HKSAR Government strongly condemns and firmly rejects the UK six-monthly report on Hong Kong
******************************************************************************************
A spokesman for the HKSAR Government stressed, "The HKSAR is an inalienable part of the People's Republic of China, and as a local administrative region that enjoys a high degree of autonomy under the principle of 'One Country, Two Systems', comes directly under the jurisdiction of the Central People's Government. The HKSAR steadfastly safeguards national sovereignty, security and development interests, and fully and faithfully lives up to this top priority of the 'One Country, Two Systems' principle. The HKSAR Government strongly condemns and firmly rejects the UK's attempt through a so-called six-monthly report to make misleading and irresponsible remarks about Hong Kong matters, distort facts and reverse right and wrong, and attempt to interfere in the HKSAR Government's law-based governance by despicable political maneuvers."
"The core essence of the Sino-British Joint Declaration is about China's resumption of the exercise of sovereignty over Hong Kong. It did not authorise the UK to interfere in Hong Kong's affairs after its return to the motherland. The UK has no sovereignty, jurisdiction or right of supervision over Hong Kong after its return to the motherland. The HKSAR Government strongly urges the UK again to discern facts from fallacies, respect the international law and basic norms governing international relations, and immediately stop its long-arm jurisdiction and interference in Hong Kong matters, which are purely China's internal affairs."
Safeguarding Rights and Freedoms
The HKSAR Government spokesman said, "The HKSAR Government steadfastly safeguards the rights and freedoms enjoyed by Hong Kong people as protected under the law. Since Hong Kong's return to the motherland, human rights in the city have always been robustly guaranteed constitutionally by both the Constitution and the Basic Law. The offences endangering national security stipulated by the Hong Kong National Security Law (HKNSL) and the Safeguarding National Security Ordinance (SNSO) target acts endangering national security with precision, and define the elements and penalties of the offences with clarity. The relevant laws do not affect normal exchanges of local institutions, organisations and individuals with other countries, regions and international organisations including the United Nations. Law-abiding persons will not unwittingly violate the law."
"The HKNSL and SNSO clearly stipulate that human rights shall be respected and protected in safeguarding national security in the HKSAR, and that the rights and freedoms, including the freedoms of speech, of the press, of publication, of association, of assembly, of procession and of demonstration that Hong Kong residents enjoy under the Basic Law and the provisions of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights as applied to Hong Kong, shall be protected in accordance with the law. Nonetheless, just as the case with other places in the world, such rights and freedoms are not absolute. The ICCPR also expressly states that some of them may be subject to restrictions as prescribed by law that are necessary for protection of national security, public safety, public order or the rights and freedoms of others, etc. The so-called report biasedly quoted figures to twist the facts by negating the determination and dedication of the HKSAR to persistently safeguard the lawful exercise of rights and freedom by citizens. The HKSAR Government must set the record straight and such act must be strongly condemned."
"Since the implementation of the HKNSL and the SNSO, the media landscape in Hong Kong has remained vibrant. However, some people with ulterior motives deliberately fabricated facts about freedom of the press and speech in Hong Kong. In fact, freedom of the press and speech are firmly protected in Hong Kong at a constitutional level under the Basic Law, but they are not absolute. The media, like everyone else, have an obligation to abide by all the laws. The media continue to enjoy the freedom to comment on and criticise government policies without any restriction, as long as this is not in violation of the law. The court further cited precedents from the European Court of Human Rights regarding press freedom in the reasons for a verdict of a relevant case, pointing out that the European Convention on Human Rights does not guarantee a wholly unrestricted freedom of speech even with respect to press coverage on matters of serious public concern. The most crucial point is that journalists must act in good faith and on accurate factual basis and provide reliable and precise information in accordance with the tenets of 'responsible journalism' in order to enjoy the protection of their rights to freedom of speech and press freedom. The so-called 'World Press Freedom Index' cited in the report was published by an organisation self-claimed as 'Reporters Without Borders'. Its funding has largely come from the European Union, the United States (US) State Department and other European governments, which merely serves as a tool for anti-China forces for the US and some western countries. The so-called 'rankings' lack credibility and can be disregarded. In fact, in recent years, the police of the UK have on numerous occasions arrested journalists in the name of counter-terrorism, including the recent arrest in Leicestershire of several journalists covering pro-Palestinian activities. This further highlights that the so-called safeguard of press freedom by the UK is merely a double standard in serving political ends."
