FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
WASHINGTON, September 2, 2026 — The Free China Movement condemns the continuing prosecution of Hong Kong democracy activist Joshua Wong, who pleaded guilty today in his second national-security case to conspiracy to collude with foreign forces. Wong is already serving a separate prison sentence. Sentencing in the new case remains pending.
The central issue is larger than one defendant or one guilty plea. The Mainland Chinese Communist Government promised that Hong Kong would retain a high degree of autonomy and fundamental freedoms after the 1997 handover. Those commitments are reflected in specific provisions of Hong Kong’s Basic Law.
Basic Law Article 27 expressly protects freedom of speech, of the press and publication, freedom of association, assembly, procession and demonstration, and the right and freedom to form and join trade unions and to strike.
Basic Law Article 28 provides that the freedom of the person of Hong Kong residents is inviolable and prohibits arbitrary or unlawful arrest, detention or imprisonment.
Basic Law Article 35 guarantees confidential legal advice, access to the courts, choice of lawyers, judicial remedies, and the right to bring proceedings against acts of executive authorities and their personnel.
Basic Law Article 39 provides that the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, and international labour conventions as applied to Hong Kong shall remain in force and be implemented through Hong Kong law. It further provides that restrictions on rights and freedoms must be prescribed by law and must not contravene the preceding paragraph.
The contradiction extends even to rights language contained in the Constitution of the People’s Republic of China. PRC Constitution Article 33 states that the state shall respect and protect human rights. Article 35 provides citizens with freedom of speech, the press, assembly, association, procession and demonstration. Article 41 recognizes the right of citizens to criticize and make suggestions regarding state organs and state employees, and to file complaints, charges or reports concerning violations of law or dereliction of duty.
These constitutional provisions do not make the PRC Constitution interchangeable with Hong Kong’s Basic Law. But they underscore a central contradiction: political expression and criticism are rights the PRC constitutional framework itself purports to recognize, even as national-security prosecutions are used against peaceful democratic advocacy in Hong Kong.
Lian Shengde, a leader of the Free China Movement, said:
“Joshua Wong did not betray Hong Kong’s constitutional order. The Mainland Chinese Communist Government betrayed its promises to Hong Kong. Articles 27 and 39 of the Basic Law put fundamental freedoms into Hong Kong’s constitutional framework, while Articles 33, 35 and 41 of the PRC Constitution itself purport to protect human rights, political expression and criticism of state authorities. Criminalizing peaceful democratic advocacy is not national security; it is political repression.”
“The defendant in the courtroom may be Joshua Wong, but the broken promises belong to Beijing.”
A Warning Dating Back to the 1997 Handover
The Free China Movement’s concern over Hong Kong did not begin with the present national-security prosecutions.
Lian recalls that around the 1997 handover, FCM circulated a Chinese-language flyer contrasting the end of colonial rule with the danger that Hong Kong’s more than six million Chinese compatriots would fall under Communist totalitarian control. He recalls the lower line of the flyer as:
“悲：六百多万中国同胞落入共产魔爪。”
Because the original scanned flyer has not yet been recovered and visually reverified, FCM records this wording as Lian Shengde’s recollection of the original text rather than as a photographically verified transcription.
Lian said:
“In 1997, we warned about what could happen when more than six million Chinese compatriots in Hong Kong passed from colonial rule into the control of a Communist totalitarian system. Nearly thirty years later, the prosecution of Joshua Wong shows why that warning mattered.”
At the time, Lian opposed transferring Hong Kong to the Chinese Communist regime and argued that, if sovereignty was to be returned to a Chinese government, Hong Kong should instead have been transferred to the Republic of China on Taiwan. This is identified here as Lian/FCM’s political position, not as a claim that the Sino-British arrangements legally required that outcome.
Why the Guilty Plea Does Not End the Issue
A guilty plea under a national-security statute does not by itself resolve the larger question of whether the statute and its application respect the freedoms Hong Kong residents were promised. Wong’s case should therefore be assessed not only by the formal charge, but also by the nature of the underlying conduct, the proportionality of punishment, due-process protections, and the cumulative effect of repeated prosecutions on peaceful political participation.
FCM calls on democratic governments, legislatures, international human-rights institutions and civil-society organizations to closely monitor Joshua Wong’s forthcoming sentencing; raise the cases of Hong Kong political prisoners directly in dealings with Beijing; defend freedom of expression, association and peaceful political participation; insist on transparency, due process and proportionality in national-security proceedings; and document whether Hong Kong’s constitutional rights commitments are being honored in practice.
Lian Shengde concluded:
“Hong Kong was promised freedom under the rule of law. When peaceful political advocacy is prosecuted as a threat to the state, the problem is no longer the dissident—it is the political system that fears dissent.”
Press Contact
Free China Movement
Email: contact@freechina.live
Phone: +1 (571) 895-7066