The EU report highlighted the impact the National Security law was having on the city. Photo: Sun Yeung The EU report highlighted the impact the National Security law was having on the city. Photo: Sun Yeung
The European Union has criticised the “continuing erosion of Hong Kong’s high degree of autonomy and of rights and freedoms that were meant to be protected until at least 2047”, in an annual report released on Friday.
The report for 2022 described at length the “far-reaching implementation of the national security law”, which it said had encroached on academic and media freedom, rights of assembly and association, and “cast doubt on the state of the rule of law in Hong Kong – a cornerstone of its economic success”.
It summarised the major events in Hong Kong last year, including the unchallenged appointment of John Lee Ka-chiu as chief executive in the “patriots-only” election, the 25th anniversary of the handover from Britain, the visit of Chinese President Xi Jinping, and the Covid-19 restrictions which saw “around 10 per cent of EU nationals” abandon the city.
But it was dominated by the roll-out of the security law, imposed by Beijing in July 2020, which has led to hundreds of arrests, the annihilation of political opposition, and a crackdown on many forms of expression and dissent
The Hong Kong government issued a lengthy response late on Friday, urging the EU to “recognise the facts and abide by international law” and to “immediately stop interfering in Hong Kong affairs, which are purely China’s internal affairs”.
“Any foreign country or external force that slanders Hong Kong’s situation and tries to undermine Hong Kong’s prosperity and stability will only do so on its own accord. It will never succeed,” the statement read.
The EU pointed to the “intensification” of trials under the national security law, which by the end of last year had led to the arrest of 236 people, some “held in custody since January 2021, in some cases in solitary confinement”, the detention of minors, and the invocation of a colonial era sedition law.
The report says that on November 1, an EU national was arrested under the sedition law. “At a later stage, the authorities claimed that the man was a Chinese national and that, therefore, he was not allowed consular assistance,” it said.
The detainee is believed to be Portuguese national Joseph John, also known as Wong Kin-chung, who was arrested for “allegedly publishing seditious articles online disparaging Beijing and local authorities”. The EU confirmed he is still being detained
The report noted the high-profile cases of activist lawyer Chow Hang-tung, media tycoon Jimmy Lai Chee-ying and the arrests of those involved in the 612 Humanitarian Relief Fund – former lawmaker Cyd Ho Sau-lan, singer Denise Ho Wan-see, scholar Hui Po-keung, barrister Margaret Ng Ngoi-yee, 92 year-old Cardinal Joseph Zen Ze-kiun and the fund’s secretary Sze Ching-wee.
“At the time of his arrest, Hui was leaving the city to take up a teaching post at a university in the EU,” the report said.
It described the purging of critical voices in the Law Society and Bar Association as “a negative impact on key parts of the legal community”.
It noted the ongoing barriers to freedom of assembly, including the fining of attendees at a small protest against Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and the continued outlawing of commemorations of the 1989 Tiananmen crackdown.
Academics have been targeted by pro-Beijing media for “their perceived political stances, forcing some of them to leave their positions”.
“In one case, the government rejected a foreign researcher’s visa application and neither the scholar nor the school was officially informed about the reasons behind this refusal,” the EU said, adding that political scientists had postponed sensitive research and some universities closed these departments altogether and removed human rights from the curriculum
It pointed to the increasingly long-arm of the security law, including the blocking of the Hong Kong Watch website and a police warning issued to the same group.
The report also said exiled members of civil society had started receiving warnings from authorities and were blocked from accessing Hong Kong-based assets.
The EU also documented an increasingly harsh media environment. As well as the shuttering of outlets such as Citizen News and Factwire, editors of the previously closed Stand News faced sedition charges, and the Foreign Correspondents’ Club cancelled its annual human rights reporting awards, citing “legal red lines”.
Instances of self-censorship cited by the bloc included a TV channel “apologising after receiving complaints that its reports ‘incited hatred’.”
The journalist in question had asked government officials “about the procedure for handling complaints against mainland medical professionals who came to Hong Kong to assist in controlling the pandemic”.