Laws Safeguarding National Security
The HKSAR Government spokesman said, "The HKSAR Government strongly opposes the absurd and false contents in the UK's so-called six-monthly report with regard to the laws and the relevant efforts that safeguard national security in the HKSAR. It is each and every sovereign state's inherent right, under international law and international practice based on the Charter of the United Nations, to enact laws safeguarding national security, and it is also an international practice. Western countries, including the UK, maintain extensive and strict national security legal frameworks. There are at least 14 pieces of laws safeguarding national security in the UK. In June 2026, the UK Government introduced the National Security (State Threats) Bill 2026 in order to further expand the law enforcement powers and introduce new offences. On the ground of imminency, Parliament was requested to adopt the fast-track procedure to expedite the Parliamentary progress of the Bill. As a result, the Bill had its third reading and passed by the Parliament within a month. As of June 2026, the UK authorities arrested nearly 4 000 people pursuant to national security and counter-terrorism laws; representing 15 times increase compared to the same period of time last year and more than 15 times the median in the last 10 years. Majority of such arrests were associated with demonstrators supporting an organization that was proscribed under the Terrorism Act 2000 by the UK Government. Just this past September 2026, more than 50 people were arrested simply because they held home-made banners peacefully in a protest in support of that proscribed organization, or because they were wearing or carrying an article supporting that proscribed organization, one of those arrested was a 94 years old barrister. The UK Government while swiftly and resolutely enforcing its harsh national security legislation, made large scale arrests of protesters in support of the proscribed organization under the Terrorism Act despite its decision to proscribe the relevant organization is subject to widespread criticisms. Yet, the UK Government smeared the HKNSL, which targets only a very small number of criminals endangering national security, and other relevant laws of the HKSAR, as well as the HKSAR law enforcement, prosecutorial and judicial authorities' performance of their duties in accordance with the law as 'undermining the rights and freedoms', and continued to unscrupulously distort the facts to criticize. This clearly exposes its hypocritical double standards, which are utterly ugly and despicable."
"In fact, the implementation of the HKNSL in the past six years or so has enabled the livelihood and economic activities of the Hong Kong community at large to swiftly return to normal and the business environment to be restored and improved continuously. Besides maintaining its position as the world's freest economy, Hong Kong has risen to top spot in cross boundary wealth management worldwide and is ranked second in world competitiveness. The city is ranked third among international financial centres, ranked first globally in terms of funds raised through initial public offerings, and continues to set new fundraising records in 2026: total funds raised in the first three quarters exceeded HK$388 billion, more than doubling the figure for the same period last year and setting a record for the highest amount raised in the first nine months of any year to date. Hong Kong comes first in the world in terms of funds raised through initial public offerings in 2025. Hong Kong remains high and unchanged in the overall ranking and continues to be ahead of the individual Western countries which often unreasonably criticise the rule of law and human rights situation of Hong Kong in the 2026 World Justice Project Rule of Law Index. These internationally recognised achievements are built upon the freedom and stability brought to Hong Kong society by the HKNSL, other relevant laws of the HKSAR, and the work of safeguarding national security."
"Hong Kong is a society underpinned by the rule of law and has always adhered to the principle that 'laws must be obeyed and lawbreakers be held accountable'. Article 5 of the HKNSL and section 2 of the SNSO clearly stipulate that the principle of the rule of law shall be adhered to in preventing, suppressing and imposing punishment for offences endangering national security. The HKSAR law enforcement agencies have been taking law enforcement actions based on evidence and strictly in accordance with the law in respect of the acts of the persons or entities concerned, which have nothing to do with their political stance, background or occupation. All cases are handled strictly on the basis of evidence and in accordance with the law. All defendants will receive fair trial strictly in accordance with laws applicable to Hong Kong (including the HKNSL) and as protected by the Basic Law and the Hong Kong Bill of Rights. Any suggestion that certain individuals or organisations should be immune from legal consequences for their illegal acts is no different from advocating a special privilege to break the law, and this totally runs contrary to the spirit of the rule of law."
