Joshua Wong’s national security case has been transferred to a higher court, where the pro-democracy activist faces up to life imprisonment, following the conclusion of committal proceedings.

Wong appeared at the West Kowloon Magistrates’ Courts on Thursday morning to face a charge of conspiring to commit foreign collusion, a crime under the Beijing-imposed national security law.

He was arrested in June last year while in jail. Wong is currently serving a four-year-and-eight-month jail sentence for his involvement in another national security case relating to election primaries in 2020, in which he pleaded guilty.

In the present case, the 29-year-old stands accused of conspiring with self-exiled activist Nathan Law and “other persons unknown” between July 1 and November 23, 2020, to request foreign countries, organisations, or individuals based overseas to impose sanctions, blockades or engage in other hostile activities against Hong Kong or China.

Law, who now lives in the UK, and Wong, along with other former student activists, co-founded pro-democracy political party Demosisto, which was disbanded hours after China’s legislature passed the national security law on June 30, 2020.

Magistrate Victor So said in August last year that Wong’s case would be transferred from the magistrate’s court to the High Court, where the maximum penalty is life imprisonment. At the magistrate’s court, the maximum penalty is two years, or three years when a defendant faces more than one offence.

Since then, Wong has appeared at a number of hearings related to the committal of the case to the High Court.

Under court reporting laws, media reports relating to procedures involving the transfer of cases from the magistrate’s court to the High Court are severely restricted.

Reports cannot publicise the contents of the procedures, and can only describe information such as the names of defendants, judges and lawyers, and information on the charges.

Wong has been remanded since November 2020, when he was detained in an unauthorised assembly case linked to the anti-extradition protests and unrest in 2019.

Beijing inserted national security legislation directly into Hong Kong’s mini-constitution in June 2020 following a year of pro-democracy protests and unrest. It criminalised subversion, secession, collusion with foreign forces and terrorist acts – broadly defined to include disruption to transport and other infrastructure. 

The move gave police sweeping new powers and led to hundreds of arrests amid new legal precedents, while dozens of civil society groups disappeared. The authorities say it restored stability and peace to the city, rejecting criticism from trade partners, the UN and NGOs.

What role the Legislative Council (LegCo) should play in our executive-led system continues to spark controversy.  Lawmakers themselves are discussing the issue, which is a healthy sign. 

Central authorities have also spoken indirectly on LegCo’s role.

On January 26, the Hong Kong and Macau Affairs Office head Xia Baolong pointed out that executive-led government in Hong Kong means that each branch – executive, legislative, and judicial – performs its “own role and cooperates and coordinates with each other.”

According to Article 64 of the Basic Law, LegCo’s role includes holding the government to account. This means asking questions, asking for justification of government action, investigating government actions and inactions, and, when necessary, sanctioning government officials for policy failures.

According to the Powers and Privileges Ordinance (Cap 382), enacted in 1985, with the select and investigation committee system, as well as the system of policy panels, LegCo has the capacity to fulfil its “own role.”

It is precisely how to understand LegCo’s “own role” that has sparked controversy.

First, may LegCo use the tools it has to hold the government to account? The central authorities have condemned the way the opposition in LegCo used these tools after 2010. They call it abuse, citing filibustering and other tactics that delayed legislation.

The record is clear: the fourth- and fifth-term Legislative Councils passed far fewer bills than either before or after. The sixth-term LegCo was heading in the same direction until the government disqualified some opposition lawmakers, and most of the rest resigned.  

Moreover, both the central and the city’s authorities accuse the opposition of abusing LegCo’s powers to investigate, and to summon and inquire – precisely those powers legislators still have and need to hold the government to account.

In this view, the abuse dates from after 2010 when the opposition and representatives of the central government negotiated a deal over political reform in Hong Kong. It has been downhill ever since, according to Beijing. 

From 1985 to 2010, LegCo convened six select or investigation committees, which focused on issues of public concern: the Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC) operations and staff loyalty, the chaotic Chek Lap Kok airport opening, short piling in public housing, SARS, misselling Lehman-Brothers minibonds, and conflicts of interest in the post-retirement employment of civil servants.

The result: the government changed course and made improvements in public policy.

For example, authorities introduced the Principal Officials Accountability System (POAS) in 2002, which is still with us today. LegCo’s work and the results of an expert committee investigation on the SARS outbreak in 2003-04 better prepared us for the Covid-19 pandemic in 2020. These positive results are undeniable. 