The Hong Kong government statement said the “so-called report has repeatedly maliciously slandered” the security law. It accused the EU of “turning a blind eye to the fact that the implementation of the [law] has brought the lives and economic activities of Hong Kong citizens back to normal and the business environment has resumed”.
Despite all this, the EU is continuing to ramp up its engagement with the Hong Kong government this year. Last week, the bloc’s top diplomat in the city Thomas Gnocchi joined other EU consuls general at a lunch hosted by the chief executive
Lee used the lunch to pitch Hong Kong as “the ideal gateway between East and West” for companies seeking to expand in the region.
Just two months earlier, the European Parliament adopted by a landslide a motion calling for sanctions on Lee over the “alarming deterioration” of fundamental freedoms in the city.
China’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Hong Kong said the resolution was a “despicable act” and a “publicity stunt”.
But elsewhere in Brussels, Hong Kong has largely fallen off the agenda. It has not been an agenda item at leaders’ or foreign ministers’ summits since early 2021, when the bloc failed to implement new measures on Hong Kong in response to the security law after being blocked by Hungary.
Previous measures adopted by foreign ministers in 2020 included monitoring national security law trials in Hong Kong courts, ramping up engagement with civil society, and entering into no new negotiations with the Hong Kong government.
The report says that the EU’s office and its member states in Hong Kong conducted 71 trial observations in 2022, however sources said that not all members have stepped up to the plate.
One Brussels source told the Post that Hungary, Romania, Finland, Poland, Greece, Spain and Portugal have a diplomatic presence in the city but have been “laggards” on trial observations
Hong Kong is and always has been a part of China. It was only a colony because the British took it by force. Hong Kong Island after the the first Opium War, Kowloon after the second. The New Territories were taken, under threat of more violence, on 99-year lease which expired in 1997. By that time Hong Kong as a whole was dependent on China for much of its water and power generation.
I know you’ll downvote me but you can’t change the facts, you are just lying to yourself.
I am well aware of the history of HK and the Opium Wars. How does such history justify the heavy handed treatment by the CCP and the dismantling of the one country two systems principle? The HK government is now obsessed with “national security” and it is basically the justification for every government response against different political opinions and expression. How does “being part of China” justify any of this? So are you saying HKers shouldn’t complain or disagree at all because “HK is part of China”? Somehow being part of China means you have to shut your mouth and kowtow? Perhaps you failed to acknowledge that HK is not just another mainland Chinese city, but that the CCP and its supporters refuse to admit that fact.
I’m sorry, your use of the words ‘Beijing colony’ implied you had little knowledge of Hong Kong’s history. It wouldn’t surprise me given the selective reporting of western media.
But for the present I can assure you that one country two systems is alive and well. Further more Beijing has promised it will continue beyond the originally agreed date of 2047, That is one of the things that western media chooses not to report. What really changed was that after intense lobbying by CIA/NED sponsored activists the US ended Hong Kong’s independent trading status and lumped it together with the rest of China. In the process hurting the very people they pretended to care about.
I think you will find that every government in the world is obsessed with national security. For 22 years Hong Kong didn’t have a national security law at all. They had tried to pass one after the 1997 handover but it was shelved after protests. If it hadn’t been for the 2019 riots it probably still wouldn’t have been passed but Beijing insisted. But it is not the sweeping, draconian law that western media claims it is. They have never actually told anyone what is in it or linked to it so I will, it is only 27 pages but since it only contains four components I will summarise it for for you;
No treason No sedition No terrorism No colluding with or accepting funds from foreign sources
Sedition is a holdover from British colonial rule, the other three didn’t exist at all. It is actually a lot less draconian or sweeping than that of the UK or the US who are still in the process of extraditing Julian Assange for exposing their war crimes.
