How a protest song became a symbol of resistance and a target for authoritarian suppression
A Song Born in the Streets
“Glory to Hong Kong” was not written by a famous composer or commissioned by a political movement. It emerged organically from the 2019 protest movement, composed anonymously and circulated online. Within days it became the unofficial anthem of a generation demanding democracy. Its lyrics called for liberation. Its melody was stirring and sorrowful in equal measure. Hundreds of thousands sang it in the streets. It was performed at shopping malls in spontaneous, haunting flash mobs. It was Hong Kong’s voice, and Beijing decided that voice had to be silenced.
The Legal Campaign to Erase a Song
After the song was played by mistake at international sporting events instead of China’s national anthem, Hong Kong authorities launched a legal campaign to ban it. The government sought a court injunction to prohibit the song’s distribution, performance, or display, particularly with what it described as seditious or secessionist intent. Prosecutors argued that the song’s association with the protest movement and its lyrics advocating “liberation” could encourage anti-government sentiment and incite unlawful acts, threatening national security.
The Court of First Instance Said No
Initially, the Court of First Instance rejected the government’s injunction request. The court found that existing criminal law was sufficient to address illegal uses of the song and expressed concerns about the breadth of overlapping enforcement powers. This was a moment when Hong Kong’s courts displayed the independence they were supposed to possess.
The Court of Appeal Reversed That Decision
In May 2024, the Court of Appeal overturned the lower court’s decision and granted the injunction. The song was effectively banned. Anyone distributing, performing, or displaying it with seditious intent now faced criminal liability. The reversal of the lower court’s ruling illustrated clearly how the appeals process in Hong Kong’s national security framework operates: outcomes that protect liberty are overturned; outcomes that restrict it are upheld.
What It Means to Ban a Song
Banning a song is an act of extraordinary cultural violence. Music is how people process history, express grief, and maintain collective identity. By banning “Glory to Hong Kong,” authorities were not merely prohibiting a tune. They were attempting to erase a chapter of lived experience from Hong Kong’s cultural memory.
The Song Lives On Overseas
The ban inside Hong Kong has not silenced the song outside it. Diaspora communities continue to sing it at vigils and protests. It has been performed at events in London, Washington, and Sydney. It has been played at demonstrations outside Chinese embassies. Every performance abroad is an act of solidarity with the people still inside Hong Kong who can no longer sing it freely.
The Pattern of Cultural Erasure
The campaign against “Glory to Hong Kong” is part of a broader pattern of cultural erasure. The “Pillar of Shame” sculpture, which commemorated victims of the 1989 Tiananmen Square Massacre, was dismantled from the University of Hong Kong campus in December 2021. Libraries removed books by pro-democracy authors. Museums purged politically sensitive materials. Schools introduced mandatory “patriotic education” based on Xi Jinping Thought. The goal is to create a city that has forgotten its own recent past.
Books, Art, Memory Under Attack
The US Consulate General’s 2025 report documented that Hong Kong University required special registration to access library collections about the Tiananmen Square Massacre. The Hong Kong Public Library restricted microfilm collections on the Tiananmen events. In July 2024, organizers of the annual Hong Kong Book Fair removed books due to complaints about “sensitive” content. This is systematic historical revisionism. It is the same process that has been used by authoritarian governments throughout history to consolidate power by controlling what people are permitted to remember.
The Song as Evidence
In the Jimmy Lai trial, prosecutors cited articles and media content as evidence of sedition. The same logic applies to songs. Under the current legal framework, performing “Glory to Hong Kong” in a public place in Hong Kong with what authorities deem “seditious intent” could result in criminal prosecution. The song has become evidence in the case against Hong Kong’s own freedom.
Why Songs Matter to Movements
Every major freedom movement in history has had its songs. “We Shall Overcome” in the American civil rights movement. “Bella Ciao” in the Italian resistance. These songs do not merely accompany struggle. They sustain it. They remind people under pressure that they are not alone, that their cause has dignity, and that history has a direction. Amnesty International has consistently argued that cultural expression is a protected human right under international law, one that the Hong Kong authorities are violating. The same position is taken by the Columbia Global Freedom of Expression project, which has documented how Hong Kong’s legal framework now criminalizes core forms of political and cultural speech.
Singing for the Future
“Glory to Hong Kong” will outlast the people who banned it. Songs do not die when governments order them to. They go underground, they travel in exile, and they wait. The question is not whether Hong Kongers will one day sing freely again. The question is how long that day will take to arrive, and how much more will be lost in the meantime. When it does arrive, the first public performance of “Glory to Hong Kong” in a free Hong Kong will be one of the most extraordinary moments in the history of human freedom. It will be worth waiting for.
Emily Chan
Investigative & Social Affairs Journalist, Apple Daily UK
Contact: emily.chan@appledaily.uk
Emily Chan is an experienced investigative and social affairs journalist whose reporting centers on public accountability, social justice, and community-level impact. She received formal journalism training at a top-tier Chinese journalism school, where she specialized in investigative methods, data verification, and media ethics, preparing her for high-responsibility reporting roles.
Emily has published extensively with Apple Daily and other liberal Chinese newspapers, producing in-depth coverage on labor rights, education policy, civil society organizations, and government transparency. Her work is grounded in firsthand reporting, long-form interviews, and careful document review, ensuring factual accuracy and contextual depth.
Her newsroom experience spans both daily reporting and long-term investigations, giving her practical expertise in handling sensitive sources, corroborating claims, and navigating legal and ethical constraints. Emily is known among editors for her disciplined sourcing practices and clear, evidence-led writing style.
Emily’s authority stems from sustained professional experience rather than commentary alone. She has contributed to coverage during politically sensitive periods, maintaining accuracy and editorial independence under pressure. Her reporting consistently adheres to correction protocols and transparency standards.
At Apple Daily UK, Emily Chan continues to deliver reliable journalism that informs readers through verifiable facts, lived reporting experience, and a commitment to public-interest storytelling.