Even in the post-2010 period, pressure from LegCo to investigate sometimes had positive results. In 2015, for example, responding to public concern expressed in the legislature, the government established a commission of inquiry into lead in drinking water in some public housing estates. Again, the government changed course. 

Second, authorities tell us that executive-led government means that LegCo and the executive should “cooperate” and “coordinate.” Does this mean that legislators may not criticise government policy? Reporting indicates that many LegCo members perceive this to be the case. 

Remember Chief Executive John Lee’s harsh rebuke of LegCo member Paul Tse’s criticism of government policy in the first “patriots-only” seventh-term LegCo? The chief executive deemed such criticism “dangerous,” similar to the “soft resistance” of the much-criticised opposition and must be “stamped out.”

The few government critics in the seventh-term LegCo all left the body in 2025. 

More recently, consider the Hospital Authority’s (HA) rebuke after LegCo members Gary Chan, Rebecca Chan, and David Lam expressed concerns that residents might not have collected their HA-provided medication because of increased charges. (A sidenote: Rebecca Chan served as a political assistant in the Food and Health Bureau from 2012 to 2017.)

The legislators drew attention to the very figure disclosed by the Health Bureau: that 26,000 public hospital prescriptions were uncollected after the new fee regime was introduced in January. However, rather than listening and investigating, the HA said the remarks were “untruthful.”

The government apparently prefers to send legislators “warm reminders” on many issues of public concern, in effect telling them to shut up. Precisely because no lawmaker spoke up when LegCo deliberated the bus seatbelt issue in September 2025, the policy resulted in a fiasco. 

The public needs a legislature that is engaged, open, and responsibly critical of government action – this is the minimum required to perform its “own role.”

Of course, LegCo should cooperate and coordinate with the government, but to do so should not compromise the legislature’s “own role.”  

Hong Kong needs a middle way for LegCo – somewhere between the dysfunction seen from the 2014 Umbrella Movement through the 2019 protests and a rubber stamp.

We have experienced a middle way, for example, from 1985 to at least 2010.

At the time, as noted above, LegCo investigations played an important role in improving public policy. Hong Kong people value this kind of LegCo role. It benefits the government and the community, building trust and legitimacy. 

Authorities should trust their own gatekeeping in selecting patriotic LegCo members. Many LegCo members seem to understand that they should play a more active role.

The government should realise that it cannot do everything alone. Effective governance is co-produced.

Authorities need to recognise the legitimacy of a middle way, a more authentic role for LegCo. We will all benefit.

The landmark trial of Tiananmen vigil activists neared its conclusion in May, with both defendants and prosecutors delivering their closing submissions.

The government allocated more money to the national security fund and lashed out at Reporters Without Borders (RSF) after the NGO once again placed Hong Kong low on its annual press freedom index.

Trial of Tiananmen vigil activists

The national security trial of Tiananmen vigil activists Chow Hang-tung and Lee Cheuk-yan heard closing arguments from the defendants and the prosecution. Lee and Chow were leaders of the now-defunct Hong Kong Alliance in Support of Patriotic Democratic Movements of China.

Lee’s defence lawyer, Erik Shum, spoke before a three-judge panel on May 18, urging the court not to merely “pay lip service” to human rights protections.

He argued that calls to “end one-party rule” in China should be considered legitimate political expression.

Lee, Chow, and the Alliance are facing a charge of “inciting subversion,” an offence under the Beijing-imposed national security law, over the group’s calls to end one-party rule in China during decades of candlelight vigils commemorating the 1989 Tiananmen crackdown. The offence carries a maximum penalty of 10 years behind bars.

The Alliance had never proposed an “action plan” to mobilise supporters to topple the CCP, the lawyer said. “In the past 30 years, there has been no evidence showing that any person acted under the Alliance’s specific instruction,” Shum said in Cantonese.

In his closing submission, prosecutor Ned Lai argued the Alliance’s calls had exceeded the legitimate boundary of freedom of expression as the defendants intended to stoke hatred against Beijing.

“We say that their behaviour had crossed the line,” he said in Cantonese. “Freedom is not absolute.”

Chow, a barrister who represents herself in the trial, delivered her closing arguments on May 19.

She urged the court to safeguard the “dignity and bottom line of the law” and warned the judges not to become “accomplices” in an alleged government crackdown on free speech.

