Hong Kong

• ‘Democracy is much more than street protest and institutional politics, and Hong Kong people are now resisting in all possible and impossible ways’

  Ahead of the publication of the 2018 State of Civil Society Reporton the theme of ‘reimagining democracy’, we areinterviewing civil society activists and leadersabout their work to promote democratic governance, and the challenges they encounter in doing so.CIVICUS speaks with student leader Yiu Wa Chung about his involvement in the pro-democracy movement and the prospects for democracy in Hong Kong.

  1. Three years after the 2014 protests, what has happened to the pro-democracy movement?

  Two separate processes have unfolded over the past few years: street protests and an institutional process that took place around the Legislative Council elections. What we demanded through street demonstrations in 2014 was true universal suffrage. We wanted China to change its electoral guidelines and the pro-China Chief Executive to resign.

  Since Britain returned it to China in 1997, Hong Kong has been governed under the “one country, two systems” principle, which means the Hong Kong government has jurisdiction over internal affairs and trade relations, while the government of China is in charge of Hong Kong’s defence and foreign policy. We therefore enjoy limited self-determination and political rights, although we do have an independent judiciary and a free press.

  Hong Kong has the status of a Special Administrative Region, and our government is led by a Chief Executive who is chosen by a “nominating committee” of 1,200 people, most of them from pro-China elites. The Legislative Council is the legislative branch of government.

  The thing is, when Hong Kong was returned to China, we were promised that we would be able to elect our Chief Executive by universal suffrage by 2017; however, in 2014 it became clear that free elections were not going to happen, as a reform framework was passed in August that established that only a few committee-vetted (pro-China) candidates would be allowed to compete in these elections. And that was the trigger for the massive 2014 protests known as the Umbrella Movement, one of the biggest – if not the biggest – in Hong Kong’s history.

  The main reason that mobilisation decreased in the years after 2014 is that people were discouraged by the lack of results. After such a big movement and 79 days of occupation that paralysed major roads in the financial centre, we got no reply from the government, and there was no institutional change. People devoted a lot of energy, time and effort and they sacrificed so much. Almost every single young protestor who appeared on camera or was interviewed by the media in 2014 is being prosecuted or is in jail. And it was all for nothing. In other words, the costs of protest increased and the expected gains decreased, so the momentum passed and street protest declined.

  However, in the years since 2014 there were two elections, for the local District Councils in 2015 and for the Legislative Council in 2016. Because of the atmosphere and because voting in elections has much lower cost than going out to the streets, the results of those two elections were quite good for the pro-democracy camp.

  But it is important to note that half the legislative seats are filled through small circle elections within functional interests, which works almost like an appointment, so regardless of how well we fare in the elections we still face considerable obstacles when looking at the overall composition of the Legislative Council. Moreover, what happened in 2016 is that after the elections that the pro-democracy camp won, the government found an excuse to disqualify six of the elected legislative councillors. For instance, they argued that one of the councillors had not taken his oath properly because he had changed the tone of his words, so his promise to obey the laws of the People’s Republic of China sounded more as a question than a statement. He hadn’t changed a single word, but according to the government he pronounced them in a questioning rather than a neutral tone. Another elected councillor took the oath properly, in a neutral tone and all, but after he had been sworn in, he chanted a pro-democracy slogan, “Rights to the people.” Another one paused excessively in between words and mispronounced the word “China,” and so on.

  The judicial process following a demand for disqualification takes about a year, during which time these elected councillors were banned from taking part in the Council’s deliberations. And when they were eventually disqualified, they were required to pay back the salaries they had received. This is something that not just anybody can afford. In other words, the government is using every means at their disposal to bend people’s opinion, including by forcing us to go bankrupt. The message that Beijing is sending to people in Hong Kong is that resisting is pointless.

  In sum, both in the streets and at the institutional level, the pro-democracy movement is currently in decline.

  2. Do you think a “culture of protest” emerged out of the Umbrella Movement, and that the public is now more prone to mobilising than in the past?

  It did look like it around 2015, but the enthusiasm has long since dissipated. By 2015 the government was not as authoritarian as it is today, and community organising flourished. There were lots of new organisations that put their efforts into all kinds of issues, including labour rights, universal suffrage and institutional change. But by 2016, with the government on the offensive, trying to disqualify elected lawmakers, passing restrictive bills and jailing people, protest and mobilisation had declined.

  I believe that the current authoritarian trend is no accident; it fits the long-term plans of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). Since the handover, the CCP has devoted a lot of human and financial resources to setting up satellite organisations in Hong Kong. They have consistently worked to infiltrate each and every sector and change the democratic culture, step by step. Hong Kong people resented this; resentment built up and resulted in the 2014 protests. The Umbrella Movement took the CCP and the Hong Kong government by surprise; nobody expected so many people to take to the streets. But they chose to ignore it and let it wear out by providing no response whatsoever to its demands. The occupation lasted 79 days, during which the CCP clearly sized the movement up. They got to know its weaknesses and limits perfectly well. They were aware that people were getting tired. They saw us as a wave coming from the ocean, gathering strength and gradually wearing out, and they waited it out. As the movement weakened, the CCP asserted its power. Increasingly authoritarian methods are hard to resist once you have used up all our energy. All that has been done has yielded no results, so people have retreated further and increasingly refrain from voicing their opinion.

  It should be noted that unlike in China, control in Hong Kong can be subtle. Different methods are being used, the prosecution and jailing of protestors being just the most blunt of them. But the government has also been deliberately increasing the cost of living in Hong Kong, and most notably rent, which is already the highest in the world. The effects of this are appalling: for many people, it means they have to work longer hours, with little time or energy left for leisure or politics, and that they have no leftover money for anything else, and organising obviously costs money. Additionally, the Hong Kong economy is very dependent on China, and if you have business with China you will lose everything for not playing by their rules, which include political alignment.

  Control is also cultural and educational. There is an increasing control of the school curriculum, and changes are being introduced in the content of schoolbooks, so young children learn from an early stage that they have to love and obey China and its leaders. Children are being told to love the CCP, the “most democratic” party there is. There is also an ongoing attack on our language, as they are trying to impose Mandarin instead of Cantonese in schools. In short, combined control tactics are being applied from all sides – they are truly a tight network of control - so there is no room to even think of resisting.

  The democratic camp has kept trying to mobilise support, but people are tired and less ready to respond. Public reactions against authoritarianism and rights violations have become exceptions rather than the rule in the present context.

  3. A number of pro-democracy activists were jailed in 2017. What was the background to this, and what was the civil society response?

  In August 2017, three student leaders of the pro-democracy movement were sentenced to between six and eight months in jail. They had originally been sentenced to community service for storming a fenced-off section of the government headquarters. They were charged with unlawful assembly, and inciting people to take part in illegal rallies. However, the local government appealed against the case arguing that community service was too light a punishment, and they were eventually sentenced to jail. Additionally, they were barred from running for public office for five years, which meant that one of them, who was considering running for a legislative position, would no longer be able to do so.

  In reaction to the sentencing tens of thousands of people took to the streets and marched to the Court of Final Appeal. This was the biggest demonstration since 2014. Sadly, it was only an isolated reaction, which probably was due to the fact that these students were some of the most visible leaders of the Umbrella Movement and their cases drew lots of attention.

  In contrast, in December 2017 the government approved changes in the Legislative Council’s Rules of Procedure that would break the balance between pro-democracy and pro-China camps, and there was no visible reaction. The democratic camp called for a protest, but only a couple of hundred people showed up and were easily removed. These procedure changes were accomplished because, with six of its democratically elected legislators disqualified, the pro-democracy camp did not have enough votes to block them. Over several weeks, numerous pro-democracy legislators were kicked out of the chamber for disrupting the debate with filibustering tactics, and the amendments eventually passed. As a result, the president will now have the power to reconvene meetings, to ban and combine amendments, and to stop legislators from raising adjournment motions.

  4. Looking ahead, what are the main challenges to the sustainability of the pro-democracy movement, and how are they being addressed?

  All the major tools that we had are gone. For protesting in the streets you get arrested and thrown into jail, and if you try the institutional path, you get disqualified or stripped of decision-making power. The cost of involvement in both arenas is going up.

  Democracy is much more than street protest and institutional politics, and it is much more than what you can see on camera. People in Hong Kong are now resisting in all possible and impossible ways, such as setting up a tiny bookstore to counter state-sponsored indoctrination, using public space for cultural activities or creating semi-public spaces for reading groups.

  But of course we are not going to defeat the network of control that oppresses us by ourselves, with a music concert or a reading group. We need help. This could take the form of the international media focusing more on Hong Kong, the United Nations setting up a special commission, or foreign governments putting economic pressure on China to change its Hong Kong policy. However, we all know that this will hardly happen. Not even Britain, our former colonial power, reacted strongly as China recently stated that their Joint Declaration on Hong Kong, which laid the blueprint for Hong Kong to organise after its handover to China, no longer had any practical significance. China is not fulfilling its promises and Britain is not doing anything about it. There’s a lot the international community could do, but there’s not much they are willing to do, given the facts of China’s economic and military rise. They all want to do business with China and do not dare bring up the Hong Kong issue. The cause of Hong Kong is unfortunately not nearly as popular as that of Tibet.

  • Civic space in China is rated as ‘closed’ in theCIVICUS Monitor
• HONG KONG : « La loi sur la sécurité nationale viole la liberté d’expression et intensifie l’autocensure »

  CIVICUS s’entretient avec Patrick Poon, chercheur indépendant sur les droits humains, de la situation des droits humains à Hong Kong à la suite de l’adoption d’une nouvelle loi sur la sécurité nationale (LSN) en juin 2020. Patrick est un chercheur en doctorat à l’Université de Lyon en France,a précédemment travaillé comme chercheur sur la Chine à Amnesty International, et a occupé différents postes au sein du China Human Rights Lawyers Concern Group, du Independent Chinese PEN Center et du China Labor Bulletin.

