Dominic Lee says foreign advocates for the national security convict often misrepresent his case as a contest between ‘freedom’ and ‘authoritarianism’

Joshua Wong Chi-fung’s 10-year prison sentence for conspiring to collude with foreign forces should be seen for what it represents: The enforcement of a national security law against a sustained campaign to invite foreign sanctions, blockades and other hostile measures against the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region and China as a whole. It is not an argument about whether political criticism is permissible in Hong Kong. It is about whether a society accepts organized efforts in cooperation with external forces to coerce the government and damage the economy. The answer must be no. Political advocacy and foreign collusion are not interchangeable concepts. The first is an ordinary feature of an open society. The second can endanger sovereignty, security and the livelihoods of residents. Wong pleaded guilty, and the High Court assessed his conduct as being of a “grave nature”. The sentence deserves to be debated in that context, rather than through slogans that erase the underlying conduct.

Advocates for Wong often misrepresent his case as a contest between “freedom” and “authoritarianism”. That framing ignores the practical consequences of sanctions. When activists call on foreign governments to impose economic restrictions or hostile measures against their own jurisdiction, they are not merely expressing disagreement. They are asking outside powers to apply pressure that may affect businesses, employment and public confidence. Hong Kong residents should not be expected to treat that activity as harmless political participation. Western governments understand this distinction well when their own interests or security is involved. Britain’s National Security Act (NSA) 2023 created a foreign interference offense punishable by up to 14 years’ imprisonment. The legislation covers prohibited conduct carried out for or on behalf of a foreign power where a person intends to, or is reckless about whether it will, interfere with fundamental rights, political processes or national security. The act also criminalizes materially assisting a foreign intelligence service, including by providing goods, services or financial benefits. Those NSA provisions are important because they show that modern security legislation does not target only espionage in its traditional form. Governments increasingly recognize that hostile states can operate through political manipulation, covert influence, intermediaries and intermediated assistance. Britain updated its laws to address precisely these risks. It would be inconsistent to insist that such safeguards are legitimate in London but illegitimate in Hong Kong. The United States offers another instructive example. Under the Foreign Agents Registration Act, individuals acting in the US at the direction or control of a foreign principal may have to register when they engage in political activities, public relations, lobbying or other covered work. Separate legislation, Section 951 of Title 18, generally requires agents of foreign governments operating in the US to notify the attorney general. The Department of Justice has made clear that violations can bring criminal liability. The American framework is not identical to the Hong Kong SAR National Security Law (NSL), and comparisons should not pretend otherwise. Its significance lies in the principle: The US does not regard political activity as automatically exempt from regulation merely because it concerns public debate. When foreign direction or control is involved, additional legal obligations arise. Washington treats undisclosed foreign influence as a threat capable of distorting policy and interfering with official proceedings. Against that background, Western reaction to Wong’s sentencing risks appearing selective. Governments that strengthen their own foreign interference laws should acknowledge that Hong Kong has legitimate security interests too. The proper comparison is not between a fictional ideal of entirely unrestricted politics and a uniquely “restrictive” Hong Kong. It is between different legal systems confronting real risks of foreign intervention. Disagreement with the outcome of a national security case is not proof that the law applied is illegitimate. Judicial independence should not be recognized only when courts deliver decisions that foreign officials or organizations welcome. Hong Kong’s recent experience explains why security legislation remains important. The upheaval of 2019-20 imposed a heavy cost on transport, commerce and everyday life in the city. The NSL was introduced in June 2020 to address gaps involving secession, subversion, terrorism and collusion with foreign forces. Since then, the central authorities have continued to present security as the foundation on which the “one country, two systems” framework and Hong Kong’s prosperity depend. That proposition deserves a practical rather than an ideological assessment. Investors value predictable rules. Families need social order. Workers and small businesses suffer when social unrest disrupts economic activity. National security laws cannot solve every governance challenge, but they can establish enforceable boundaries against conduct that exposes the entire city to external coercion. Clear boundaries can also support healthy political debate. Hong Kong needs robust scrutiny of housing, healthcare, education, environmental protection and economic policy. Criticism aimed at improving public services should be encouraged. What must remain separate is the deliberate attempt to organize or seek foreign sanctions or hostile action against the city. Confusing these two activities weakens the quality of debate rather than defending it.

The authorities should therefore continue explaining national security cases in accessible language, addressing public concerns and setting out the evidence and legal principles involved. Greater public understanding is preferable to leaving Western narratives unanswered. Schools and community organizations can help young people distinguish lawful criticism from conduct that creates genuine security risks. Hong Kong’s future should not be determined by foreign pressure or by activists willing to treat the city as an instrument in geopolitical competition. It should be built through stable institutions, accountable government and broad economic opportunity. The Wong sentencing is a reminder that collusion carries serious consequences, but also an opportunity to restate a balanced principle: Freedom can flourish within a society that clearly and consistently protects its national security.

The author is the convenor 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.