Chow said the crux of the case was whether the law protects the “perpetual rule” of the CCP or the rights of people to advocate democracy.

“Ending one-party rule means putting an end to the status quo, in which those in power are not bound by the law,” she said in Cantonese.

Senior counsel Priscilia Lam, representing the Alliance, argued the prosecution had not been able to present evidence of the group’s alleged incitement to subversion.

“What did the Alliance do to incite people to subvert state power?” Lam said in Cantonese. “I have heard nothing on this after sitting here for so long.”

The Alliance disbanded in 2021 after authorities banned the vigil for two years, citing Covid-19 restrictions, and arrested its leadership on national security allegations. Chow and Lee have been behind bars since September 2021.

Another defendant, former lawmaker Albert Ho, pleaded guilty when the trial opened in January.

The three-judge panel said they hope to deliver a verdict in “mid or late July.”

Gov’t reacts to UK trial conviction

The Hong Kong government denied any link to a high-profile UK court case after its trade officer was convicted of spying on overseas activists.

“From the outset, the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (HKSAR) Government has been clearly stating that the allegations in this case are absolutely not related to the HKSAR Government and the Hong Kong Economic and Trade Office in London (London ETO), nor are we party to the case,” a government statement sent to the media on May 8.

The statement was issued a day after Bill Yuen, an office manager at the Hong Kong Economic and Trade Office in London, and former UK Border Force official Peter Wai were found guilty under Britain’s national security laws of assisting a foreign intelligence service.

Yuen and Wai – both British-Chinese dual nationals – were accused of spying on Hong Kong pro-democracy activists living in Britain.

Among those the pair were said to have surveilled was Nathan Law, who is wanted by Hong Kong’s national security police with a bounty of HK$1,000,000.

Wanted activist arrested in Thailand

Hong Kong authorities declined to comment on reports that an activist wanted by the city’s national security police could face deportation to China after being arrested in Thailand for allegedly overstaying her visa.

Responding to media queries about concerns that wanted activist Zhang Xinyan could be transferred to China, the Security Bureau said on May 11 that it would not comment on news reports about law enforcement actions in other jurisdictions.

“Endangering national security is an extremely serious crime… no fugitive should harbour the illusion that they can evade criminal liability by fleeing Hong Kong,” the bureau said in a statement.

Zhang, 54, is wanted by Hong Kong’s national security police for allegedly committing subversion, a crime under Article 23 – also known as the city’s homegrown national security law.

She is among a group of 19 activists named in a round of arrest warrants issued in July 2025, with bounties between HK$200,000 and HK$1 million.

From February to June 2025, they were allegedly involved in the “Hong Kong Parliament,” a group of overseas activists who held unofficial polls outside the city to form a shadow legislature to “pursue the ideal of Hong Kong people ruling Hong Kong.”

According to Human Rights Watch, Zhang holds refugee status issued by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR).

New allocation for national security fund

The Hong Kong government allocated an additional HK$5 billion to a national security special fund.

The government unveiled the funding on May 15, when it gazetted the government accounts for the fiscal year 2025-26.

It was the third allocation for national security since Beijing imposed the national security law in Hong Kong in June 2020.

The special fund was established the same year. It received an initial allocation of HK$8 billion in December 2020 and an additional HK$5 billion in the financial year ending March 31, 2023.

The latest allocation thus brought the total amount to HK$18 billion.

In response to Ming Pao’s enquiry, the Financial Secretary’s Office said authorities will not disclose details of the funding, citing Article 14 of the national security law. It did not respond to whether the previous HK$13 billion funding had been depleted.

Worsening press freedom, FCC survey finds

Two out of three journalists say the working environment in Hong Kong has changed “for the worse” in the past year, according to the latest survey by the Foreign Correspondents’ Club, released on May 11.

The 2026 FCC Press Freedom Survey, which received 78 responses from members, found that “67 per cent of respondents said the working environment for them as a journalist had changed for the worse in the last 12 months.”

The FCC pointed out that the survey “happened to take place” after Apple Daily founder Jimmy Lai was convicted and sentenced to jail, as well as Beijing’s national security office in Hong Kong, the Office for Safeguarding National Security (OSNS), summoned representatives of several major foreign media outlets, shortly following the deadly Wang Fuk Court fire.