  L’espace civique à Hong Kong est de plus en plus assiégé depuis le début d’une vague demanifestations de masse pour les libertés démocratiques en juin 2019, déclenchée par l’introduction d’un projet de loi sur l’extradition. LeCIVICUS Monitor a documenté l’usage excessif et mortel de la force contre les manifestants par les forces de sécurité, l’arrestation et la poursuite d’activistes pro-démocratie, ainsi que des attaques contre les médias indépendants.

• Hong Kong: Free human rights defender Chow Hang-Tung, end use of solitary confinement

  

  CIVICUS, a global civil society alliance, calls on Hong Kong authorities to immediately end the repeated use of solitary confinement and free lawyer and activist Chow Hang-Tung. Chow has faced solitary confinement six times in the last four months and has been unjustly targeted for exercising her freedom of expression.

• Hong Kong: Police must drop order against human rights group to shut down its website

  

   

  CIVICUS, the global civil society alliance, is disturbed by a formal letter issued by the Hong police to UK-based human rights group, Hong Kong Watch, to shut down its website for allegedly violating a national security law.

• HONG KONG: ‘Any activism that the government dislikes can be deemed a national security violation’

  CIVICUS speaks about the persecution faced by Hong Kong activists in exile with Anouk Wear, research and policy adviser at Hong Kong Watch.

  Founded in 2017, Hong Kong Watch is a civil society organisation (CSO) based in the UK thatproduces research and monitors threats to Hong Kong’s autonomy, basic freedoms and the rule of law. Itworks at the intersection between politics, academia and the media to help shape the international debate about Hong Kong.

  What challenges do Hong Kong activists in exile face?

  Hong Kong activists in exile face the challenge of continuing our activism without being in the place where we want and need to be to make a direct impact. We put continuous effort into community-building, preserving our culture and staying relevant to the people and situation in Hong Kong today. 

  When we do this, we face threats from the Chinese government that have drastically escalated since the National Security Law (NSL) was imposed in 2020.

  This draconian law was enacted in response to the mass protests triggered by the proposed Extradition Bill between Hong Kong and mainland China in 2019.

  The NSL broadly defines and criminalises secession, subversion, terrorist activities and collusion with a foreign country or with external elements. The maximum penalty is life imprisonment. In 2022, the United Nations (UN) Human Rights Committee concluded that the NSL is ‘vague and ambiguous’.

  In practical terms, any activism the Hong Kong government dislikes, including meeting a foreign politician, organising an event and publishing an article, can be deemed a violation of the NSL, according to the government’s interpretation. This means we don’t know what is legal and what is not, and many people end up self-censoring to protect themselves.

  On 3 July 2023, the government issued new arrest warrants for eight activists in exile, including three in the UK – Nathan Law, Finn Lau and Mung Siu-tat – and offered bounties of around £100,000 (approx. US$130,000) each for anyone providing information leading to their arrest. All of them are accused of breaching the NSL. Despite having no legal basis for applying the NSL in the UK, the Hong Kong government continues to threaten and intimidate activists abroad.

  To what extent are civil society and independent media in exile able to continue doing their work?

  Since the imposition of the NSL, over 60 CSOs, including political parties, trade unions and media groups, have disbanded. Many have relocated abroad, including over 50 CSOs that signed a joint statement urging government action following the Hong Kong National Security arrest warrants and bounties this month. 

  There is a strong network of Hong Kong activists in exile, and activists in exile are still able to do their work. However, we have great difficulty collaborating with activists still in Hong Kong because of the risks they face. For example, last week, five people in Hong Kong were arrested for alleged links to activists in exile who are on the wanted list. Collaborations must now be even more careful and discreet than they already were.

  What kind of support do Hong Kong activists and journalists in exile receive, and what further international support do you need?

  In November 2022, Hong Kong journalists who relocated to the UK collaborated with the National Union of Journalists of the UK and Ireland to launch the Association of Overseas Hong Kong Media Professionals. They pledged to focus on freedom of the press in Hong Kong and provide mutual assistance for professionals who have relocated overseas.

  There is also extensive support among Hong Kong activists and CSOs in exile, from civil society of host countries and from the international community, as can be seen in the joint response to the arrest warrants and bounties issued on 3 July.

  However, more coordinated action is needed to respond to Beijing’s threats, particularly from the governments of host countries. There needs to be more assurance and action to reiterate that Beijing and Hong Kong do not have jurisdiction abroad and there will be serious consequences to their threats. 

  Hong Kong activists in exile are now making submissions to the UN Human Rights Council’s Universal Periodic Review process, which will review China’s human rights record since 2018.

  We urge UN member states, CSOs and journalists to use this opportunity to highlight the drastic changes that have taken place in Hong Kong and to continue supporting our fight for democracy, rights and freedom.

  ---

  Civic space in Hong Kong is rated ‘closed’ by theCIVICUS Monitor.

  Get in touch with Hong Kong Watch through itswebsite or itsFacebook page, and follow@hk_watch and@anoukwear onTwitter.

• HONG KONG: ‘La Ley de Seguridad Nacional viola la libertad de expresión y está intensificando la autocensura’

  CIVICUS conversa con Patrick Poon, investigador independiente en derechos humanos, sobre la situación de derechos humanos en Hong Kong tras la aprobación de una nueva Ley de Seguridad Nacional (LSN) en junio de 2020. Patrick es investigador de doctorado en la Universidad de Lyon, en Francia, y anteriormente trabajó como investigador sobre China en Amnistía Internacional y ocupó varias posiciones en el China Human Rights Lawyers Concern Group, el Independent Chinese PEN Center y el China Labor Bulletin.

  El espacio cívico en Hong Kong ha sufrido crecientes embates desde que en junio de 2019 comenzara una ola deprotestas masivas por las libertades democráticas, disparadas por la presentación de un proyecto de Ley de Extradición. ElCIVICUS Monitor ha documentado el uso de fuerza excesiva y letal contra manifestantes por parte de las fuerzas de seguridad y el arresto y el procesamiento de activistas prodemocracia, así como ataques contra los medios independientes.

  

  ¿Por qué se impuso en Hong Kong la LSN y cuáles han sido sus impactos hasta ahora?

  La LSN, impuesta por el gobierno chino el 20 de junio de 2020, sin ninguna consulta o supervisión legislativa, faculta a China para extender del continente a Hong Kong algunas de sus herramientas más potentes de control social. La ley incluye la creación de agencias de seguridad secretas especializadas, permite denegar el derecho a un juicio justo, otorga amplios poderes a la policía, aumenta las restricciones sobre la sociedad civil y los medios de comunicación y debilita el control judicial.

  La nueva ley socava el estado de derecho y las garantías de derechos humanos consagradas en la constitución de facto de Hong Kong, la Ley Fundamental. Contraviene el Pacto Internacional de Derechos Civiles y Políticos, que forma parte del marco jurídico de Hong Kong a través de la Ley Fundamental y se traduce en la Ordenanza para la Declaración de Derechos Humanos.

  La intención del gobierno chino es utilizar la LSN para frenar el trabajo de incidencia y reducir el apoyo a la independencia porque más gente, y particularmente jóvenes, están apoyando la autonomía de Hong Kong y adoptando la identidad hongkonesa. Aunque la Ley Fundamental de Hong Kong consagra un alto grado de autonomía, el gobierno chino parece considerar los llamamientos a la autonomía y el autogobierno como un “peligro para la seguridad nacional”.

  La LSN ha violado gravemente la libertad de expresión del pueblo de Hong Kong y está intensificando la autocensura en la ciudad. Bajo la LSN, quienes abogan por la independencia, así como los políticos y otras figuras prominentes que apoyan las sanciones de gobiernos extranjeros contra Hong Kong y contra los funcionarios chinos responsables de la promulgación de la LSN, han sido blanco de detenciones arbitrarias. El gobierno obviamente está intentando disuadir a otros de seguir el ejemplo de estas personas.

  Los medios independientes también se han visto afectados por la represión. El arresto de Jimmy Lai, magnate de los medios de comunicación y fundador del popular periódico local Apple Daily, así como de otros altos ejecutivos de la empresa, representó un intento del gobierno de castigar a los medios de comunicación que lo critican. La publicación de notas que critican la LSN o reportan pedidos de sanciones presentados por funcionarios de gobiernos extranjeros se convierten en excusa para la represión de los medios independientes. Esto tendrá un impacto a largo plazo sobre los medios de Hong Kong, ya que intensificará aún más la autocensura de algunos medios.

  ¿Cuál ha sido la respuesta de la sociedad civil y el movimiento prodemocracia?

  La sociedad civil ha reaccionado enérgicamente contra la ley porque el proceso para promulgarla violó el principio del estado de derecho y la justicia procesal de Hong Kong, y las definiciones vagas y amplias de varias disposiciones de la ley exceden la comprensión normal del derecho en la ciudad. Los políticos y funcionarios gubernamentales pro-China se han esforzado por justificar la ley, pero sus argumentos son absurdos.

  ¿Cómo han reaccionado la oposición y la sociedad civil ante la decisión del gobierno de posponer las elecciones legislativas a causa de la pandemia de COVID-19?

  Las elecciones de 2020 para el Consejo Legislativo de Hong Kong originalmente estaban programadas para el 6 de septiembre, pero en julio la Jefa Ejecutiva de Hong Kong, Carrie Lam, con el argumento de que estaban aumentando las infecciones por COVID-19, usó sus poderes de emergencia para posponerlas por un año entero, de modo que ahora se supone que tendrán lugar el 5 de septiembre de 2021. Lam negó que el cambio se debiera a especulaciones políticas, pero lo cierto es que fue un golpe para los activistas prodemocracia, que aspiraban a obtener la mayoría en el Consejo Legislativo.

