Harsh sentences meted out last week to democracy activist Joshua Wong in Hong Kong and to former lawmaker Au Kam San in Macau mark an escalation in the use of national security laws to quash political dissent and keep democratic organizers and political figures behind bars.

The Hong Kong High Court sentenced Wong to an additional 10 years, on top of a shorter sentence he was already serving, on charges of “conspiracy to collude with foreign forces.” In a closed-door trial in Macau, pro-democracy activist and former lawmaker Au Kam San was given a 12-and-a-half-year prison term for "subversion against the political power of the state," among other charges. Both prosecutions were widely decried as being politically motivated and the sentences criticized as overly harsh. Many governments and international human rights organizations called for Au’s and Wong’s sentences to be overturned.

Joshua Wong is well known for his role in Hong Kong’s 2014 pro-democracy protests and for his work with pro-democracy party Demosistō and student activist group Scholarism. One of 45 Hong Kong pro-democracy figures jailed in 2024 for participating in unofficial primary elections several years earlier, Wong had been serving a four-year, eight-month sentence for “subversion of state power,” and was scheduled to be released from prison in January 2027. But the addition of 10 more years on charges of “conspiracy to collude with foreign forces,” a more serious national security offense to which Wong pleaded guilty, means that the 30-year-old will remain imprisoned and sidelined for many more years. He is the only activist to be prosecuted twice under Hong Kong’s National Security Law.

An opinion piece from self-exiled Hong Kong democracy activist Nathan Law in The Guardian notes the retroactive application of Hong Kong’s National Security Law and stark lack of evidence in Wong’s trial. Law, who was named in Wong’s trial as an alleged “co-conspirator,” discusses the broader significance of the harsh sentences imposed on Wong and other democracy advocates such as newspaper publisher Jimmy Lai and legal scholar Benny Tai:

Much of the cited evidence [in Wong’s trial] predates the implementation of the national security law, even though the court insisted it was not being applied retrospectively. Before 2020, meeting with foreign parliamentarians, engaging with and speaking to international institutions, and advocating for measures against human rights abuses were ordinary campaign strategies. These were peaceful means through which we tried to hold those in power accountable. The campaigns raised the profile of Hong Kong’s protests and garnered substantial support; they were so effective that Beijing had to impose the national security law to curb them and impose extensive legal punishments.

There is a stark lack of evidence about Joshua’s actions. Prosecutors said that he conspired with campaigners including myself to ask foreign bodies to impose sanctions on China – relying on his sharing of Facebook posts written by me. But these posts did not directly call for sanctions – they made other appeals, including for digital forensic companies to terminate their cooperation with the Hong Kong police. There’s no evidence that Wong himself advocated for imposing any form of sanctions, or that he had any direct link to advocacy work outside Hong Kong. The court also accepted that no organisation or funding supported his activities after the law came into force.

Still, as flimsy as the evidence is, it’s enough to secure him a decade in jail. The crux of the trial is not legal; it’s political. It is clear that Beijing exercises sweeping control over Hong Kong’s legal and political systems. This can be seen in the tightening of the electoral system by introducing an Iranian-style vetting mechanism, in the jailing of peaceful political dissidents and the emphasis placed on the necessity of “patriots ruling Hong Kong”.

When Chinese leaders categorise Jimmy Lai, Benny Tai and Joshua Wong as the “masterminds” behind the 2019 pro-democracy protests, the legal system must deliver sentences that reflect the trio’s “importance”. That’s why Lai and Tai have been sentenced to 20 years and 10 years respectively, and rank among the most persecuted pro-democracy figures in the region. There are now close to 2,000 political prisoners in Hong Kong. [Source]

Human Rights Watch (HRW) described the national security charges against Wong as “baseless” and the harsh sentencing “cruel and unjust.” In calling for Wong’s immediate and unconditional release, HRW Asia Director Elaine Pearson said, “Young people promoting social change are an asset for any vibrant society, but the Hong Kong government puts them behind bars.”

The court sentenced Wong, 30, under the National Security Law for “conspiring to collude with foreign forces.” The authorities accused him of “conspiring” with the activist Nathan Law and other “unknown” individuals between 2016 and November 2020 to urge foreign governments to sanction Hong Kong and Chinese government officials as they advocated for Hong Kong’s “democratic self-determination.”

The prosecution relied heavily on the international lobbying and media advocacy that Wong and Demosisto, the political party Wong co-founded in 2016, carried out before the National Security Law took effect. Wong initiated online petitions, spoke to international media, and met with foreign officials to draw attention to human rights abuses in Hong Kong. He urged governments to sanction Chinese and Hong Kong officials responsible for abuses and to stop selling weapons to Hong Kong police that they use to carry out rights violations.

Wong had mostly stopped these activities before the National Security Law became effective. Demosisto disbanded on June 30, 2020, and Wong resigned from the group. However, the government quoted social media posts by Wong as ostensible evidence that his alleged “conspiracy” with Law to commit “foreign collusion” continued after the law took effect. In these posts, Wong said he “would not change his views” and that he would “continue to seek support from the international community” in his personal capacity, while Law and others abroad would continue their international advocacy.

The government also cited Wong’s subsequent opinion pieces and media interviews, though none directly called for sanctions, which the National Security Law specifically prohibits. It also cited his reposts of Law’s posts broadly calling for sanctions against Chinese officials and Hong Kong police. [Source]

Hong Kong Free Press published an English translation of Wong’s mitigation letter, which he submitted to the court in a request for leniency. In it, Wong discussed the many milestones he has missed during his six years in prison, during which time he has been taking various legal and business courses and preparing for the International English Language Testing System (IELTS) exam. He also described his cessation of certain activities after the National Security Law went into effect in 2020:

“Unlike my peers born in the 1990s, I was unable to start a family of my own or enter the workforce. Instead, I could only watch the years pass inside a stark cell,” the letter reads.

[…] Wong said in his mitigation letter that once the national security law came into effect, he realised that calling for foreign sanctions was unlawful and he “promptly ceased all such statements and conduct.”

“However, as the law suddenly came into force, the situation was overwhelming. I attempted to adjust my words and actions amid confusion, yet my legal judgment was not thorough and I was not in a clear mind, leaving me unable to properly determine the legal boundaries for every single act,” Wong said.

“At the time, I believed that reposting publications by others, or urging foreign enterprises on commercial grounds to halt cooperation with police, differed from directly calling for sanctions,” he said, adding: “With respect to all statements I made and posts I published, I admit them in their entirety and accept full responsibility.” [Source]

A piece from AFP, published by Hong Kong Free Press, provides more background about democracy activist and former lawmaker Au Kam San, who was convicted of subversion and other offenses and recently given a 12-and-a-half-year sentence in Macau, the former Portuguese colony that reverted to China in 1999:

It was the first conviction under Macau’s National Security Law, enacted in 2009 and toughened in 2023, and followed a trial that wrapped up in three days behind closed doors.

Au, 69, who was arrested in July 2025, had co-organised annual vigils for victims of the 1989 Tiananmen Square crackdown in Beijing.

[…] The US consulate for Hong Kong and Macau on Monday called Au’s prosecution “another example of Beijing’s use of sweeping national security powers to silence peaceful political dissent and suppress fundamental freedoms”.

[…] The United Nations’s human rights office called the imposition of harsh penalties on the activists “deeply concerning”, noting that “Au was not represented by counsel of his choice”. [Source]