One respondent said that the warning by the OSNS to foreign journalists “should be seen as a watershed moment here in Hong Kong. It has created an increased chilling effect.”

Another respondent said that the 20-year sentence handed down to Lai “only further chills the local reporting environment.”

Gov’t reacts to RSF press freedom index

The Hong Kong government and the Legislative Council (LegCo) condemned Reporters Without Borders (RSF) in early May after the city was ranked low in the NGO’s annual press freedom index.

They also hit out after German public broadcaster Deutsche Welle (DW) awarded Lai, the jailed media tycoon, a press freedom prize on April 30.

In RSF’s 2026 global press freedom index, released on April 30, Hong Kong was ranked 140th out of 180 countries and territories – the same position as last year. The press freedom NGO highlighted the 20-year sentence handed down to Lai, who was convicted last year under the security law.

In response, the Hong Kong government issued a press release on May 1. It said that it “strongly condemned the attempts by an anti-China organisation and foreign media to sugarcoat the criminal acts of national security offender [Jimmy] Lai Chee-ying and to slander, smear, as well as attack the HKSAR by releasing a so-called press freedom index and presenting a so-called ‘award’. Such despicable behaviours totally disregarded the rule of law and twisted the facts, which must be strongly condemned.”

In a separate statement on the same day, the LegCo Secretariat said it “strongly condemned the release of a so-called press freedom index by a foreign media organisation and presentation of a so-called award to the national security offender Lai Chee-ying to sugarcoat his criminal acts, and smear the press freedom and rule of law” in Hong Kong.

RSF’s Aleksandra Bielakowska – who was denied entry to the city in 2024 – responded to the Hong Kong authorities.

“To make it clear once again: defending journalism is not ‘anti-China’; it is pro–press freedom,” she said on May 2. “At RSF, we stand arm in arm with Hong Kong journalists. We will not be intimidated and we continue supporting all media in Hong Kong, with the hope that one day we will see positive change and that the city will return to its golden years as an exemplar and beacon of press freedom.”

3 charged over alleged weapons training

Three people were charged with conspiracy to commit subversion after they were arrested by national security police over alleged illegal weapons training last year.

Students Wong Kit-lun, 20, and Tang Ngai-pok, 23, as well as waiter Chan Hiu-chun, 23, appeared at West Kowloon Magistrates’ Courts on May 15.

The trio stood in the dock beside Gallian Pang and Lee Chun-sum, who were also charged with conspiring to subvert state power – an offence under the Beijing-imposed national security law – on December 15.

The five men are among a group of 10 people – nine men and one woman – arrested on December 11 and 12 for alleged “unlawful drilling” – an offence under the Safeguarding National Security Ordinance, the homegrown national security law, also known as Article 23. The arrests marked the first time authorities had invoked the unlawful drilling offence.

Last month, the prosecution accused Wong, Tang and Chan of conspiring with Pang, Lee and “other persons unknown between November 1, 2024, and December 11, 2025, to organise, plan, commit or participate in acts to subvert the state power.”

Wong faced an additional charge of possession of child pornography, an offence under the Prevention of Child Pornography Ordinance.

The prosecution also charged Lee with allegedly possessing explosives and radio communications apparatus without a licence.

Prosecution and arrests figures

As of May 1, a total of 399 people have been arrested for “cases involving suspected acts or activities that endanger national security” since Beijing’s national security law came into effect, according to the Security Bureau. That figure includes those arrested under Article 23 and for other offences.

Of the 208 people and five companies that have so far been charged, 181 people and four companies have been convicted or are awaiting sentencing.

In total, 100 people and four companies have been charged under Beijing’s national security law, with 79 persons and three companies convicted. Thirteen people have been charged under Article 23, 11 of whom have been convicted.

The Hong Kong government has proposed allowing the chief executive to certify any criminal act as a national security case, in a legal update that would be binding on the courts.

New subsidiary legislation under Article 23 – Hong Kong’s homegrown national security ordinance – will empower the city’s leader to certify “other offences endangering national security under the law of the HKSAR,” according to a proposal submitted to the Legislative Council (LegCo) on Monday by the Security Bureau and the Department of Justice.

The government proposed that the subsidiary legislation would be enacted through a “negative vetting” procedure, allowing it to be gazetted before being tabled at LegCo for scrutiny. It cited a “complicated geopolitical landscape” for the update.