  En un contexto de protestas masivas, los candidatos prodemocracia ya se habían impuesto por abrumadora mayoría en las elecciones para el Consejo de Distrito de 2019. Junto con la recién aprobada LSN, el aplazamiento de las elecciones fue visto como parte de la estrategia del gobierno para neutralizar el movimiento por la democracia. Justo antes del anuncio de la postergación de las elecciones, 12 candidatos de la oposición habían sido descalificados para postularse y cuatro jóvenes ex miembros de un grupo de estudiantes independentistas fueron arrestados bajo la LSN por sus publicaciones en favor de la independencia en las redes sociales.

  El aplazamiento de la elección creó cierto conflicto dentro del campo prodemocrático, ya que hubo quienes se pronunciaron por mantener la lucha en el Consejo Legislativo mientras que otros reclamaron un boicot a la decisión del gobierno de posponer las elecciones. A partir de la decisión del gobierno de descalificar a algunos candidatos prodemocracia por sus opiniones políticas, queda claro que el gobierno no quiere escuchar voces disidentes en la legislatura.

  ¿Cómo podrían la comunidad internacional y las organizaciones internacionales de la sociedad civil apoyar a la sociedad civil de Hong Kong?

  La sociedad civil de Hong Kong debe trabajar en conjunto para garantizar que el gobierno chino y el gobierno de Hong Kong no abusen de la LSN para ahogar todas las opiniones disidentes y monitorear de cerca si el gobierno cumple con los principios del estado de derecho y las normas internacionales de derechos humanos.

  La comunidad internacional debe seguir expresándose en contra de la represión emprendida por los gobiernos de China y Hong Kong contra la sociedad civil y debe seguir planteando su preocupación por la LSN, que el gobierno chino está imponiendo por la fuerza en Hong Kong en nombre de la seguridad nacional, pero que en realidad no es más que un intento de silenciar las opiniones disidentes en la ciudad. La comunidad internacional debe enviar un mensaje claro de que la seguridad nacional no debe utilizarse como excusa para reprimir la libertad de expresión.

  El espacio cívico en China es calificado como “cerrado” por elCIVICUS Monitor.

• HONG KONG: ‘The National Security Law infringes on freedom of expression and is intensifying self-censorship’

  CIVICUS speaks with Patrick Poon, an independent human rights researcher, on the human rights situation in Hong Kong after a new National Security Law (NSL) was passed in June 2020. Patrick is a PhD researcher at the University of Lyon, France, and has previously worked as a China Researcher at Amnesty International and in various positions at China Human Rights Lawyers Concern Group, Independent Chinese PEN Center and China Labour Bulletin. 

  Civic space in Hong Kong is under renewed attack sincemass protests for democratic freedoms, sparked by a proposed Extradition Bill, began in June 2019. TheCIVICUS Monitor has documented excessive and lethal force by the security forces against protesters, arrests and the prosecution of pro-democracy activists as well as a crackdown on independent media.

     

  Why has the NSL been imposed in Hong Kong and what have its impacts been so far?

  The NSL, imposed by the Chinese government on 20 June 2020, without any consultation or legislative oversight, empowers China to extend some of its most potent tools of social control from the mainland to Hong Kong. The law includes the creation of specialised secret security agencies, allows for the denial of the right to a fair trial, provides sweeping new powers to the police, increases restraints on civil society and the media and weakens judicial oversight.

  The new law undermines Hong Kong’s rule of law and the human rights guarantees enshrined in Hong Kong’s de facto constitution, the Basic Law. It contravenes the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which is incorporated into Hong Kong’s legal framework via the Basic Law and expressed in its Bill of Rights Ordinance.

  The Chinese government’s intention is to use the NSL to curb advocacy and support for independence as more people, especially young people, have increasingly embraced Hong Kong’s autonomy and their identity as Hongkongers. Although Hong Kong’s Basic Law enshrines a high degree of autonomy, the Chinese government apparently regards calls for autonomy and self-governance as a ‘danger to national security’.

  The NSL has seriously infringed Hong Kong people’s freedom of expression and is intensifying self-censorship in the city. Under the NSL, people who advocate for independence, as well as politicians and prominent figures who support foreign governments’ sanctions on Hong Kong and Chinese officials who are responsible for enacting the NSL, have been the target of the arbitrary arrests. The government is obviously attempting to scare off others not to follow these people’s calls. 

  Independent media have also been affected by the crackdown. The arrests of Jimmy Lai, media mogul and founder of popular local paper Apple Daily, and senior executives in his company, signify the government’s attempt to punish news media that are critical of it. Reports about criticism against the NSL and calls for sanctions by foreign government officials become the excuse for the crackdown on independent media. This will have long-term impact on Hong Kong media, even further intensifying self-censorship for some media outlets.

  How have civil society and the pro-democracy movement responded?

  Civil society has reacted strongly against the law because the process to enact it violated the principle of the rule of law and procedural justice in Hong Kong, and the vague and broad definitions of various provisions of the law exceed the normal understanding of law in the city. Pro-China politicians and government officials have been trying hard to justify the law, but their arguments are preposterous. 

  How have the opposition and civil society reacted to the government’s decision to postpone the legislative election due to the COVID-19 pandemic?

  The 2020 Hong Kong Legislative Council election was originally scheduled for 6 September 2020, but in July the Hong Kong Chief Executive, Carrie Lam, cited an upsurge in COVID-19 infections and used her emergency powers to postpone it for a whole year, so now it’s expected to take place on 5 September 2021. She denied that the change was due to any political speculation, but it was in fact a blow for pro-democracy activists, who were seeking a majority on the Legislative Council. 

  In the midst of massive protests, pro-democracy candidates had already won by a landslide in the 2019 District Council election. Along with the new NSL, the postponement of the election was viewed as part of the government’s strategy to neutralise the pro-democracy movement. Just prior to the announcement that the election was being postponed, 12 opposition candidates were disqualified from running, and four young former members of a pro-independence student group were arrested under the NSL for their pro-independence posts on social media.

  The postponement of the election created some conflict among the pro-democracy camp, with some calling for keeping up the fight in the Legislative Council and others urging a boycott over the government’s decision to postpone the elections. From the government’s decision to disqualify some pro-democracy candidates for their political views, it is clear that the government doesn’t want to hear any opposition voices in the legislature.

  What can the international community and international civil society organisations do to support civil society in Hong Kong?

  Civil society in Hong Kong needs to work together to ensure that the Chinese government and the Hong Kong government will not abuse the NSL to curb all dissenting views and closely monitor if the government abides by the principle of the rule of law and international human rights standards.

  The international community should continue speaking up against the Chinese and Hong Kong government’s crackdown on  civil society and keep raising concerns about the NSL, which is being forcibly imposed on Hong Kong by the Chinese government in the name of national security, but in fact is no more than an attempt to silence dissenting views in the city. The international community should send a clear message that national security should not be used as an excuse to crack down on the freedom of expression.

  Civic space in China is rated as ‘closed’ by theCIVICUS Monitor. 

• HONG KONG: ‘This is a leader-full movement, ran by countless small networks of talented people’

  CIVICUS speaks about the protests that have rocked Hong Kong since June 2019 with Johnson Ching-Yin Yeung, democracy movement organiser and chairperson of the Hong Kong Civil Hub. The Hong Kong Civil Hub works to connect Hong Kong civil society with like-minded international stakeholders willing to help promote the rule of law, democracy and human rights in Hong Kong. 

  What triggered the mass protests that have taken place for several months?

  The protests had both short and long-term causes. When Hong Kong was decolonised in 1997, China signed an international treaty promising that people in Hong Kong would enjoy a high degree of autonomy. In other words, Hong Kong would have its own government, legislation, courts and jurisdiction. But, long story short, China is not fulfilling that promise and Hong Kong is slowly becoming more like China due to Chinese intervention in our government and judiciary. Following the2014 Umbrella Movement, there have been increasing restrictions on the freedom of association, and for the first time in decades the government made use of colonial-era laws and outlawed organisations that advocated for Hong Kong’s independence. We expect restrictions on association, funding and exchanges with international organisations and civil society to increase over the next few years.

  Political participation has also been under attack. In 2017, for the first time since 1997, a few lawmakers were disqualified and expelled from the legislature. In the past three elections there have been disqualifications of candidates. This is becoming a major tactic used by China, based on claims that certain candidates are not respecting the law or they will not be loyal to Beijing. This explains why at some point people decided to take their grievances to the streets, given that most institutional channels for political demands are shut down.

  People took to the streets in 2014, under the Umbrella Movement. But protest is being severely punished. In April 2019, several pro-democracy leaders weresentenced to eight to 16 months in prison. Local leaders who advocate for political independence have also been punished with up to seven years of imprisonment.

  The current protests began in June 2019. On 9 June,more than a million people mobilised against the Extradition Bill, aimed at establishing a mechanism for transfers of fugitives to mainland China,  currently excluded in the existing law. Three days later, the legislature decided to continue the legislation process regardless of the opposition seen on the streets, so people besieged the parliamentary building, to which the Hong Kong police reacted with extreme brutality, firing teargas and rubber bullets, shooting into people’s heads and eyes.

  Amnesty International made a comprehensive report on the incidents of 12 June and concluded that the police had used excessive force, even though the protest had been authorised by the Hong Kong government.

  What changed after the repression of 12 June?

  There was a huge outcry because we had never experienced this kind of repression before, and two million people – almost one quarter of the population of Hong Kong – took part in the protests that took place four days after.

