Remarks by Lee Ming-Ju on the 36th Anniversary of the 1989 Tiananmen Square Crackdown and the 10th Anniversary of the 709 Crackdown

Remarks by Lee Ming-Ju on the 36th Anniversary of the 1989 Tiananmen Square Crackdown and the 10th Anniversary of the 709 Crackdown

Last edited: 2026-08-25

Lee Ming-Chu, Deputy Executive Director of the Judicial Reform Foundation; Photo by Yang Kang

Good afternoon. I am Lee Ming-Ju, Deputy Executive Director of the Judicial Reform Foundation.

This year marks the 36th anniversary of the 1989 Tiananmen Square crackdown in China. Although the Chinese authorities continue to expand the use of force and authoritarian repression across different regions, the spirit of the pursuit of democracy and freedom demonstrated by those who stood in Tiananmen Square in 1989 has never disappeared.

This year also marks the 10th anniversary of the 709 crackdown on human rights lawyers in China.

Ten years ago, in the early hours of July 9, 2015, the large-scale detention of human rights lawyers and activists—later known internationally as the “709 Crackdown”—shocked the world. Chinese public security and state security authorities suddenly detained lawyer Wang Yu of Beijing Fengrui Law Firm, along with her husband, lawyer Bao Longjun, and their son Bao Zhuoxuan (also known as Bao Mengmeng).

In total, 316 human rights lawyers, law firm staff members, human rights defenders, and their family members were summoned, forcibly questioned, barred from leaving the country, placed under residential surveillance, criminally detained, forcibly disappeared, or arrested. Among them, 36 individuals were formally detained or subjected to enforced disappearance.

Ten years later, the professional environment for human rights lawyers in China has not improved and, in many respects, has deteriorated further. Measures used against them include restrictions on personal liberty, revocation or suspension of lawyers’ licenses, and restrictions on travel or leaving the country. In some cases, their family members have also been subjected to harassment.

Beyond routine surveillance and stalking, families have repeatedly been forced to relocate, as local authorities pressure landlords to terminate leases or compel children to transfer schools, effectively forcing families to return to their places of household registration.

In recent years, the Chinese government’s repression of human rights defenders has also extended overseas through various forms of transnational repression. According to the latest data released by Freedom House in February this year, 160 incidents of physical transnational repression were recorded worldwide in 2024, with the Chinese government identified as one of the leading perpetrators. Such actions pose serious threats to democracy, human rights, and security around the world.

In addition to direct measures such as abductions and physical attacks, the Chinese government has used diplomatic and economic pressure to demand the repatriation of individuals living in exile. Freedom House has documented China's use of irregular extraditions, unlawful deportations, and forced returns in multiple countries, with Southeast Asia and Central Asia frequently serving as important arenas for such practices.

Nevertheless, both inside and outside China, many Chinese human rights lawyers and defenders continue to stand up courageously, expose the truth, and speak out against government repression, seeking the attention and support of the international community. Such courage is all the more precious in this dark and uncertain era.

Today, as we gather here, I believe that everyone present cares deeply about the state of human rights in China and does not want to give up searching for possible paths forward. I hope that we will not forget those who continue to work tirelessly for these causes.

The Judicial Reform Foundation will continue to follow developments closely, support the rule of law, and defend democracy.

Thank you.

This article is an AI-generated translation of the original Chinese text. In the event of any discrepancy, the Chinese version shall prevail.

Back to News