The “legislative intent” of the Beijing-imposed national security law, which came into effect on June 30, 2020, is that offences endangering national security include not only the four types of offences under the Beijing-imposed national security law but also “other offences endangering national security under the law of the HKSAR,” the government’s proposal said.

The chief executive is already empowered to issue certificates to decide whether an act involves national security, but the new subsidiary legislation aims to “bring greater certainty” to the courts. There will no longer be room to debate whether an ordinary crime could face national security procedures when a certificate is issued.

Plus, later offences connected to an act classified as a national security offence would also face national security procedures, under the new plan.

“The subsidiary legislation does not involve the creation of any new criminal offence, penalty or enforcement power,” the document said.

‘Any act’ can be reclassified

Under the proposal, the chief executive will be granted the power to declare that any act involved in a criminal offence case concerns national security. The leader may then issue a certificate: “[T]hen the case is a case concerning [an] offence endangering national security” under the Beijing-imposed national security law or Article 23,” the proposal says.

“If a person is charged with any offence endangering national security, and is charged with or convicted of any alternative offence in respect of the same act in the same case, such alternative offence is also an offence endangering national security.”

Once a case, or an offence, is certified as endangering national security, the procedures stipulated in Article 23 or the national security law for handling such cases will be applicable.

The national security law allows handpicked judges and closed-door hearings for national security cases, trials without juries, and a higher bar for bail.

The Panel on Security and the Panel on Administration of Justice and Legal Services will hold a joint meeting later on Monday to discuss the proposed subsidiary legislation.

Ming Pao reported on Sunday that some lawmakers were notified that such a meeting would be held the following day.

The US consulate in Hong Kong displayed commemorative candles in its windows on the 37th anniversary of the Tiananmen crackdown on Thursday, while other diplomatic missions paid tribute with social media posts.

The annual move is often blasted by local and Chinese authorities, and has been cited by Beijing as “evidence” of foreign interference in a 6,300-word “fact sheet.”

Hundreds, perhaps thousands, died when the People’s Liberation Army cracked down on protesters around Beijing’s Tiananmen Square in 1989.

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 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. Its leaders were arrested and are currently on trial.

Currently occupying Victoria Park – historically the site of Hong Kong’s vigils – is a five-day patriotic carnival organised by pro-Beijing groups.

Diplomatic commemorations

Earlier on Thursday, Britain’s embassy in China shared a social media post featuring an animation with scenes from the bloody crackdown. It was shared without commentary.

The British consulate in Hong Kong posted a reel of a mobile phone held aloft with its torch on, apparently referencing the candlelit vigils.

Washington’s mission in Beijing shared a quote from US Secretary of State Marco Rubio stating: “Those who sacrificed to uphold their unalienable rights of free expression and peaceful assembly will be vindicated someday.”

In response, China’s Foreign Ministry spokesperson Mao Ning said Beijing had “long since reached a clear conclusion regarding that political turmoil that occurred in the late 1980s.”

The Canadian consulate in Hong Kong shared a Facebook post, which read: “Today, Canadians honour the memory of all who lost their lives, were injured or went missing during the Tiananmen Square crackdown on June 4, 1989. Canada stands with the survivors and the families and loved ones who continue to demand accountability.”

Meanwhile, the Australian consulate in Hong Kong shared on Facebook a photo of candles and a statement reading: “Today, we stand with communities worldwide in remembering those who lost their lives at Tiananmen Square on 4 June 1989. Australia remains steadfast in its commitment to upholding human rights, including freedom of association, of expression, and of political participation.”

In June 2019, then-leader Carrie Lam said that the city’s annual vigils were “proof that Hong Kong is a free place.”

A Hong Kong court is now hearing a landmark trial of the Alliance and two vigil leaders, Chow Hang-tung and  Lee Cheuk-yan. They are accused of “inciting subversion” under the national security law, an offence that carries a maximum penalty of 10 years behind bars. 

Another vigil leader – Albert Ho – pleaded guilty when the trial opened in January.

The Hong Kong government has appointed a former top police officer to head the Food and Environmental Hygiene Department.

The government said in a Monday statement that Albert Yuen, who served as Deputy Commissioner of Police (Operations) from 2021 to 2023, was “identified as the most suitable candidate.” His appointment took effect on Tuesday.

Yuen was previously appointed as an advisor to the FEHD for a year in November 2023.

