A Hong Kong man has been sentenced to 14 months in prison after pleading guilty to sedition for wearing a T-shirt emblazoned with a protest slogan. This is the first case of its kind under a new local law passed in March, which further expands the reach of national security legislation in the semi-autonomous city.
The conviction has once again ignited debates surrounding Hong Kong’s eroding civil liberties and the far-reaching powers of the national security apparatus introduced in 2020. Critics fear the growing crackdown on dissent could irrevocably damage Hong Kong’s reputation as a hub of free expression. However, authorities in both Beijing and Hong Kong assert that the measures are necessary to ensure stability and protect national security.
The man at the center of the case, 27-year-old Chu Kai-pong, was arrested on June 12 at a subway station, where he was wearing a T-shirt featuring the phrase “Liberate Hong Kong, revolution of our times.” This slogan became one of the most prominent rallying cries during the 2019 anti-government protests that rocked the city. Chu was also wearing a face mask that read “FDNOL,” which stands for “Five demands, not one less”—another slogan from the 2019 movement that encapsulated the protesters’ key demands for democratic reform and accountability.
In addition to his clothing, local media reported that Chu was carrying a box of his own excrement, allegedly intending to use it against individuals who opposed his views. This bizarre element further complicated the case, though the primary focus of the legal proceedings remained on his display of protest slogans.
Chu’s arrest on June 12 came on a significant date—three years to the day after the first major confrontations between police and protesters during the 2019 demonstrations. The protests, originally sparked by a proposed extradition bill that would have allowed criminal suspects to be sent to mainland China for trial, evolved into a broader pro-democracy movement. Though the bill was eventually withdrawn, the protests escalated into months of unrest, leading to a brutal government crackdown.
Chu pleaded guilty to a single charge of “doing an act with a seditious intention” under the newly expanded national security law. He has been in custody since June 14 and had previously been convicted in a separate case for wearing the same protest slogan on a T-shirt. In that incident, he was sentenced to three months in jail for possession of offensive items.
The sedition charge stemmed from the slogans he wore, which authorities argued were aimed at reigniting the spirit of the 2019 protests. During the court proceedings, Chief Magistrate Victor So, a judge handpicked by the government to handle national security cases, delivered a harsh rebuke of Chu’s actions. The judge stated that Chu’s intent was to “reignite the ideas behind” the protests, which had been viewed by authorities as a threat to the city’s stability.
In his ruling, So also emphasized Chu’s lack of remorse, noting that he had continued to display the protest slogans despite a previous conviction. The 14-month sentence handed down reflected what the court viewed as the seriousness of the sedition charge, signaling a growing intolerance for protest-related acts that could be perceived as undermining national security.
Chu’s case marks the first sentence handed down under Hong Kong’s new local national security law, also referred to as Article 23. This law was passed in March of this year and expands upon the national security law imposed by Beijing in 2020. Article 23 has long been a source of contention in Hong Kong politics. The city’s government attempted to pass similar legislation in 2003 but was forced to shelve the proposal after mass protests.
The newer version of the law introduces a range of new offenses, including secession, subversion, terrorism, and collusion with foreign forces. It gives authorities broad powers to crack down on any actions deemed to threaten national security. Critics argue that its vague language opens the door for arbitrary and politically motivated prosecutions. Chu’s case has been cited as evidence that the law is being used to stifle dissent and erode the freedoms guaranteed to Hong Kong under the “One Country, Two Systems” arrangement made during the 1997 handover from Britain to China.
The sentencing has sparked outrage among human rights organizations and international observers. Amnesty International’s China director, Sarah Brooks, condemned the verdict as “a blatant attack on the right to freedom of expression,” urging the Hong Kong government to repeal Article 23. In a statement, Brooks said, “Wearing a T-shirt with a slogan should not be a crime. The conviction of Chu Kai-pong is a stark reminder of the escalating crackdown on basic freedoms in Hong Kong.”
Local and international human rights groups have long expressed concern that the national security law, and now Article 23, will be used to criminalize peaceful political expression. In particular, the law has been criticized for targeting pro-democracy activists, journalists, and opposition politicians. Since its introduction, multiple news outlets have been forced to shut down, opposition lawmakers have been arrested, and prominent activists have been jailed or fled the city.
The timing of Chu’s sentencing is significant, coming just weeks after another landmark ruling in which two former journalists from the now-defunct pro-democracy newspaper Stand News were found guilty of sedition. That case marked the first time journalists had been convicted of sedition in Hong Kong since the 1997 handover. Many see Chu’s case as part of a broader pattern of using sedition laws to silence dissent.
Public opinion in Hong Kong is deeply divided over the national security law and the government’s approach to dissent. For many, particularly among the city’s older generations, the law represents a necessary tool to restore order after the chaos of the 2019 protests. They argue that the protests caused significant damage to the city’s economy, infrastructure, and international reputation, and they view the national security law as a stabilizing force.
However, among younger generations and pro-democracy activists, the national security law and Article 23 are seen as existential threats to Hong Kong’s unique identity and freedoms. The sweeping powers granted to authorities under the law have created a climate of fear, where even wearing a T-shirt or posting on social media can lead to arrest and imprisonment. The lack of clear guidelines on what constitutes a national security threat means that many Hongkongers now live with the constant fear of being targeted for their political views.
Chu’s case is part of a larger narrative about the gradual erosion of freedoms in Hong Kong since the introduction of the national security law. Under the “One Country, Two Systems” framework, Hong Kong was supposed to enjoy a high degree of autonomy for 50 years after the handover. This included the preservation of civil liberties such as freedom of speech, assembly, and the press—rights that were not afforded to citizens in mainland China.
However, the events of recent years have raised questions about the future of that autonomy. The national security law, along with the imposition of Article 23, is seen by many as a violation of the promises made during the handover. Beijing, for its part, has consistently defended the law, arguing that it is necessary to protect national security and prevent foreign interference in Hong Kong’s affairs.
The Chinese government has accused foreign powers, particularly the United States and the United Kingdom, of fomenting unrest in Hong Kong. Beijing insists that the national security law is aimed only at a small minority of individuals who pose a genuine threat to the city’s stability, and that the majority of Hongkongers will not be affected. However, the growing number of arrests and convictions under the law suggests that its reach is far broader than Beijing has claimed.
As Hong Kong continues to grapple with the implications of its national security laws, Chu Kai-pong’s case serves as a stark reminder of the city’s new political reality. For pro-democracy activists, the space for dissent is shrinking rapidly, and the risks of speaking out against the government are higher than ever. The arrest and imprisonment of individuals for wearing protest slogans mark a new chapter in Hong Kong’s ongoing struggle over its future.
The coming months will likely see further challenges to the national security law, both from within Hong Kong and from the international community. However, with Beijing showing no signs of backing down and Hong Kong’s government fully committed to enforcing the law, the outlook for civil liberties in the city remains uncertain.
For now, Chu’s 14-month sentence stands as a powerful symbol of the lengths to which authorities are willing to go to suppress political dissent. As the legal and political landscape in Hong Kong continues to shift, it remains to be seen how far-reaching the impact of these laws will be on the city’s once-vibrant civic life.