  From then on, protesters had a few additional demands on top of the initial demand that the extradition agreement be withdrawn, something that happened three months after the first protest. Protesters demanded the release of the arrested demonstrators and the withdrawal of the characterisation of the protests as riots, which is cause enough to hold someone and convict them: all it takes is for a defendant to have been present at the protest scene to face up to 10 years in prison for rioting. Protesters also demanded an independent inquiry into police activity. Over the past six months we’ve documented a lot of torture during detentions. Excessive force is used all the time against peaceful protests, so people really want the police to be held accountable. A recent survey showed that 80 per cent of the population support this demand. But the government is relying solely on the police to maintain order, so they cannot risk such investigation. Last but not least, there is the demand of universal suffrage and democratic rights, without which it is difficult to foresee anything else changing for real.

  What did not change was the government reaction and the police repression.Over the next few months, around 7,000 people were arrested – 40 per cent of them students, and 10 per cent minors – and around 120 people were charged. The fact that only 120 out of the 7,000 people arrested were charged shows that there have been lots of arbitrary arrests. The police would arrest people on grounds of illegal assembly. I was arrested in July when I was just standing in front of the corner line. I complied with police instructions, but I still got arrested.

  Thousands of people were injured during the protests. The official number is around 2,600 but this is a very conservative estimate because more than half of the injured people were not brought to public hospitals and did not seek medical assistance because they were afraid they would be arrested. Some doctors and nurses organised underground settlements to treat serious injuries like infections or rubber bullet injuries. But they had to remain anonymous and there simply were not enough of them and they didn’t have enough medical supply. There have been at least 12 suicides related to the protest movement. Lots of people have gone missing. Students and activists who are arrested are often deprived of their right to a lawyer and a phone call, and no one knows where they are detained. In many cases, it’s hard to verify whether people are in fact missing or have fled the country.

  Analysts have claimed that the strength of the current protests lies in their ‘leaderless’ character, something that prevents the government stopping the movement by jailing leaders. Do you agree with this characterisation?

  Many observers have seen the way we have used technology to coordinate the protests and they have concluded that our movement has no leaders. It is true that our movement is characterised by the decentralisation of communications and mobilisation. But this does not mean it is aleaderless movement. On the contrary, the Hong Kong protest movement is a leader-full movement: it is full of leaders and is run by countless small networks of talented people capable of organising and coordinating action on their own.

  While the demography of the protests is quite diverse in terms of age, background and social class, more than the 50 per cent of protesters are female, and the major force of the protests are people aged 20 to 49. There is also a strong presence of highly educated people: more than 85 per cent of protesters have tertiary education or above.

  But a notable characteristic of this disparate protest movement has been its unity, which may have resulted from the longstanding repression of civil society. When the leaders of the 2014 protests – most of them young students – were sentenced to prison, older people showed up at the protests because they felt that they had not been doing enough. People also united against police brutality, because there was no previous history of such a serious crackdown on protesters and people felt morally responsible to show up in support.

  Can you tell us more about how the protest movement has used technology for organising and coordinating action?

  During the first few months at least, people would rely on their cellphones and the Telegram app. People would have strategic discussions and channel these discussions into a Telegram channel. These are not the safest communication tools but they can hold more than 3,000 subscribers, which means that you can speak to 3,000 people at the same time, you can share action timetables, the site of protests or the location of the police with a huge number of people. We use a live map to inform protesters where the police are and where the protests are taking place, so they can avoid being arrested. Another app shows which businesses and stores are supportive of the movement. Pro-democracy businesses appear in yellow, while pro-government ones appear in blue.

  We also use Telegram bots for international advocacy. A group of people is dedicated to disseminating information on Twitter and Interact.

  We also use social media as a recruitment tool because after an action is held, people use social media to reflect about the strategies used and assess the outcomes. But after a few months, people started using online apps less and less. They would instead form their own groups and organise their own actions. There are frontier leaders, first leaders, people working on documentation, people who organise street protests – each is doing their own thing while at the same time warning others about clashes and organising timetables. This is how we use civic tech.

  How has the movement managed to grow and thrive in adverse conditions?

  Several elements explain why people keep showing up and why the movement is so resilient against government repression. First, people deploy their actions in their own neighbourhoods. We disperse action rather than concentrate it, because when we use concentration tactics, such as holding a protest in front of a government building, we become an easy target for the police. In the face of dispersed actions, the police would try to disperse protesters but would often end up attacking passers-by or people going about their business in their own neighbourhoods. For many people not involved directly in the protests, this was also a wake-up call and functioned as a recruitment mechanism: police brutality ceased to be a far-away problem; instead, it hit home and became personal, triggering a protective reaction.

  A tactic commonly used by protesters is the Lennon Wall, in which people post messages in public spaces, which creates a sense of community and helps organise public support. Lennon Walls appear in various places and people use them to send and receive information about the protests. People also put posters in bus stops so when people are waiting for the bus they can get information about the protests. People sing in protest in shopping malls. This way, people use their lunchtime to sing a song and protest while going about their business, and they reach people who don’t read the news and don’t pay much attention to politics. That is one of the key lessons here.

  Another key lesson concerns the importance of the unity between the moderate side and the radical front of the protests. Given that even authorised protests would be dispersed with teargas for no reason, some people began resorting to more militant actions to combat the police and protect their space. Some social movement analysts claim that radical incidents diminish popular support for the movement, but this does not seem to be happening in Hong Kong. In a recent survey, more than 60 per cent of respondents said they understood the use of violence by the people. I suppose that one reason why people do not reject militant actions is that they view the government and the police as responsible for most of the violence, and view violence by protesters as a fairly understandable response. Another reason is that radical protesters have been careful not to target ordinary people but only the police and pro-government businesses.

  What else have you learned in the process?

  A big lesson that we’ve learned concerns the effectiveness of creativity and humour to offset government repression. Protesters used laser tags to disable cameras used for the surveillance of protesters, so people started to get arrested for buying laser tags. After a student was arrested for possessing a laser tag, hundreds of thousands of people gathered in a public space and used laser tags to point at a public building. Another example of an effective response took place in early October 2019. There is a law that states that people can be jailed for a year if they wear a mask or anything covering their faces, so people responded in defiance, forming a human chain in which everyone was wearing some kind of mask.

  We’ve also come to understand the importance of global solidarity and leveraging geopolitics. The Hong Kong diaspora has organised a lot of lobbying and advocacy in various cities around the world. We have also lobbied foreign governments and supported the Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act, a bill that was introduced in the US Congress following the Umbrella Movement in 2014, but that was only passed in November 2019. This law requires the US government to impose sanctions against Chinese and Hong Kong officials responsible for human rights abuses in Hong Kong, and requires the US Department of State and other agencies to conduct an annual review to determine whether changes in Hong Kong's political status – namely its relationship with mainland China – justify changing the unique and favourable trade relations between the USA and Hong Kong. This is huge, and we are trying to replicate this in other countries, including Australia, Canada, Italy and New Zealand.

  We have also done advocacy at the United Nations (UN), where some resolutions about police brutality have been passed. But the UN is quite weak at the moment, and aside from the documentation of human rights violations there is not much they can do. Any resolution regarding the protests will be blocked by China at the UN Security Council. That said, a thorough UN investigation on police brutality would send a strong message anyway. We have been communicating with human rights civil society organisations to do more advocacy at the UN.

  We are also looking for alternative tactics such as working with unions in France, because water cannons are manufactured in France and we hope something can be done about it.

  What have the protests achieved so far?

  The democratic camp has made a lot of progress. In November 2019 we had elections for the District Council. True, the District Council doesn’t have any real political power because it carries out neighbourhood duties, like garbage collection and traffic management. Still, in the latest election 388 out of 452 seats went to the pro-democracy camps, whereas back in 2015 they were only 125 pro-democracy representatives, compared with 299 who were pro-Beijing.

  That said, I don’t think the pro-democracy movement should put too much of its energy into institutional politics because the District Council is not a place where the political crisis can be solved. However, the elections served as a solid foundation for organisers to organise people at the local level.

  According to the polls, almost 90 per cent of the people supported independent investigation of human rights violations, more than 70 per cent demanded the resignation of the Hong Kong Chief Executive, Carrie Lam, and 75 per cent supported universal suffrage. That kind of popular support has remained stable for several months, which is pretty amazing.

  What are the challenges ahead?

  While there is no sign of protests calming down, there is also no sign of the government making concessions anytime soon. Violence is escalating on both sides, and the protest movement might lose public support if some demonstrators decide to go underground. The Chinese government will not let itself be challenged by protesters, so it is infiltrating organisations and tightening the grip on civil society. Organised civil society is relatively weak, and Beijing can easily interfere with academic institutions, schools and the media by appointing more allies and dismissing those who are critical of the government. The next five years will likely be tough ones for civil society and democracy in Hong Kong, and we will have to work to strengthen civil society’s resilience.

  Another important issue is that a lot of young protesters are traumatised by the violence they have witnessed and experienced. We have support groups with social workers and psychologists, but they cannot provide support in their official capacity or they would find themselves under pressure by their employers who take money from the government. Social workers are also at risk and the police constantly harass them. To strengthen self-care and gain resilience for the battle ahead, we need to train more people and create support groups to help people cope, control their stress and share their stories.

  Another potential challenge is the limited sustainability of global solidarity. Right now Hong Kong is in the spotlight, but this will not last long. Our struggle is for the long haul, but the world will not be paying attention for much longer. So we will need to build more substantial and permanent alliances and partnerships with civil society groups around the world. We need to empower local groups and give people new skills regarding international law, advocacy and campaigning. The protest movement is not going anywhere. It’s going to be a long struggle so we will have to train more organisers. We will disseminate the knowledge gained by the protesters, so when they are sent to jail others will take over.

