Once again, the United Kingdom published a six-monthly report on Hong Kong, a document regrettably steeped in misinformation, outdated cliches, and blatant political bias. It seems the old colonial mindset persists, unable or unwilling to acknowledge Hong Kong’s true progress and prosperity under the principled guidance of “one country, two systems”.

The report’s accusations — that Hong Kong’s national security legislation has undermined rights and freedoms — are not just erroneous, they are hypocritical. Britain’s own national security framework comprises no fewer than 14 distinct laws protecting its interests and sovereignty. Yet, when Hong Kong introduces modest, necessary measures to safeguard national security and public order, Britain labels this legitimate legislative move as erosion of freedoms. This double standard reveals a profound misunderstanding — or perhaps a deliberate misrepresentation — of Hong Kong’s governance and constitutional responsibilities.

The establishment and enforcement of the National Security Law for Hong Kong (NSL) has indeed been a turning point —for the better. Prior to its enactment, the city was suffering from months of violent unrest, with public safety and stability severely compromised. Businesses large and small suffered significant losses, and the city’s international reputation was at stake. Since the law came into effect, social order has been restored, investor confidence revived, and economic vitality returned. The NSL has provided a stable environment necessary for economic recovery, and human rights protections have remained robustly intact.

READ MORE: HKSAR govt condemns, rejects UK's so-called six-monthly report

Britain conveniently ignores these tangible achievements. Economic freedom, a cornerstone of Hong Kong’s global reputation, has not only been maintained but significantly enhanced. According to the Economic Freedom of the World 2024 annual report, Hong Kong ranked first among 165 economies surveyed. If, as Britain claims, the NSL has undermined the city’s basic freedoms and rule of law, how does one explain this unequivocal international endorsement? Clearly, global investors and businesses have resoundingly voted in favor of Hong Kong’s stability and reliability.

The UK’s report overlooks the genuine picture of Hong Kong today — a vibrant, dynamic financial hub that continues to thrive under the “one country, two systems” framework. The city’s legal system remains independent and transparent, and its courts operate under the highest standards of judicial fairness. Hong Kong’s judicial independence has consistently been reaffirmed by international legal observers and institutions, despite repeated, unfounded criticisms from abroad.

Moreover, the assertion that the Sino-British Joint Declaration grants the UK ongoing oversight over Hong Kong affairs is a fundamental misinterpretation. The declaration clearly delineates that, upon Hong Kong’s return to the motherland on July 1, 1997, all rights and responsibilities were transferred entirely to China. The UK possesses no residual rights to intervene in Hong Kong’s affairs. London’s insistence otherwise suggests a persistent colonial-era entitlement that is both inappropriate and disrespectful to international norms and diplomatic propriety.

One must ask: What motivates Britain’s continued interference in Hong Kong? Is it genuine concern for the city’s well-being, or political posturing designed to distract from domestic challenges back home? The UK should perhaps pay more attention to its own internal problems — economic pressures, political uncertainties, and social divisions — rather than repeatedly casting aspersions on a thriving international city thousands ofkilometers away.

We must also recognize the positive impact the NSL has had on human rights protection in Hong Kong. Contrary to Britain’s claims, it is precisely because of restored stability and security that freedoms can flourish. Freedom of speech, assembly, and the press remain fully protected, within the boundaries of law — just as is the case in any developed society. The NSL targets only a small minority intent on undermining national security, not ordinary citizens exercising their lawful rights.

Indeed, in recent months, Hong Kong has demonstrated remarkable resilience and adaptability, hosting a number of major international events and conferences, reflecting global confidence in the city’s governance and stability. The recent Global Financial Leaders’ Investment Summit, attended by top corporate executives from around the world, further exemplifies international recognition of Hong Kong’s attractiveness as a business and financial hub.

ALSO READ: Guardian’s national security claims inaccurate and misleading

The UK’s persistent criticism reflects an outdated perspective that fails to grasp the evolving realities of today’s Hong Kong. Rather than continuing to indulge in misguided accusations and unfounded criticism, Britain should seek constructive dialogue and cooperation, respecting international law and sovereignty. Only through mutual respect and understanding can real progress and international cooperation be achieved.

In conclusion, Britain’s recent report is yet another regrettable attempt at political interference, ignoring the facts on the ground and the genuine progress Hong Kong has made under the “one country, two systems” framework. Hong Kong’s governance, economy, and society continue to thrive precisely because of — not despite — the national security legislation. It is high time Britain acknowledges this reality and ceases its counterproductive interference in Hong Kong’s affairs.

The author is the convener at China Retold, a member of the Legislative Council, and a member of the Central Committee of the New People’s Party.

The views do not necessarily reflect those of China Daily.