"As to the so-called report's malicious smears against the verdict of the case of Lai Chee-ying involving offences endangering national security (Lai's case), the HKSAR Government must stress that the court's 855-pages long reasons for verdict is reasoned and well founded, backed by solid legal grounds and rigorous analysis, and is fully open for public inspection. It fully demonstrates that the court arrived at the verdict in strict accordance with the laws and evidence, free from any interference. The court also clearly pointed out in the reasons for verdict that Lai Chee-ying was not on trial for his political views or beliefs. The reasons for sentence also provided a detailed explanation of the considerations regarding sentence factors, unequivocally identified Lai Chee-ying as the mastermind and the driving force behind the conspiracies, and the offences committed fell within the category of offences of 'a grave nature'. Lai Chee-ying opted not to appeal against his conviction or sentence. It is such a disgrace for the UK, when being faced with these ironclad facts, to continue to distort the truth and maliciously attack. The HKSAR Government must again firmly refute these claims to set the record straight."
"It is important to reiterate that Lai's case has nothing to do with freedom of the press. One should not conflate criminal acts in Lai's case with freedom of the press. Lai Chee-ying repeatedly colluded with external forces to beg for sanctions and hostile activities against the Central Authorities and the HKSAR Government. It is abundantly clear that Lai Chee-ying, along with other defendants of Lai’s case, used journalism as a guise to commit acts endangering national security."
"On the other hand, the HKSAR Government noticed that certain individuals with ulterior motives have fabricated lies concerning Lai's health and custodial arrangements, and it must be stressed that the Correctional Services Department (CSD) handles the custodial arrangements for Lai Chee-ying in the same way as other persons-in-custody (PICs). Regardless of the identities, ages and nationalities of the PICs, the CSD has all along been ensuring that the custodial environment for each and every PICs is safe, humane, appropriate and healthy, which includes appropriate and timely medical support. The medical services received by Lai Chee-ying in custody are adequate and comprehensive."
"As to the allowing of the appeal by the Court of Appeal regarding the two counts of 'fraud' of Lai Chee-ying mentioned by the so-called report, it must be stressed that Lai Chee-ying has exploited valuable public resources of the HKSAR for over 20 years. Although the Court of Appeal considered that, in the factual context of this case, the breach in question did not reach the criminal conviction threshold for the offence of 'fraud', the objective fact remains that Lai Chee-ying has exploited public resources for private use."
"In respect of the incitement to subversion case of the 'Hong Kong Alliance' mentioned by the so-called report, the verdict handed down by the court is forceful and compelling, as well as well-reasoned and sound. The reasons for verdict clearly emphasised that the defendants were put on trial not because of their political views or beliefs. The court would only consider the laws and evidence relevant to the case to decide whether the prosecution is able to prove the charge beyond reasonable doubt. The court also pointed out that the defendants had all along been hostile towards the Communist Party of China and the Central Government under its leadership, and, after the implementation of the HKNSL, refused to pull back from the brink and were bent on embracing the resistance line to the very end. Even though the defendants knew that what they had said and done might have already gone beyond the scope of lawful freedom of expression, they paid no regard to it. The court reiterated in its reasons for sentence that the HKNSL had no retrospective effect and that the defendants were put on trial not because of their political ideology or their conduct before the HKNSL. They were convicted solely on the basis that they had committed acts prohibited under the HKNSL after the HKNSL came into effect. The court's reasons for sentence have clearly and in detail set out the considerations for sentencing, including reasons for determining that the case falls within the category of 'an offence of a serious nature'."
"Appropriate extraterritorial effect for the offences under the HKNSL and the SNSO fully aligns with the principles of international law, international practice and common practice adopted in various countries and regions. It is both necessary and legitimate, and is also in line with those of other countries and regions around the world. As the law enforcement department of the HKSAR safeguarding national security, the Hong Kong Police are duty-bound to pursue the liability of those who have allegedly endangered national security outside Hong Kong. Those absconders hiding outside Hong Kong are wanted because they continue to blatantly engage in activities endangering national security. Moreover, they continue to collude with external forces to cover for their evil deeds. It is necessary for the Police to take all lawful measures to strongly combat the acts of abscondment, and such actions are fully justified, necessary and legitimate. Quite a number of countries including the UK would also impose measures on wanted criminals to combat the acts of abscondment. It is indeed a demonstration of hypocrisy with double standards by the UK with ulterior motives that, after the HKSAR Government has announced the relevant measures, attack the HKSAR in safeguarding national security dutifully, faithfully and in accordance with the law."
