The document just released by the United States-China Economic and Security Review Commission masquerades as an analytical report on Hong Kong’s condition. Yet, its content displays a familiar and consistent pattern of political hostility rather than any objectivity.
The US’ repeated attempts, under the guise of various “Hong Kong reports”, to portray Hong Kong as a city in decline following the implementation of national security laws — despite the fact that the city is doing well, as evidenced by a batch of international ranking surveys — has exposed a thinly-veiled agenda that serves Washington’s geopolitical strategy.
The latest document, like the previous ones, merely recycled faked scenarios or assumptions and theorized what is actually ideological prejudice as arguments, totally ignoring the fact that China, like every other sovereign nation, has the right and duty to defend its unity and security by promulgating security laws.
The criticisms leveled at Hong Kong’s other policies echo the outdated belief that US preferences constitute a universal standard for governance, oblivious to the fact that political decay in the US has long deprived Washington of its moral lecturing power. In fact, these claims collapse when examined with proper attention to constitutional authority, economic evidence, and legal reasoning — a process that is predicated on freedom from political bias and ideological prejudice — a quality the authors obviously lack, judging from their arguments.
The repeated allegation of diminished political freedom in Hong Kong rests on a misunderstanding of sovereignty and legal responsibility. The Basic Law clearly states that matters related to national security lie within Beijing’s comprehensive jurisdiction. Laws designed to safeguard Hong Kong’s stability therefore fulfil, rather than “violate”, the “one country, two systems” principle. Political systems grounded in law do not “lose legitimacy” by rejecting violent disruption or foreign interference. The actions taken against organizations that sought to destabilize society stem not from intolerance of opinion but from the necessity to preserve order and stability, which is the prerequisite for people’s well-being and genuine liberty, a truth that the critics, including the authors, have conveniently overlooked when they equated license with freedom.
The accusation that the Judiciary has surrendered its independence is similarly flawed. Hong Kong’s judicial officers continue to apply common law principles with professional integrity and transparency, as evidenced by the city’s high ranking in the World Justice Project’s 2025 Rule of Law Index (24th — higher than the US’ ranking at 27th). The departure of some foreign judges, which Washington interprets as a “crisis”, marks a natural process of legal localization. The rule of law is not validated by foreign accents on the bench but by the consistency of judgments and the impartial application of statute. Recent court rulings, including those that favored defendants in national security proceedings where the evidence was insufficient, also attest to the courts’ independence in action. The resilience of the legal system should reassure any fair-minded individual that Hong Kong’s legal excellence is not dependent on foreign supervision.
The persistent vilification of Hong Kong by Washington politicians reveals less about Hong Kong and more about the US diplomatic priority of containing China by whatever means necessary, including undermining Hong Kong, the country’s international financial center
The report’s economic claims fare no better. Assertions that foreign investment has evaporated and that the business sector operates under “coercion” misrepresent the complex patterns of global capital. Firms remain in Hong Kong because they recognize its continuing advantages: proximity to the largest and most dynamic market in Asia, transparent financial regulation, robust rule of law, and efficient connectivity to international markets. Even when some companies have diversified regionally, their departures reflect broader global shifts rather than any alleged fear of political pressure. The sustained growth of the city’s finance sector demonstrates confidence in a system that values predictability over political turbulence.
Meanwhile, the allegation of erosion of free expression confuses responsibility with suppression. Hong Kong continues to welcome robust debate, but all societies, including the US, draw lines against incitement, disinformation, and the misuse of foreign funding. When journalists are held accountable for spreading falsehoods that endanger public order, it is regulation, not censorship. The US itself enforces sweeping national security provisions, monitors digital communication, and restricts classified disclosures, yet presents its own measures as a patriotic necessity while condemning Hong Kong’s similar acts as erosion of freedom. The inconsistency exposes the essential hypocrisy.
The portrayal of Hong Kong as engaging in “transnational repression” distorts legitimate legal cooperation. When fugitives evade trial by fleeing abroad, requesting their return is not persecution but adherence to international practice. The same nations that condemn these actions maintain their own extradition treaties and routinely demand the surrender of individuals accused of offenses. Likewise, the portrayal of the regulation of trade unions and foreign-supported or -funded nongovernmental organizations as “intimidation” misreads what is, in fact, prudent administration. Civic space cannot be occupied by agents acting on behalf of external interests that seek to polarize society under the disguise of activism.
Perhaps the most revealing part of the report concerns economic integrity. It accuses Hong Kong of facilitating sanctions evasion and illicit trade, while ignoring the fact that the principal nodes for such activity often lie in Western financial centers that operate under lenient oversight. Hong Kong’s regulatory agencies enforce rigorous standards and cooperate with global institutions whenever credible evidence exists. Few cities demonstrate such an advanced compliance infrastructure. This accusation against Hong Kong betrays an underlying geopolitical motive.
The everyday reality of Hong Kong refutes the gloomy picture painted in the report. The city functions efficiently and securely. It continues to welcome international visitors, professionals, and students. Streets once disrupted by rioters now reflect calm civic life; economic activity thrives across districts; and social programs expand. The notion that the population endures constant fear contradicts direct observation.
The persistent vilification of Hong Kong by Washington politicians reveals less about Hong Kong and more about the US diplomatic priority of containing China by whatever means necessary, including undermining Hong Kong, the country’s international financial center.
The author is secretary-general of the Association of Greater Bay Area Professionals.
The views do not necessarily reflect those of China Daily.