  Civic space in China is rated as ‘closed’ by theCIVICUS Monitor.

  Get in touch with the Hong Kong Civil Hub through itswebsite and follow@hkjohnsonyeung on Twitter.

• HONG KONG: ‘We urge governments to protect exiled human rights defenders within their jurisdictions’

  

  CIVICUS speakswith Anouk Wear, research and policy adviser at Hong Kong Watch, about recent district council elections held in Hong Kong amid an ongoing crackdown on dissent.

  Founded in 2017, Hong Kong Watch is a civil society organisation (CSO) based in the UK thatproduces research and monitors threats to Hong Kong’s autonomy, basic freedoms and rule of law. Itworks at the intersection between politics, academia and the media to shape the international debate about Hong Kong.

   

  What was the significance of Hong Kong’s 2023 district council elections?

  On 11 December 2023, Hong Kong held elections spanning 18 district councils with a total of 479 seats. District councillors advise the Hong Kong government on local issues within their districts and have funding to promote recreational, cultural and community activities.

  These elections were especially significant because following the previous round, held in 2019 and won by pro-democracy candidates by a landslide, the Hong Kong government introduced several changes to ensure that the pro-China camp would maintain the majority in future elections.

  The 2023 election was marked by a record-low voter turnout of just 27.5 per cent. Many people abstained because they felt a sense of despair given that all candidates had to be vetted and approved by the Chinese state. This left no opposition voices to vote for, diminishing the significance of the election.

  We want genuine universal suffrage, not a ‘democracy with Chinese characteristics’, as the founding chairman of Hong Kong’s Democratic Party, Martin Lee, aptly warned in 2014. Unfortunately, the situation has only worsened since then.

  What tactics did the government use to control the election?

  As analysed in a briefing we published recently, the election fit into a broader trend of democratic erosion in Hong Kong.

  In 2021, changes to Legislative Councils were introduced under the slogan ‘Patriots Governing Hong Kong’,  aimed at screening out democrats and ensuring that only pro-establishment candidates aligned with Beijing could run for seats. To that effect, candidates are now required to pass two major political barriers before participating in the election.

  First, they must secure nominations from all five sectors of the Election Committee, a 1,500-member electoral college made up of representatives of various constituencies, including industry, professions, grassroots organisations, the government and Hong Kong representation in Chinese bodies. Second, they are screened by the Candidate Eligibility Review Committee, mainly composed of government officials. Candidates who don’t have a strong pro-China agenda can be disqualified on grounds of not being ‘patriotic’ enough.

  A similar approach was applied to district council candidates. In April 2023, Chief Executive John Lee announced that upcoming district council elections would be open exclusively to patriots, with only a certain number of ‘depoliticised’ seats focused on administrative tasks elected by the public. He added that people who love the country and are willing to serve can participate in district councils through ‘various other ways’. In line with these reforms, only 88 seats were directly elected by the public, compared to 452 in the previous election, with 179 to be appointed by the chief executive.

  Moreover, in the lead-up to the elections, three members of the League of Social Democrats were followed and arrested for planning a protest against the election, which they called a ‘birdcage’, stating that ‘Hong Kong people’s right to vote and to be elected seems to be absent’.

  What should be done to restore democratic freedoms in Hong Kong?

  Civil space has drastically shrunk since the 2019 district council elections. Following the imposition of the National Security Law in 2020, over 60 organisations have been disbanded, including CSOs, political parties, trade unions and media outlets. Many organisations have relocated abroad, while others have adjusted the scope of their work to protect their members who remain in Hong Kong.

  It’s crucial that discussions are continued, the human rights situation is monitored and detailed reports are provided as steps towards restoring democratic freedoms in Hong Kong. We shouldn’t accept new repressive laws as the norm but instead stay vocal about any regressive legislation and rights violation.

  It’s important to keep speaking up for people in Hong Kong and human rights defenders in exile. For example, recently the Hong Kong national security police issued five arrest warrants offering HK$1 million (approx. US$ 128,000) bounties for exiled pro-democracy Hong Kong activists based in the UK and USA. We strongly condemn this illegal attack against our friends and colleagues. We urge governments to take a stand and protect Hong Kong human rights defenders within their jurisdictions.

  How is Hong Kong Watch working towards this end, and what international support do you need?

  We work to inform and educate legislators, policymakers and the media, as well as raise awareness among the wider public about violations of human rights, basic freedoms and the rule of law in Hong Kong. We advocate for actions to assist victims of rights violations through a combination of in-depth research reports, opinion editorials, monthly media briefings, interviews and advocacy campaigns.

  It’s crucial to hold Hong Kong and China accountable for their violations of international human rights law and urge them to fulfil their obligations. For instance, the 2022 review of the United Nations (UN) Human Rights Committee, tasked with monitoring compliance with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), found that Hong Kong violated its international legal obligations and recommended that the authorities take tangible steps, with a clear timeline, to introduce universal suffrage and reform the electoral system in compliance with the ICCPR.

  We’re engaging in this effort through submissions to the Human Rights Committee and other treaty bodies, including the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women and the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, as well as to the upcoming Universal Periodic Review at the UN Human Rights Council.

  We deeply appreciate the support we receive from governments, legislators, civil society and people worldwide. But we need more international solidarity, particularly at the governmental level, to pressure Hong Kong authorities to comply with their obligations under international law and ensure that other states refrain from conducting business as usual with Hong Kong, in view of the grave and systematic nature of human rights violations the current regime commits.

   

  ---

  Civic space in Hong Kong is rated ‘closed’ by theCIVICUS Monitor.

  Get in touch with Hong Kong Watch through itswebsite orFacebook page, and follow@hk_watch and@anoukwear onTwitter.

  The opinions expressed in this interview are those of the interviewee and do not necessarily reflect the views of CIVICUS.

• Hong Kong: A year on, the National Security Law has crushed civic freedoms

  New research on the state of civic freedoms in Hong Kong - a look at restrictions over the past year

  CIVICUS, the global civil society alliance, is extremely concerned about the alarming regression of civic freedoms in Hong Kong. One year one from the passage of the draconian National Security Law, our research shows it has been weaponised to target dozens of pro-democracy activists and has created a chilling effect within civil society.

  The National SecurityLaw (NSL) punishes four types of activities: secession, subversion, terrorism and collusion with “foreign forces”, all carrying a maximum sentence of life in prison.These offences are vaguely defined and can easily become catch-all offences to prosecute activists and critics with potentially heavy penalties.

  TheNSLestablishes new national security bodieswhich are partially or fully controlled by People’s Republic of China (PRC) officials, in violation of the Basic Law.It gives Hong Kong police sweeping new powers including to conduct warrantless searches and covert surveillance, and to seize travel documents of those suspected of violating the security law. The law also contravenes the UN Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary and undermines the right to a fair trial by a competent, independent and impartial tribunal, guaranteed under Article 14 of the InternationalCovenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).

  "The national security law has become the most dangerous threat to civic freedoms in Hong Kong and has allowed for any form of dissent to be criminalised. The law has increased the climate of fear in Hong Kong and has been weaponised to target government critics, including people who are merely expressing their views or protesting peacefully”,said David Kode, Head of Advocacy at CIVICUS

  Morethan ahundred people have been arrested underthe National Security Law including pro-democracyactivists,formerlawmakers,lawyers,journalists and students.Activists have been accused of inciting or abetting secession or subversion just for showing leaflets and banners with reference to Hong Kong Independence or for their social media posts. 

  In January2021, 55 people,including pro-democracy activists,opposition candidates, former lawmakers and lawyers, were arrested and detained under law for ‘subversion’ for holding and participating in primaryelections held by Hong Kong’s pro-democratic party in July 2020. 47 of the activists have been charged.

  TheNSL has alsodramatically changed the environment for civil society in Hong Kong, greatly impeding the ability of civil society to carryout their work.Some have quit on the eve of the law’s introduction while others have exercised greater caution in their activities. The chilling effect of the crackdown on the entire sector cannot be overstated.

  The lawhas also been deployed against the media. Media owner Jimmy Lai, the founder of Apple Daily, a major pro-democracy newspaper, has been detained since December2020. He is facing multiple charges, including ‘colluding with foreign forces’. In May 2021, authorities announcedthey had frozen assets belonging to Lai under the national security law marking the first time a company has been targeted by the controversial legislation.  On 17 June, six of the newspaper’s staff and executives were arrested for their role inthe publication of more than 30 articles that called on foreign countries to impose sanctions. All were charged under the NSL. Apple Daily ceased operations on 26 June.

  “The use of the national security law to silence activism is a violation of international law. The repression against pro-democracy activists and other critics has led to the dismantling of civil society in Hong Kong, forcing many to flee the territory. The international community must not remain silent in the face of such abuses but must stand up and stand in solidarity with those defending human rights” said David Kode.

  Since 2019, theHong Kong authorities have also deployed other laws to criminalise peaceful protests in particular the Public Order Ordinance which has been used to charge activists holding and participating in an ‘unauthorised assembly’, It carries a maximumfive-year sentence.  The UN Human Rights Committee has criticised the law, saying that “it may facilitate excessive restriction” to basic rights. 

  Pro-democracyactivist Joshua Wong was sentenced to 13 and a half months in December 2020 for a mass protest outside a police station in June 2019. Wong’slong-time fellow activists Agnes Chow and Ivan Lam were also sentenced to 10 and seven months in prison for ‘incitement,’ referring to their use of a megaphone to shout slogans during the protest. 

