The so-called six-monthly report on Hong Kong released by the UK government on Thursday represents yet another tired exercise in political theater. That the UK government continues to produce such a “report”, pretending that it is obligated to do so under the Sino-British Joint Declaration (JD) of 1984, is not merely disingenuous but borders on the absurd.
First and foremost, the United Kingdom’s continued invocation of the JD as a pretext for interfering in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region’s affairs ignores the fundamental legal reality that the document fulfilled its purpose upon the handover of Hong Kong on July 1, 1997. Nowhere within the JD is there a clause that grants the UK oversight over Hong Kong’s affairs. Nor does it empower the UK to unilaterally interpret or monitor China’s implementation of its sovereign responsibilities over the HKSAR. The claim that China is in a “state of non-compliance” is not only legally unsustainable but also arrogantly presumes that the UK remains a stakeholder with supervisory authority over Hong Kong, a position devoid of any legal foundation in international law or accepted diplomatic principle.
The truth is, the report is a thinly veiled ideological assault intended to vilify China’s legitimate efforts to safeguard national security, maintain public order, and uphold the rule of law in the HKSAR. This is evident in its reliance on selective narratives, emotive language, and uncorroborated claims that collectively sideline China’s sovereign prerogatives. The report’s narratives on the National Security Law for Hong Kong (NSL) and the Safeguarding National Security Ordinance (SNSO) reveal a significant misunderstanding of the legal standards applicable to safeguarding sovereignty. It is a universally accepted norm that every state, including those in the West, has the right to legislate against threats to national security. The UK itself has enacted extensive national security legislation, including the much more stringent National Security Act 2023, which grants sweeping powers for surveillance, detention, and criminal sanctions. To single out Hong Kong’s security laws as draconian while ignoring similar or harsher statutes in the West reflects not a concern for human rights but a selective application of political principles.
READ MORE: HKSAR govt condemns, rejects UK's so-called six-monthly report
Moreover, the report’s allegation of “erosion of freedoms” in Hong Kong relies heavily on anecdotal evidence and the opinions of self-styled human rights groups which have their own political agendas, many of which operate with opaque funding sources and political biases. The document cites the case of former media tycoon Jimmy Lai Chee-ying, portraying him as a “martyr” for democracy while altogether omitting his documented record of soliciting foreign intervention in China’s internal affairs — an act that would invite prosecution under any jurisdiction. The United States’ Espionage Act, for instance, criminalizes similar conduct with penalties far exceeding those applied under Hong Kong’s NSL. The UK government’s failure to acknowledge these parallels while feigning outrage over comparable legal actions in Hong Kong is a clear example of hypocrisy and double standards.
The report’s narrative on press freedom is equally shallow and polemical. The closure of online media outlet Stand News and the convictions of its editors are presented as evidence of a “crackdown” on journalism. Yet, the judicial rulings in these cases — based on concrete charges of seditious conspiracy and incitement — were rendered by independent courts following due legal process. Far from being persecuted for journalism, the individuals in question were held accountable for persistently disseminating inflammatory content that aimed to incite hatred and undermine the constitutional order. No government, irrespective of its political system, would tolerate such conduct under the guise of press freedom. To glorify these individuals as defenders of media liberty is not only misleading but also a disservice to the principles of responsible journalism.
The report also emphasizes the decline in voter registration among younger age groups, suggesting that this may reflect political disenchantment or fear. This is a baseless inference. Voter behavior is influenced by myriad factors — socioeconomic, psychological, and cultural. The decline in UK voter turnout among youth — a well-documented trend — has never been interpreted as an indictment of the British political system. The selective interpretation of electoral data in Hong Kong to fit a political narrative is intellectually dishonest. Still, it betrays a patronizing view that Hong Kong’s youth cannot think independently.
The UK’s criticism of the SNSO’s impact on civil society is also laden with double standards. The closure of specific organizations is attributed to a “chilling effect,” yet no effort is made to examine whether these bodies were operating in compliance with existing legal frameworks. In the UK, charities and civil organizations are subject to extensive regulatory oversight by the Charity Commission, and those found in breach of their mandates are promptly investigated or disbanded. There is no principle that a civil organization, merely by self-identified moral purpose, is immune from legal scrutiny. To suggest otherwise in the case of Hong Kong is both legally incoherent and politically manipulative.
One of the more egregious aspects of the report is its discussion of academic freedom. It relies heavily on a single report by Human Rights Watch, an entity whose credibility has been seriously questioned in numerous jurisdictions for its ideological bias and lack of methodological rigor. It is deeply irresponsible for a UK government report to cite such a source uncritically without corroborating evidence or independent verification. The assertion that Hong Kong’s universities are under siege is contradicted by their continued ranking in global academic indices, including the latest QS World University Rankings, where five universities in Hong Kong remain among the top 100 institutions worldwide. This incongruity between alleged academic suppression and sustained academic excellence is never addressed by the report — likely because it would unravel the narratives the UK government seeks to promote.
The report’s invocation of LGBT rights is likewise opportunistic. The Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal’s ruling on same-sex inheritance and housing rights is held up as a triumph of judicial independence — yet in the same breath, the report claims that the Judiciary is compromised. This contradiction highlights the report’s tendency to selectively present outcomes that align with its propaganda agenda while disregarding the very judicial process that led to them. If the courts can deliver progressive rulings on equality, then the accusation that they are instruments of political repression becomes untenable.
Equally telling is the report’s criticism of the updated Civil Service Code. The idea that civil servants should remain politically neutral and refrain from undermining government policy is hardly controversial. Similar expectations are outlined in the UK Civil Service Code, which requires public servants to uphold the impartiality and integrity of the civil service. The portrayal of Hong Kong’s standards as oppressive while ignoring equivalent norms in British governance reveals disingenuous double standards that undermine the report’s credibility.
In the economic domain, the report grudgingly acknowledges Hong Kong’s continued success as a global financial center. Yet it fails to reconcile this fact with its narratives of repression and decline. How does a city under supposed authoritarian control maintain its ranking as the third most competitive financial hub globally? How does it continue to attract high-level investment summits, foster innovation in green shipping, and lead in artificial intelligence financial policy frameworks? The answer is simple: Because the reality on the ground belies the distorted portrayal that the UK insists on perpetuating.
ALSO READ: UK must not interfere in HK’s financial affairs
The issuance of arrest warrants for individuals living abroad is condemned as “transnational repression”. Yet, the UK itself has cooperated with foreign governments in arresting and extraditing individuals accused of various offenses — Wikileaks co-founder Julian Assange is a case in point. The principle of extraterritorial jurisdiction is not foreign to British law; it has been invoked in cases ranging from cybercrime to human trafficking. The double standards here are patent: When Western states act extraterritorially, it is considered law enforcement; when China does so, it is perceived as repression.
At the very least, the report is an exercise in empty rhetoric, lacking intellectual integrity and diplomatic utility. The practice of churning out six-monthly reports is a relic of a bygone era, cloaked in the language of liberty but animated by the impulses of hegemony.
In the end, the true disservice is not to China or the HKSAR but to the British public, who are presented with a narrative of Hong Kong that is partial, prejudiced, and profoundly disconnected from reality. Suppose the UK genuinely wishes to play a constructive role in global affairs. In that case, it must abandon this outdated posture of moral superiority and engage with China as a sovereign equal.
The author is a solicitor, a Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area lawyer, and a China-appointed attesting officer.
The views do not necessarily reflect those of China Daily.