Secretary for the Civil Service Ingrid Yeung was quoted as saying that Yuen has “extensive experience in public administration and law enforcement, and possesses outstanding leadership and management capabilities.”

“I am confident that under his leadership, the Food and Environmental Hygiene Department will continue with its reforms to provide public services, perform regulatory functions and meet future challenges with innovation and excellence,” Yeung added.

‘Political acumen’

The government said during its February recruitment exercise that the head of the FEHD should have “strong political acumen to manage political sensitivities adeptly,” with knowledge and experience in law enforcement work preferred.

Yuen’s appointment comes about a year after the FEHD began including national security-related clauses under the Public Health and Municipal Services Ordinance.

Restaurant licences can now be revoked if licence holders and “related persons” engage in “offending conduct” against national security or the public interest.

Three other senior appointments were also announced on Monday. Maisie Chan, formerly Commissioner for the Development of the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area, will take up the post of Director-General of Communications on July 2.

Ann Chan, Deputy Secretary for Financial Services and the Treasury, will take up the post of Commissioner for Tourism on June 25.

Deputy Director of Food and Environmental Hygiene Arsene Yiu will take up the directorship of the Hong Kong government’s Beijing Office on June 29.

Top cops

Yuen is the latest in a line of former police officers to take up office in government departments. In May, John Tse, who served as chief superintendent of the police force’s public relations branch, took up office as head of the Information Services Department (ISD).

The position, also advertised in February, called for “strong intellectual ability, political acumen, interpersonal and communication skills, strategic thinking and leadership skills, [and] the acumen to embrace changes and challenges.”

The most prominent example is city leader John Lee, an ex-police officer who served as security minister during the 2019 protests and unrest. He became chief secretary in 2021, and was later elected unopposed as chief executive in a single-candidate poll the following year.

Secretary for Security Chris Tang entered government directly after serving as head of the police force. He remains in the position after replacing Lee in 2021.

Meanwhile, Michael Cheuk was in the police force for 38 years before retiring in 2020 – but he was brought back from retirement to serve as under secretary for security a year later. And Warner Cheuk, the deputy chief secretary for administration, also had a brief career in the police force in the 1980s.

The Hong Kong government has allocated an additional HK$5 billion to a national security special fund, bringing the total amount to HK$18 billion.

The funding is the third allocation for national security since Beijing imposed the national security law in Hong Kong in June 2020.

The government unveiled the funding on Friday, when it gazetted the government accounts for the fiscal year 2025-26.

It showed a HK$5 billion allocation for non-recurrent expenditure as special funding for safeguarding national security.

Hong Kong established the special fund in 2020 to finance expenses related to safeguarding national security after the national security law took effect in June that year.

It received an initial allocation of HK$8 billion in December 2020 and an additional HK$5 billion in the financial year ending March 31, 2023.

The latest allocation thus brought the total amount to HK$18 billion.

In response to Ming Pao’s enquiry, the Financial Secretary’s Office said authorities will not disclose details of the funding, citing Article 14 of the national security law. It did not respond to whether the previous HK$13 billion funding had been depleted.

According to Article 14 of the national security law, no institution, organisation, nor
individual in Hong Kong shall interfere with the work of the Committee for Safeguarding National Security, and information relating to its work shall not be subject to disclosure.

The government said in July that it would not disclose any details of the special fund in a report to the legislature on the control and management of the special fund, citing the same article of the national security law.

It said authorities had established “a dedicated accounting and financial unit” in the secretariat of the Committee for Safeguarding National Security.

“The unit, which reports directly to the [financial secretary], is responsible for the revenue and expenditure arrangements and financial matters relating to such work,” the government said.

The Department of Justice (DoJ) has sought to overturn former pro-democracy lawmaker Lam Cheuk-ting’s acquittal on a charge of perverting the course of justice related to an incident during the 2019 protests and unrest.

Government prosecutors told the Court of Appeal on Thursday that Lam had the intent to pervert the course of justice by demanding that a person, referred to as “X,” delete photos of protesters at a march in July 2019.

The DoJ is also seeking to overturn acquittals for Lam’s co-defendants: former InMedia journalist Ronnie Tsang, 28, and social worker Aggie Chung, 39.

According to case details read out in previous hearings, Lam and Tsang were accused of committing acts with the intention to pervert the course of justice by asking X to delete from his phone photos showing the faces of protesters who might have committed criminal offences that day.