  In April 2021,the courts sentenced ten pro-democracy activists to between eight and 18 months in prison for gatherings that were part of a series of mass protests triggeredby the proposed Extradition Bill. In May 2021, eight activists were sentenced for organising a protest in October 2019. More recently, On 4 June 2021, the authorities bannedthe annual Tiananmen massacre vigil for a second straight year and arrested barrister and activist Chow Hang Tung for breaching section 17A(1D) of the Public Order Ordinance by ‘promoting an unauthorised assembly’. 

  ---

  More information

  Download the Hong Kong research brief here.

  ---

  Interviews

  To arrange interviews, please contact Josef Benedict, CIVICUS Asia-Pacific Civic Space Researcher  and 

• Hong Kong: A year on, the National Security Law has crushed civic freedoms

  New research on the state of civic freedoms in Hong Kong - a look at restrictions over the past year

  CIVICUS, the global civil society alliance, is extremely concerned about the alarming regression of civic freedoms in Hong Kong. One year one from the passage of the draconian National Security Law, our research shows it has been weaponised to target dozens of pro-democracy activists and has created a chilling effect within civil society.

  The National SecurityLaw (NSL) punishes four types of activities: secession, subversion, terrorism and collusion with “foreign forces”, all carrying a maximum sentence of life in prison.These offences are vaguely defined and can easily become catch-all offences to prosecute activists and critics with potentially heavy penalties.

  TheNSLestablishes new national security bodieswhich are partially or fully controlled by People’s Republic of China (PRC) officials, in violation of the Basic Law.It gives Hong Kong police sweeping new powers including to conduct warrantless searches and covert surveillance, and to seize travel documents of those suspected of violating the security law. The law also contravenes the UN Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary and undermines the right to a fair trial by a competent, independent and impartial tribunal, guaranteed under Article 14 of the InternationalCovenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).

  "The national security law has become the most dangerous threat to civic freedoms in Hong Kong and has allowed for any form of dissent to be criminalised. The law has increased the climate of fear in Hong Kong and has been weaponised to target government critics, including people who are merely expressing their views or protesting peacefully”,said David Kode, Head of Advocacy at CIVICUS

  Morethan ahundred people have been arrested underthe National Security Law including pro-democracyactivists,formerlawmakers,lawyers,journalists and students.Activists have been accused of inciting or abetting secession or subversion just for showing leaflets and banners with reference to Hong Kong Independence or for their social media posts. 

  In January2021, 55 people,including pro-democracy activists,opposition candidates, former lawmakers and lawyers, were arrested and detained under law for ‘subversion’ for holding and participating in primaryelections held by Hong Kong’s pro-democratic party in July 2020. 47 of the activists have been charged.

  TheNSL has alsodramatically changed the environment for civil society in Hong Kong, greatly impeding the ability of civil society to carryout their work.Some have quit on the eve of the law’s introduction while others have exercised greater caution in their activities. The chilling effect of the crackdown on the entire sector cannot be overstated.

  The lawhas also been deployed against the media. Media owner Jimmy Lai, the founder of Apple Daily, a major pro-democracy newspaper, has been detained since December2020. He is facing multiple charges, including ‘colluding with foreign forces’. In May 2021, authorities announcedthey had frozen assets belonging to Lai under the national security law marking the first time a company has been targeted by the controversial legislation.  On 17 June, six of the newspaper’s staff and executives were arrested for their role inthe publication of more than 30 articles that called on foreign countries to impose sanctions. All were charged under the NSL. Apple Daily ceased operations on 26 June.

  “The use of the national security law to silence activism is a violation of international law. The repression against pro-democracy activists and other critics has led to the dismantling of civil society in Hong Kong, forcing many to flee the territory. The international community must not remain silent in the face of such abuses but must stand up and stand in solidarity with those defending human rights” said David Kode.

  Since 2019, theHong Kong authorities have also deployed other laws to criminalise peaceful protests in particular the Public Order Ordinance which has been used to charge activists holding and participating in an ‘unauthorised assembly’, It carries a maximumfive-year sentence.  The UN Human Rights Committee has criticised the law, saying that “it may facilitate excessive restriction” to basic rights. 

  Pro-democracyactivist Joshua Wong was sentenced to 13 and a half months in December 2020 for a mass protest outside a police station in June 2019. Wong’slong-time fellow activists Agnes Chow and Ivan Lam were also sentenced to 10 and seven months in prison for ‘incitement,’ referring to their use of a megaphone to shout slogans during the protest. 

  In April 2021,the courts sentenced ten pro-democracy activists to between eight and 18 months in prison for gatherings that were part of a series of mass protests triggeredby the proposed Extradition Bill. In May 2021, eight activists were sentenced for organising a protest in October 2019. More recently, On 4 June 2021, the authorities bannedthe annual Tiananmen massacre vigil for a second straight year and arrested barrister and activist Chow Hang Tung for breaching section 17A(1D) of the Public Order Ordinance by ‘promoting an unauthorised assembly’. 

  ---

  More information

  Download the Hong Kong research brief here.

  ---

  Interviews

  To arrange interviews, please contact Josef Benedict, CIVICUS Asia-Pacific Civic Space Researcher  and 

   
• Hong Kong: Chow Hang Tung remains in detention for one year since her arrest

  Today, we mark a year since the arrest of human rights defender and lawyer Chow Hang Tung.

• Hong Kong: Chronology of harassment against human rights defender Chow Hang-tung

  Chow Hang-Tung is a human rights lawyer, pro-democracy activist and was one of the four vice-chairs of the now-defunct Hong Kong Alliance in Support of the Patriotic Democratic Movement of China (HKA). The HKA was the main organiser of the annual Tiananmen vigils – an event of remembrance of the Tiananmen Massacre in 1989. She had also been proactively campaigning to release political prisoners and safeguard democracy in Hong Kong.

  On 13 December 2021, the courts convicted her and sentenced her to 12 months imprisonment for participating in an unauthorised assembly and inciting others to do the same concerning the Tiananmen vigil in June 2020. On 4 January 2022, she wassentenced to an additional 15 months in jail, with five to be served concurrently, for inciting others to participate in the 2021 Tiananmen vigil by publishing two pieces calling on Hong Kong residents to mark the day by lighting candles. She won her appeal against her 15 month conviction in December 2022.

  She was also charged of "inciting subversion of state power and "not complying with the requirement to provide information" under Article 43 of Hong Kong's National Security Law and sentenced to 4.5 months prison in March 2023

  Updated April 2024

  2021

  4 June 2021: Chow Hang-tung was arrested by Hong Kong police on the 32nd anniversary of the 1989 Tiananmen Square crackdown for inciting an unauthorised assembly after she urged people to mark the Tiananmen Massacre by lighting candles and said she would do so in a public space.

  5 June 2021: Chow was released on bail.

  30 June 2021: Police re-arrested Chow and her bail was revoked for allegedly encouraging others to join a banned rally for the anniversary of Hong Kong’s handover to China that was to be celebrated on 1 July 2021. No charges were brought against her in connection with the banned event.

  2 July 2021: Chow appeared before the West Kowloon Magistrates’ Courts, which refused to grant her bail. She was detained at the New South Territories police station.

  5 August 2021: Chow was granted bail by a Hong Kong court after being remanded in custody for over a month. Chow had to pay a cash bail of HK$50,000, offer a surety of HK$50,000, hand over all travel documents, and submit a declaration that she does not hold a BNO passport.

  25 August 2021: The standing committee members of the Hong Kong Alliance including Chow received letters from the police national security unit. The letters required them to provide information under paragraph 5 of Article 43 of the National Security Law.  Police officers visited the homes of the organisation’s committee members to serve the letters.

  8 September 2021:Chow and several members of The Hong Kong Alliance were arrested after the group was accused of working as a "foreign agent". The arrests were made under the national security law

  10 September 2021:  Chow and two others were charged with subversion. A Hong Kong court denied her bail.

  24 September 2021: Chow appeared before the West Kowloon Magistrates Court for her second bail review hearing. The judge denied her bail on the same basis as the last review, that he has "insufficient ground for believing she would not continue to commit acts endangering national security."

  25 September 2021: The Hong Kong Alliance announced it was disbanding. Authorities froze 2.2 million Hong Kong dollars (USD 283,000) of the group’s assets this month after it was charged 

  29 September 2021:  The National Security Department informed the Hong Kong Alliance that its assets, including bank accounts and a property, were frozen under the Implementing Rules of Article 43 of national security law. 

  30 September 2021: The West Kowloon Magistrates' Court denied bail for the third time

  11 October 2021: the West Kowloon Magistrates' Court denied bail for the fourth time.

  12 October 2021: Four UN experts, namely the UN Special Rapporteurs on Human Rights and Counter-terrorism, the Rights to Freedom of Peaceful Assembly and of Association, the Rights to Freedom of Expression, and on Human Rights Defenders raised concerns over the arrest of Chow and highlighted the urgent need for the Hong Kong government to review the draconian National Security Law.

  22 October 2021: The presiding judge granted bail, for the first time, to Chow and four other human rights defenders. However, Chow Hang-tung remained in remand on a separate charge of "inciting subversion of State power

  26 October 2021: The Chief Executive ordered the Hong Kong Alliance be removed from Companies Register because the Alliance’s work, including organizing peaceful assemblies, undermines the Central governments’ “ability to safeguard national security and to maintain public safety and order”

  1 November 2021: Chow pleaded not guilty to the charges levelled against her for their role in the Tiananmen vigil

  6 December 2021: Chow's application for bail, the sixth since her arrest in September 2021, was denied by a Hong Kong court 

  9 December 2021: A Hong Kong court found Chow and two other prominent pro-democracy activists guilty over an unauthorised assembly on 4 June 2020 to mark Beijing's 1989 crackdown on protesters in and around Tiananmen Square.