"As to the case regarding the father of an absconder named Anna Kwok Fung-yee being convicted of 'attempting to deal with, directly or indirectly, any funds or other financial assets or economic resources belonging to, or owned or controlled by, a relevant absconder' as mentioned in the so-called report, as stressed in the Reasons for Sentence, the purpose of the relevant offence is to prevent anyone from dealing with the assets of an absconder, thereby increasing the chance of such absconder refusing to return to Hong Kong. The nature of the case was also considered serious, and it was reiterated that no 'collective punishment' is involved in the case and that the sentence has nothing to do with whether the defendant is related to the absconder."
"We noticed that the so-called report mentioned other cases on offences endangering national security. The HKSAR Government has emphasised time and again that as the legal proceedings involving the concerned cases are still ongoing, it is inappropriate for any person to comment on the details of the case in an attempt to interfere with the court to exercise judicial power independently, which might otherwise constitute perverting the course of justice. The UK must stop distorting the truth, blatantly discrediting the judicial system and trials of the HKSAR, in an attempt to glorify criminal behavior and exert pressure on the courts of the HKSAR."
"The HKSAR Government made amendments to the Implementation Rules for Article 43 of the Law of the People’s Republic of China on Safeguarding National Security in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (the Amendment Rules) to enhance measures that the law enforcement authorities of the HKSAR may take and further clarify relevant legal procedures and technical arrangements, so as to strengthen the enforcement power of law enforcement authorities, prevent and investigate cases concerning offences endangering national security more effectively, and prevent and mitigate risks to national security in a timely manner. The making of the Amendment Rules is in conformity with the Basic Law, including the provisions concerning human rights, as well as the relevant provisions under the Hong Kong National Security Law. The Amendment Rules set out stringent requirements by providing in detail under what circumstances the law enforcement authorities can exercise the powers; and incorporating mechanisms with the Judiciary playing the gatekeeping role for various measures introduced by the Amendment Rules, with a view to ensuring that when law enforcement officers carry out various measures, acts and activities endangering national security can be effectively prevented, suppressed and punished, and at the same time the lawful rights and interests of individuals and organizations are adequately protected in accordance with the requirements of Article 4 and Article 5 of the Hong Kong National Security Law."
Safeguarding Due Administration of Justice and Rule of Law
The HKSAR Government spokesman pointed out, "The HKSAR Government safeguards independent judicial power and fully supports the Judiciary in exercising its judicial power independently, safeguarding the due administration of justice and the rule of law. Articles 2, 19 and 85 of the Basic Law specifically provide that the HKSAR enjoys independent judicial power, including that of final adjudication, and the courts of the HKSAR shall exercise judicial power independently, free from any interference. When adjudicating cases concerning offence endangering national security, as in any other cases, judges remain independent and impartial in performing their judicial duties, free from any interference. The implementation of the HKNSL over the past six years or so has proven that the courts have handled all the cases involving the HKNSL and other laws safeguarding national security in the HKSAR strictly in accordance with the above principles."
"The Department of Justice takes charge of criminal prosecutions, free from any interference by virtue of Article 63 of the Basic Law. All prosecutorial decisions are based on an objective analysis of all admissible evidence and applicable laws. In addition, Article 5 of the HKNSL and section 2 of the SNSO clearly stipulate that the principle of the rule of law shall be adhered to in preventing, suppressing and imposing punishment for offences endangering national security."
"The Judiciary exercises judicial power independently in accordance with the law, and everyone charged with a criminal offence has the right to a fair hearing. The courts decide cases strictly in accordance with the evidence and all applicable laws. Cases will never be handled any differently owing to the profession, political beliefs or background of the persons involved. The prosecution has the burden to prove beyond reasonable doubt the commission of an offence before a defendant may be convicted by the court."