Tsang was also charged with unlawful assembly and later jailed for 13 months, while Chung was charged with access to a computer with dishonest intent and criminal damage for accessing X’s phone and deleting photos. However, Chung was later acquitted after the prosecution failed to prove dishonest intent.

Intention to pervert course of justice

Assistant Director of Public Prosecutions Ivan Cheung argued on Thursday that the District Court’s January 2023 ruling that Lam had no intention to pervert the course of justice was “counterintuitive,” online news outlet The Witness reported.

Cheung presented to the court a video of the exchange, in which Lam said that “what matters now is to delete the photos with protesters’ faces.”

Although Lam verbally said that he wanted to help X leave the scene, he could also have harboured an intent to pervert the course of justice, Cheung told the three appeal judges.

X had previously testified that Lam did not force him to delete the photos and that he agreed the lawmaker was mediating the situation.

The prosecutor said the lower court erred in finding that Lam had no intent to pervert the course of justice.

However, Judge Derek Pang said on Thursday that it was impossible to conclude that Lam had that intent, while Judge Judianna Barnes said Lam’s actions did not necessarily suggest his intent.

In response to Cheung’s argument that the three defendants invited suspicion upon themselves by being present at a protest, Pang said that this was not a rioting or unlawful assembly case, adding that he could not understand how suspicion could be inferred.

Barrister Erik Shum, representing Lam, noted that the lower court found no connection between Lam’s actions and any existing or potential legal proceedings. The prosecution at trial also failed to specify any crimes or legal proceedings, he said.

Lam’s acquittal could not be overturned if the prosecution failed to prove whether he had interfered with legal proceedings or had any intention to do so, Shum said.

A Hong Kong man who threw anti-government leaflets from his public housing flat has been sentenced to 10 months in prison after pleading guilty to committing seditious acts.

Raymond Wong appeared at the West Kowloon Magistrates’ Court on Tuesday to receive a 10-month jail sentence handed down by Chief Magistrate Victor So for two counts of “doing with a seditious intention an act or acts that had a seditious intention,” local media reported.

Wong, a 55-year-old construction worker, admitted to throwing the leaflets from his unit in On Tat Estate, Kwun Tong, on two occasions in October 2024 and December 2025.

He was arrested in April, and the following month, he pleaded guilty to the charges –  an offence under Hong Kong’s homegrown national security law, also known as Article 23.

In mitigation, he apologised to his girlfriend and his daughter, as their public housing unit would be reclaimed by the government due to his offence.

Citing a psychological report, Wong’s lawyers said that the defendant did not know how to control the resentment that had built up from losing his full-time job after the 2019 protests and the Covid-19 pandemic.

‘Premeditated and planned’

Noting that the leaflets were thrown after National Day two years ago and before last year’s Legislative Council (LegCo) elections, Magistrate So said that Wong’s actions were “premeditated and planned to some degree.”

On October 2, 2024, Kwun Tong district councillor Hsu Yau-wai reported 41 sheets of paper to the police after finding them on the podium of Lai Tat House at the estate. The papers had slogans on them saying “kill police” and derogatory remarks about mainland Chinese people.

On December 5 last year, two days ahead of the “patriots only” LegCo polls, a property manager found papers scattered near that same area, with written slogans such as “Liberate Hong Kong, do not vote.”

Wong’s lawyers said on Tuesday that his methods were “primitive” and had limited impact compared with online posts.

So said he accepted the defence’s argument but pointed out that Wong explicitly incited people to kill police officers, mainland Chinese, and government officials.

Wong incited enmity towards the police and referred to mainland residents with “derogatory” and “dehumanising” language, and his use of the slogan “Liberate Hong Kong,” considered secessionist under Beijing’s national security law in Hong Kong, also challenged national sovereignty, the magistrate added.

Calls to boycott the LegCo polls also amounted to an effort to undermine public confidence in the city’s electoral system, So said.

The turnout for last year’s polls was the second-lowest on record, at 31.9 per cent. Beijing overhauled the city’s electoral system in 2021 to ensure that only those deemed patriotic enough can run.

The move reduced democratic representation in the legislature, tightened control of elections and introduced requirements for candidates to obtain nominations from a small circle of political elites.

Several photojournalists, who were covering the protests outside Delaney Hall, have alleged that they were purposely targeted and attacked by some ICE agents.