  13 December 2021: Chow received a 12 month sentence. 

  2022

  4 January 2022: Chow was sentenced to 15 months in prison for incitement of a banned vigil to commemorate those who died in Beijing’s crackdown in Tiananmen Square in 1989. During Chow’s trial, prosecutors said the activist had incited others to take part in the vigil through articles published on her Facebook account and in the Ming Pao newspaper. The judge said five months of the sentence will run concurrently, meaning Chow will serve 10 months in addition to her current sentence.

  14 February 2022: Chow made an application to the magistrate asking that the court reporting restrictions about her case under s87A(2) of the Magistrates Ordinance be lifted.

  25 April 2022: The application asking that the court reporting restrictions to be lifted was refused by Principal Magistrate Peter Law Tak-chuen. 

  31 May 2022: Chow launched a legal bid against a magistrate’s decision not to lift reporting restrictions for a national security case. The application was made against the decision of Principal Magistrate Peter Law, who is also a hand-picked national security judge, not to lift reporting restrictions on committal proceedings for the Alliance’s national security case. Reporting restrictions surrounding committal proceedings – whereby a magistrate determines whether there is enough evidence for case to be transferred to the Court of First Instance of the High Court for trial or sentence – mean that written and broadcast reports are limited to including only the name of the defendants, magistrates, and lawyers, the alleged offence, the court’s decision, whether legal aid was granted, and future court dates.

  17 June 2022:  Chow has sought to appeal her conviction and sentence linked to last year’s June 4 assembly, which was banned by police for public health concerns. Judge Judianna Barnes of the High Court will hear Chow’s argument on 11 October 2022.

  29 June 2022: It was reported that Chow had been denied access to some details of the prosecution’s case against her, two weeks ahead of the national security case going to trial. Chow made the request on for the particulars of the prosecution’s case accusing the group acting as a foreign agent in front of Principal Magistrate Peter Law at the West Kowloon Magistrates’ Courts. She told the court that it would be “impossible” for her to prepare her case without knowing on what basis the prosecution was accusing the Alliance functioning as a foreign agent.

  12 July 2022: Chow asked Hong Kong’s High Court to open committal proceedings in her case to the media, but a government lawyer objected on the grounds that this may jeopardise a fair trial. 

  13 July 2022: A Hong Kong court was asked to determine if Chow and two former members of the Hong Kong Alliance can challenge the legality of a national security data probe. The trio were accused of “failing to comply with [a] notice to provide information” from the national security police. 

  27 July 2022: The UN Human Rights Committee urged Hong Kong to repeal the national security law and, in the meantime, refrain from applying it. They also called on Hong Kong authorities to “refrain and reconsider” security law charges against human rights barrister Chow Hang-tung

  2 August 2022: The High Court quashed the court reporting restriction. The High Court Judge Alex Lee Wan-teng ruled in favour of Chow’s application and overturned Law’s decision, asking him to grant an order that Law shall lift the reporting restrictions when handling Chow’s next application, which will allow open reporting of pre-trial proceedings – known as committal hearings - in a Hong Kong national security case for the first time.   In the judgement, Lee mentioned the magistrate had no discretion but to lift the reporting restrictions when the applicant made a request under s87A(2), and Law’s denial would impede a fair trial and that the application was ultra vires.  Lee also said the court “rejects” a contention by Hong Kong’s Secretary for Justice that lifting the reporting restrictions “would frustrate the ultimate aim of doing justice.”  

  17 August 2022: Principal Magistrate Peter Law lifted the court reporting restriction for the upcoming preliminary inquiry of Chow Hang-tung’s NSL case, following the decision from the High Court. The preliminary hearing, a process for Magistrates to determine whether the prosecution has enough evidence to make a case against the defendant, would be conducted in an open court. 

  2 September 2022: Preliminary inquiry for Chow Hang-tung was conducted, with Veronica Heung as the Acting Principal Magistrate. The process was conducted as an open court. 

  9 September 2022:The National Security case against Chow Hang-tung was moved to the Court of First Instance, after Acting Principal Magistrate Veronica Heung ruled in the preliminary inquiry that the prosecution had sufficient evidence against her. The highest penalty for incitement to subversion is ten years imprisonment.

  11 October 2022:Chow Hang-tung appeared before Judge Judianna Barnes of the High Court seeking an appeal against her conviction and 15-months sentence over the 2021 banned commemoration. The Judge will hand down the judgement at the end of December. 

  26 October 2022: In a trial held at the West Kowloon Magistrates’ Court against her and two other former standing committee members of the Hong Kong Alliance, Tang Ngok-kwan and Tsui Hon-kwong, who stand accused of not complying with national security police’ request for information on the investigation under the National Security Law, Principal Magistrate Peter Law barred Chow Hang-tung from using the phrase “Tiananmen massacre” during the national security trial, with a magistrate instead urging her to use “proper terminology.”

  14 December 2022: Chow won an appeal against the conviction and 15-month prison term over the banned 4 June vigil in 2021. In a written judgement, Court of First Instance judge Judianna Barnes said police did not exercise their responsibility in allowing and facilitating a peaceful public assembly wherever feasible, as stated in the Public Order Ordinance. The judge added that while Chow had called for people to gather at Victoria Park, her action was not a crime as the ban was not legally sound. While her 15-month sentence, which was meant to end in January 2023, has been repealed, Chow will remain in detention over her two national security cases.

  2023

  4 March 2023: Three former leaders of the disbanded Hong Kong Alliance which organised Hong Kong’s annual Tiananmen vigil, including Chow Hang-Tung were convicted under the Beijing-imposed national security law for failing to give police information on members and other data. The other two were Tang Ngok-kwan and Tsui Hon-kwong.

  11 March 2023: The three were sentenced to four and a half months in jail. Chow was defiant, while criticising what she described as the “political” nature of the case, and the decision of the court to withhold key facts. She said: “We will continue doing what we have always done, that is to fight falsehood with truth, indignity with dignity, secrecy with openness, madness with reason, division with solidarity. We will fight these injustices wherever we must, be it on the streets, in the courtroom, or from a prison cell.”

  3 May 2023:  Chow was chosen as the winner of this year's Gwangju Prize for Human Rights. Moon Hee-sang, head of the judging panel said "Chow Hang-tung's struggle against the Hong Kong government's undemocratic, inhumane treatment has become the source of courage and hope for human rights advocates and those longing for democracy around the world, even when she is in custody."

  23 June 2023:  The UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention published their decision (dated 1 May 2023) on Chow Hang-Tung and found that her deprivation of liberty as arbitrary within categories I ( No legal basis justifying the deprivation of liberty), II (deprivation of liberty is a result from the peaceful exercise of freedoms of expression, assembly and association.), III (there were severe violations of the fair trial right) sand V (she has been specifically targeted by the authorities for her political opinion).

  11 October 2023: It was reported that Chow had been sent into solitary confinement again. She was sent to solitary once in June, twice in July, once in August and once in September, for anything from seven to 14 days at a time.

  13 December 2023: Chow Hang-tung was awarded the Franco-German Prize for Human Rights and the Rule of Law. The award honours “civil society’s commitment to human dignity and the inalienable human rights of all people.”

  21 December 2023: A Hong Kong court rejected a fresh bail application for Chow Hang-tung, whose subversion trial under a China-imposed national security law is expected to open in late 2024. High Court judge Andrew Chan said he couldn't grant bail because Chow might carry out acts that endanger national security.

  2024

  25 January 2024: The High Court overturned Chow Hang-tung’s acquittal of the 15-month jail sentence for ‘inciting others to take part in an unauthorised assembly’ relating to a Tiananmen vigil in 2021

  14 March 2024: The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal of Hang-Tung and two other activists to overturn their conviction over their refusal to provide authorities with information on the group under a national security law.

  17 April 2024: The High Court has refused the applications of Hang-Tung and two other activists to challenge their convictions in the Court of Final Appeal (CFA) over refusing to comply with a data request from national security police 

• Hong Kong: conviction of trustees and secretary from 612 Humanitarian Fund another blow to civil society

  

  Photo credit: Hong Kong Watch

  CIVICUS, a global civil society alliance, and Asia Democracy Network (AND) are appalled by the conviction of six pro-democracy figures affiliated with the-now defunct 612 Humanitarian Relief Support Fund (the 612 Fund) - for failing to register the fund. The court’s decision is another blow to freedom of association in Hong Kong and clearly highlights the regression of civic and democratic space in the region.

• Hong Kong: Crackdown on democratic freedoms continues with mass arrests

  Global civil society alliance CIVICUS condemns the mass arbitrary arrests in Hong Kong this week in an unprecedented crackdown on democratic freedoms and calls for the immediate release of all those detained. The arrests are the clearest sign yet that the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) under President Xi Jinping is determined to stamp out political opposition in the region.

  53 people, including pro-democracy activists, opposition candidates and former lawmakers, and lawyers, were arrested and detained under the draconian National Security Law (NSL). The 53 have been accused of ‘subverting state power’ by holding and participating in primary elections held by Hong Kong’s pro-democratic party in July 2020. At the time, China declared the primaries ‘illegal’. 

  Among those arrested is  Benny Tai, an activist and legal scholar. Former legislators James To, Lam Cheuk-ting, Claudia Mo and Leung Kwok-hung and Eddie Chu Hoi-dick were also arrested. Others include young pro-democracy campaigners Lester Shum, Gwyneth Ho, Tiffany Yuen and Jeffrey Andrews. Police also searched the home of already-detained activist Joshua Wong, as well as three news outlets.

  The arrests took place in early-morning raids on 6 January, compounding a climate of fear pervasive in Hong Kong since the NSL was adopted in June 2020. The NSL has been heavily criticized by human rights groups for undermining fair trial rights, providing sweeping new powers to the police, increasing restrictions on civil society and the media and weakening judicial oversight. Protests against the law were some of the biggest in Hong Kong’s history.

