speculate.
“We don’t want to speculate whether it is related. But the issue of street obstruction is usually handled by the Food and Environmental Hygiene Department, why would it trouble the police to come?” she said in a phone interview in Cantonese.
Separate to the 2020 Beijing-enacted security law, the homegrown Safeguarding National Security Ordinance targets treason, insurrection, sabotage, external interference, sedition, theft of state secrets and espionage. It allows for pre-charge detention of to up to 16 days, and suspects’ access to lawyers may be restricted, with penalties involving up to life in prison. Article 23 was shelved in 2003 amid mass protests, remaining taboo for years. But, on March 23, 2024, it was enacted having been fast-tracked and unanimously approved at the city’s opposition-free legislature.
The law has been criticised by rights NGOs, Western states and the UN as vague, broad and “regressive.” Authorities, however, cited perceived foreign interference and a constitutional duty to “close loopholes” after the 2019 protests and unrest.
Support HKFP | Policies & Ethics | Error/typo? | Contact Us | Newsletter | Transparency & Annual Report | Apps
Help safeguard press freedom & keep HKFP free for all readers by supporting our team