Nevertheless the west still insists that the law put an end to the protests but all it really did was put an end to the protest funding. Two other factors were involved. One was the onset of the pandemic but more importantly when Hong Kong rioters, who had been throwing bricks and molotovs and setting fire to subway stations (with people still in them), saw what happened to actual peaceful protestors in the US black lives matter and the UK extinction rebellion protests they all lost heart, their shrieks of Hong Kong police brutality looked ridiculous. So the ringleaders fled leaving their pawns to pay the price.
It’s also worth remembering the HongKongFP website is still operating in Hong Kong despite being deeply critical of both China and Kong Kong’s governments and even the South China Morning Post, which is owned by a mainland company is often critical of both.
It is also worth remembering that the US government spends US$300 million a year just on anti-China propaganda
Hong Kong is a Special Administrative Region in China.
On the contrary, I believe my use of Beijing Colony is accurate for the situation HK is in post 2019.
Mainland China promised many things, whether such promises are kept is another story. China repeatedly says One Country Two System is intact and that HK will enjoy “high degree of autonomy” onto 2047; we have all heard that and I assure you I have seen many in the “Western press” report that line. However, just because you say something is true doesn’t make it true. It is apparent in the lead up to the 2019 HK protests that HKers have long been feeling the ever encroaching political interference of Mainland China. The extradition law was just the straw that broke the camel’s back. Sure China says One Country Two Systems, but in practice it has been apparent the Two Systems aren’t balanced nor equal. So yes, One Country Two Systems is “alive and well”, but only China’s interpretation of it.
It is true that many countries take national security very seriously; nobody is denying that. The problem is how such laws are enforced and what are considered threats to national security. As you said, sedition laws have long been in the books for HK as a British Colony. The key difference is enforcement. Singing/playing a song (that does not even mention CCP nor independence BTW) is subversive??? Holding an informal political referendum, made clear by the organizers that it is informal and nonbinding, is subversive??? Mentioning or commerating the 1989 massacre, which obviously took place, is subversive??? Wanting to vote is subversive??? How is any of the things I mentioned subversive? There are real threats to national security for nations all around the world, but the problem with China is that it considers political expression and mere difference in political opinions to be threats. Why should disagreeing with the CCP considered to be subversive? Why should disagreeing with a MERE political party be considered subversive? It is only subversive because China/CCP is an authoritarian regime that is only concerned about maintaining power.
You know what? I would even agree with you that there are many “foreign actors” probably funding individuals and organizations in HK. However, I don’t see how the National Security Law is really addressing such issues. How is using the threat of prosecution under the NSL and colonial era sedition laws on people wanting to gather or to protest targeting such “foreign actors”? I am sure Mainland China, whether officially or not, funds as much/many, if not much more, individuals and organizations in HK.
To say that the NSL was necessary partly because of covid is laughable. I am sure existing HK laws at the time were more than suitable to exert control not to mention the fact that the gravity of the pandemic itself is not lost to HKers. To say Mainland China had covid in mind as the consideration in implementing the NSL is pure fiction given how Mainland China itself did not take covid seriously in the beginning until the questioning voices from all around became too great.
The violence that took place in HK in the later months of 2019 was definitely wrong, but it is so convenient for China to just declare the entire chain of events to just be “riots” and “black violence”. How convenient it is for China to ignore the massive peaceful protest marches that took place in June and July of 2019…to ignore the attacks and violence committed by organized crime/triad members against peaceful protestors and reporters. How is any of the NSL, sedition laws enforcement now really targeting those who committed the violence?
To point to HKFP and SCMP as still operating as proof of continuing freedom of expression/press doesn’t inspire confidence in your argument as it is basically the bare minimum. I mean why shouldn’t they still be operating? To say “Hey, they are still around!” is not the flex you believe it to be. It also is not accurate to say HKFP and SCMP are both very critical of the CCP and HK government. SCMP editorials are often very pro-establishment and HKFP does not thread too deeply into political matters (not to mention how small it is as a media outlet).
You can continue to be a cheerleader for the CCP, but no matter how many times you yell and scream the party line, you are not convincing anybody.