What had happened in Beijing on 4 June 1989 altered the course of many people’s lives.
In the aftermath, the Chinese government implemented a ‘memory-erasing therapy’ strategy to remove the numbers ‘89’ and ‘64’ from Chinese society; to this day, this can be considered a ‘success’, as China’s younger generation either remains unaware of this incident or regards it as historical incident with no bearing on their own lives. Hong Kong, however, was still under British rule at the time of the 4 June incident. Based on the information they received, Hongkongers came to regard 4 June as a patriotic democratic movement, and commemorative events have been held every year. To this day, 8964 remains in the hearts of the majority of Hongkongers.
Two weeks ago, in the case where the Hong Kong Alliance in Support of Patriotic Democratic Movements in China was charged by the government with violating the National Security Law, Tonyee Chow Hang-tung, the Alliance’s vice-chairperson and a co-defendant, delivered a well-reasoned and measured closing statement. The arguments put forward by Tonyee Chow continue to weigh heavily on my mind; I cannot shake them from my thoughts. In this issue’s feature, I invite readers in Australia to reflect together on this significant event, which has similarly shaped the lives of overseas Chinese communities.
Though still a child when the June Fourth incident occurred, Tonyee Chow has attended the commemorative events organised by the Alliance in Victoria Park every year alongside her parents; these gatherings have once drawn crowds of over millions of Hong Kong residents. These annual June 4th gatherings in Victoria Park, calling for an end to one-party rule and the vindication of the June 4th incident, were never regarded as a threat to national security. After Hong Kong’s handover in 1997, right up until 2020, the Chinese government and national leaders never suggested that these commemorative events posed a threat to national security. This indicates that, at the time, Chinese leaders considered such commemorations to be permissible in Hong Kong. However, since 2020, these commemorative events have been deemed by the Hong Kong government to be in breach of the National Security Law.
The Hong Kong government is, of course, entitled to enact legislation or interpret the law to deem certain acts occurring in Hong Kong to be illegal. However, as someone living in Australia, if I were to continue to express my personal views on the 4 June incident here, or to hold individual or collective commemorative activities in my home in Melbourne or within my local community, or to write feature articles and commemorative pieces on the subject – provided these are not carried out in Hong Kong – I believe this would not contravene the national security laws of either Hong Kong or China. In Australia, questioning the government’s administration, or holding opposing views on policies and actions taken by the government today or in the past, is a fundamental right of citizenship, provided it is not expressed through violent or unlawful means. Hence, we have the Mabo court case on Indigenous land rights, the amendment of the White Australia immigration policy, the reversal of the ‘Stolen Generations’ policy, and the subsequent national apology by Prime Minister Kevin Rudd. This is because the Australian government maintains a clear distinction between the political parties vying for power, the policies they implement, the government that holds executive authority, and the nation itself, which is composed of its people.
Having settled in Australia, what I cherish most is that I still have the right to stand by what I believe to be true. I am grateful that we still have the courage today to publish this feature on Tonyee Chow’s closing statement in the Hong Kong Alliance case.
Mr Raymond Chow