"The making of the Safeguarding National Security (Procedural Matters) Regulation (Procedural Matters Regulation) under section 110 of the Safeguarding National Security Ordinance by the HKSAR Government is only to state clearly the classification mechanism under the HKNSL and the SNSO for 'other offences endangering national security under the law of the HKSAR', in order to bring more certainty for relevant provisions of the HKNSL and the SNSO. Neither does the relevant regulation have any retrospective effect, nor creates any new offence or altering the penalty of any offence."
"Regarding the mechanism concerning the certificate to be issued by the Chief Executive under Article 47 of the HKNSL or section 115 of the SNSO, owing to the inherent nature of matters concerning national security, the executive authority is in a far better position than the courts to make appropriate judgements. Hence, the courts will afford deference to the judgements made by the executive authority regarding national security matters. This principle is also a general rule for safeguarding national security practised by different places in the world, including in the UK. In a judgment by the House of Lords in 2003, the Court states that 'Under the constitution of the United Kingdom and most other countries, decisions as to whether something is or is not in the interests of national security are not a matter for judicial decision. They are entrusted to the executive.' The so-called report, however, pays no regard to the fact that the mechanism of the issuing of certificate by the Chief Executive is entirely consistent with common law principles, which we deplore."
Improved Electoral System
A spokesman for the HKSAR Government said, "The Legislative Council (LegCo) formed following the improvement of the electoral system in 2021 has fully implemented the principle of 'patriots administering Hong Kong', which is consistent with the universally prevailing political tenet of keeping political power in the hands of patriots. The LegCo has completely broken free from the past chaos of confrontation, polarisation, disorderly conduct and ineffectiveness in the chamber, returning to the right track of rationality and pragmatism. It deliberated with efficiency and quality, focusing its efforts on developing the economy and improving people's livelihood, ensuring the steady and successful implementation of ‘One Country, Two Systems’. The general election for the eighth term LegCo was successfully held at the end of last year. Voters actively cast their votes, returning a new cohort of LegCo members who are patriotic and love Hong Kong, responsible, capable and committed to serving the community. This has once again exemplified the high-quality and healthy competition under the new electoral system, embodying broad representation and balanced participation. The improved LegCo has proven in practice that this is a democratic electoral system that suits HKSAR's actual circumstances and needs."
The spokesman continued: "As stated in the white paper Hong Kong: Democratic Progress Under the Framework of One Country, Two Systems published by the Central Government, Britain exercised a typical colonial rule over Hong Kong in the past. It did not bring any genuine democracy to Hong Kong; instead, it laid hidden snares for the development of democracy in Hong Kong after its return to China. The British side should recognise the facts and positively view Hong Kong’s democratic development as returning to the right track, as well as the achievements we have made in practising and improving a healthy democratic politics that suits Hong Kong’s actual circumstances and is effective and viable."
Enhancing National Education
The HKSAR Government spokesman pointed out, "Schools are places for students to learn and grow. It is the obligation of schools to provide a safe and orderly school environment and atmosphere, and to maintain a campus free from political interference or illegal activities, for safeguarding students' well-being. National education has been an important part of the curriculum for primary and secondary schools as well as kindergartens, for deepening our students' understanding of the country's development, the history and culture, the Constitution and the Basic Law, as well as national security, thereby building up cultural confidence to foster a sense of national identity, and cultivating them into an able and virtuous new generation with a sense of responsibility, visions and love for the country and the city. Teachers are also important role models of their students, playing a vital role in passing on knowledge and nurturing students' character. The HKSAR Government has the responsibility to ensure the professional conduct of teachers. Implementation of national education, including national security education, is the legitimate duty of education authorities all over the world. Different places attach great importance to implementing national security education and developing their students' sense of national identity, including knowledge of their respective constitution, their own history, culture, geography, etc."
"Academic freedom is an important social value treasured in Hong Kong and the cornerstone of our higher education sector. Since the implementation of the HKNSL, academics or post-secondary education institutions in Hong Kong continue to conduct normal exchange activities with their foreign or external counterparts. Meanwhile, post-secondary institutions in Hong Kong have taken a series of measures to incorporate national security education into students' learning in fulfilment of their statutory duty. These institutions enjoy autonomy on curriculum design, and the HKSAR Government encourages the institutions to provide students with diversified learning opportunities on national security education."
Ends/Friday, October 23, 2026
Issued at HKT 1:28
Issued at HKT 1:28
NNNN