[Read More]

Hong Kong police took away seven people in Causeway Bay, where past public commemorations for China’s 1989 Tiananmen crackdown were once held, on Thursday, the 37th anniversary of the event.

Police said late on Thursday that five men and two women, aged 17 to 79, were stopped by officers on suspicion of “disrupting order” near Great George Street and East Point Road in Causeway Bay.

They were taken away from the scene for further investigation and were released later, according to police.

“The police force will act according to threats to national security, public safety, and public order,” they added.

Activists and members of the public defied a heavy police deployment at and around Victoria Park, the former site of the city’s annual Tiananmen vigils, as they showed up in Causeway Bay on Thursday to mark the 1989 crackdown.

In Pictures: Activists stopped near ex-vigil site amid large police deployment on Tiananmen crackdown anniversary

Chan Po-ying, chairperson of the now-defunct League of Social Democrats, a pro-democracy party, arrived in Causeway Bay holding a yellow paper flower. She was quickly told by police at the scene to put away the flower and was later taken away in a police vehicle.

A young man in a black T-shirt was intercepted by police after he put on a blindfold and used a red marker pen to write on his arm outside the Sogo department store at around 7.15pm.

The man was driven away in a police van. He was also taken away from Victoria Park by law enforcement during the Tiananmen crackdown anniversaries over the past two years.

HKFP saw two other men taken away in a police van: a man holding a candle and another man sitting cross-legged on the ground outside the Sogo department store.

Police also took away a woman gesturing “six” and “four” with her hands, local media reported.

For the fourth consecutive year, on the day of the crackdown anniversary, a patriotic food carnival was being held in Victoria Park, at the same spot where hundreds of thousands of people attended the Tiananmen vigils. The carnival will run until Sunday.

Some people walked around the park to remember the crackdown and the past vigils. A 70-year-old man surnamed Tin told HKFP it was a “pity” that Hong Kong has lost its tolerance for public commemoration on June 4 – the date of the 1989 crackdown.

Compared with previous years, police officers appeared more relaxed on Thursday, patrolling the park and its vicinity in smaller groups and conducting fewer searches than before.

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.

Leaders of the Hong Kong Alliance in Support of Patriotic Democratic Movements of China, the group that organised the vigils for decades, are standing trial for “inciting subversion” under the national security law. They face up to 10 years behind bars if convicted.

A verdict is expected in July.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio was due Wednesday in Beijing with President Donald Trump despite being under sanctions from China, whose new approach to him has included changing how his name is written.

As a US senator, Rubio fiercely championed human rights in China, which retaliated by imposing sanctions on him twice — adopting a tactic more often used by the United States against adversaries.

China said Tuesday it would not block Rubio, now 54 and visiting China for the first time, from entering on Air Force One with Trump, the first US president to visit the Asian power in nearly a decade.

“The sanctions target Mr. Rubio’s words and deeds when he served as a US senator concerning China,” Chinese embassy spokesman Liu Pengyu said.

China had already appeared to find a diplomatic workaround after Trump named Rubio his secretary of state and national security advisor.

Shortly before he took office in January 2025, the Chinese government and official media began transliterating the first syllable of his surname with a different Chinese character for “lu.”

Two diplomats said they believed the change was an immediate way for China to avoid implementing its sanctions, as Rubio was banned from entering under the old spelling of his name.

A State Department official confirmed only that Rubio was traveling with Trump.

Rubio’s presence on Air Force One quickly drew online attention for another reason after the White House released a photo of him lounging in a Nike track suit of the sort worn by Venezuela’s ousted president Nicolas Maduro when US forces snatched him in January.

Rubio, a Cuban-American who vociferously opposes communism, was the key author of congressional legislation that imposed wide sanctions on China over the alleged use of forced labor by the mostly Muslim Uyghur minority, charges denied by Beijing.

He has also spoken out against Beijing’s clampdown in Hong Kong.

At his confirmation hearing as secretary of state, Rubio focused heavily on China, which he described as an unprecedented adversary.

But since taking office, Rubio has supported Trump who describes counterpart Xi Jinping as a friend and has focused on building a trade relationship while downplaying human rights.

Last year, however, Rubio brought relief to Taiwan when he said that the Trump administration would not negotiate over the self-governing democracy’s future to secure a trade deal with China.