  Following its adoption, the law was immediately used to prosecute activists and critics, prompting a statement in July 2020 from the UN Human Rights Office that ‘such laws should never be used to criminalize conduct and expression that is protected under international human rights law.’ The repression enabled by the law, of which this week’s mass arrests are just the latest example, clearly shows once again that the concerns raised by the law and protests against it were entirely justified.

  More than 10,000 people have been arrested overall in connection with the 2019 protests against the NSL, and more than 2,000 have faced prosecution on charges such as “rioting”, “illegal assembly” and “possession of weapons”. In December 2020, prominent pro-democracy activists Joshua Wong, Agnes Chow and Ivan Lam were convicted on charges relating to peaceful protests in 2019 and handed jail sentences. Wong was sentenced to 13.5 months in jail, Chow to 10 months and Lam to seven months. 

  In September 2020, CIVICUS joined over 300 organisations in endorsing a call by UN experts for a Special Session of the Human Rights Council to evaluate the range of violations by China’s government, including those in Hong Kong, and to establish an impartial and independent UN mechanism to closely monitor, analyze, and report annually on that topic.  Organizations also urged the UN Secretary-General to appoint a Special Envoy, consistent with his Call to Action on Human Rights, and called call on the High Commissioner for Human Rights to monitor and publicly report on China’s sweeping rights violations. 

  As the Council prepares to sit again in February for its 46th Session, CIVICUS reiterates these calls. China became a member of the Council in October 2020 – taking action to address its human rights violations is not only crucial to support those on the ground, including activists in Hong Kong who face persecution and incarceration, but it would also send a strong message that no country is above scrutiny. At the moment, the international community is falling far short on both counts.

• Hong Kong: Restrictions on civic space increase as independent media outlets are forced to close

  🇭🇰#HongKong
  🚩Forced closure of independent media outlets
  🚩Judicial harassment of #journalists
  🚩Further deterioration of civic freedoms & democracy
  
  We urge the international community to stand with the people of #HongKong & call out these violations: https://t.co/3eb2yYmAp3 pic.twitter.com/gIhGuzVtZ5

  — CIVICUS (@CIVICUSalliance) January 4, 2022

  •  Prominent independent news site to cease operations 
  • Authorities using restrictive laws to silence the media 
  • The international community must take steps to restore fundamental freedoms
• Hong Kong: Submission to the UN Human Rights Committee on the deterioration of civic space

  CIVICUS has submitted a report to the UN Human Rights Committee on the state of civic space in Hong Kong ahead of its review of the state’s implementation of its obligations under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) on 7 July 2022.  

  In the submission, CIVICUS documented an alarming deterioration of the right to freedom of expression in Hong Kong since 2018, including the use of restrictive laws to silence dissent and criminalise human rights defenders and journalists. Specifically, the National Security Law (NSL) which punishes secession, subversion, terrorism and collusion with “foreign forces”. all carrying a maximum sentence of life in prison. These offences are vaguely defined and have easily become catch-all offences to prosecute activists and critics with heavy penalties.  

  Press freedom is under assault in Hong Kong. Media outlets have been targeted with raids and forced to closed and journalists have been criminalised. Foreign reporters have also been subjected to new restrictions under the NSL. 

  Academic freedom has come under serious threat since 2020. Several pro-democracy scholars have had their employment terminated by universities in Hong Kong, while school administrators have been told to help ‘prevent and suppress’ acts that could violate the NSL. Academic research is being closely monitored in Hong Kong, and there has been a crackdown on student organisations. 

  The submission also notes how the Hong Kong authorities have also continued to prosecute and convict peaceful protesters involved in demonstrations, including pro-democracy leaders. They are often charged for organizing, inciting participation or participating in an ‘unauthorised assembly’ under the Public Order Ordinance, which requires organisers to notify police of demonstrations involving more than 30 people at least seven days in advance, and requires organisers to get a ‘notice of no objection’ from the government before proceeding. The charge of ‘unauthorised assembly’ carries up to five years in prison. 

  Police officers have been recorded beating and using pepper spray and teargas on people during protests in 2019, including those subdued on the ground; shooting and blinding several individuals; unnecessarily tackling protesters to the ground, including pregnant women, children and older people; and giving patently improbable and outright false explanations about their actions in press conferences. According to human rights groups, no police officers alleged to have committed abuses during the 2019 protests have been held accountable.  

  The submission highlights how the right to freedom of association, has been undermined by the introduction of the NSL in 2020. This dramatically changed the environment for civil society in Hong Kong, greatly impeding the ability of civil society to carry out their work. The entire staff of some organisations quit on the eve of the law’s introduction. While some civil society organisations (CSOs) and pro-democracy movements have disbanded or shut their offices, others have instead exercised greater caution in their activities. Unions have also been forced to disband. The authorities are also investigating CSOs about their fundraising. The chilling effect of the crackdown on civil society cannot be overstated. 

  The submission calls on the UN Human Rights Committee to make a series of recommendations including: 

  • Take steps to repeal the National Security Law as it is not compliant with the ICCPR and drop all criminal proceedings against human rights defenders, activists, journalists, political figures and others who have been targeted solely for the peaceful exercise of their right to the freedom of expression and ensure that those already detained are immediately and unconditionally released. 

  • Abolish provisions in Part III of the Cap. 245 Public Order Ordinance relating to the need for permission for protests and bring the ordinance in line with the ICCPR and establish a fully independent, impartial, effective and prompt investigation into all cases of excessive use of force by police, arbitrary arrest and detention of peaceful protesters; 

  • Take measures to foster a safe and enabling environment for civil society, including by removing legal and policy measures that unwarrantedly limit the freedom of association and refrain from acts leading to the closure of CSOs or the suspension of their peaceful activities.  

  Hong Kong is currently rated Repressed  by the CIVICUS Monitor. There are a total of 50 countries and territories in the world with this rating (see all). This rating is typically given to countries where civic space is heavily contested by power holders, who impose a combination of legal and practical constraints on the full enjoyment of fundamental rights (see full description of ratings). 

  More information

  Download the Hong Kong research brief here. 

  ---

  Interviews

  CIVICUS:

   
• Hong Kong: The international community must take a principled stand against repression

  Joint statement with FORUM Asia and Asia Democracy Network

  The international community must take a strong, principled stand against the escalating repression and reprisals against human rights activists and civil society in Hong Kong.

  ‘Authorities in China and Hong Kong have relentlessly harassed activists and human rights defenders, further shrinking an already repressive civic space. State-led intimidation towards civil society, including through the National Security Law continues to escalate, closing space for dissent,’ said Shamini Darshni Kaliemuthu, Executive Director of FORUM-ASIA.

  The year 2021 saw the continued assault on civic space in Hong Kong. In January alone, 53 pro-democracy activists were arrested under the National Security Law, accused of trying to ‘overthrow’ the government. [1]

  In April, a Hong Kong court sentenced prominent pro-democracy activists ‒ including media figure Jimmy Lai, barrister Margaret Ng and Democratic Party founding chairperson Martin Lee – to prison for their participation in anti-government protests in 2018 and 2019. [2] Lai was sentenced to 14 months in prison while other activists received suspended sentences or jail terms. On 6 May, activist Joshua Wong was sentenced to an additional ten months in jail for his participation in a vigil last year marking the Tiananmen Square crackdown. [3]

  The National People’s Congress Standing Committee recently overhauled Hong Kong’s electoral system, giving Chinese security bodies the authority to investigate political candidates. It also created a committee with the power to bar any election candidate deemed ‘insufficiently loyal’ to the government from running in elections. [4]

  ‘These changes to the electoral system blatantly obliterate any remaining spaces for democracy. The implementation of these changes will have a devastating impact on the opposition’s capacity to represent opposing views, effectively compromising the ability of the people of Hong Kong to have their voices heard,’ said Josef Benedict, CIVICUS Asia Pacific researcher.

  The rights groups are concerned that these changes are another step towards a full-blown China-style authoritarian rule. For years, the pro-democracy movement has raised grave concerns over China’s increasing influence in the city’s governance and democracy. The National Security Law imposed in June 2020 gave Chinese authorities broad powers to stamp out any form of opposition to the ruling party and set up a security apparatus in the city, effectively cementing China’s authoritarian influence.

  In April 2021, the legislature, now devoid of opposition, passed an immigration law that critics argue will allow the government to stop people from entering and leaving the city. [5] Set to take effect on 1 August, the law’s vague wording has raised fears it would lead to ‘exit bans’, similar to China’s ban against activists leaving the country.

  Activists have been forced to hide or flee in fear of persecution by Chinese and Hong Kong authorities. Since the anti-extradition protests in 2019, authorities have wielded disproportionate and excessive violence against the democracy movement, weaponised repressive laws and used surveillance to intimidate and harass protesters, the media and any other critical voices.

  ‘China and Hong Kong authorities should not be impenetrable to international scrutiny and action. As a member of the UN Human Rights Council, China must be held accountable for its systematic human rights violations and its assault on fundamental freedoms, which falls grossly short of standards expected of members of the Council.

  As the international community begins to grasp the gravity of its violations not just in Hong Kong, it must prove itself capable of taking a stand for human rights and the protection of all,’ said the groups.

  ---

  The Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development (FORUM-ASIA) is a regional network of 81 member organisations across 21 Asian countries, with consultative status with the United Nations Economic and Social Council, and consultative relationship with the ASEAN Intergovernmental Commission on Human Rights. Founded in 1991, FORUM-ASIA works to strengthen movements for human rights and sustainable development through research, advocacy, capacity-development and solidarity actions in Asia and beyond. It has sub-regional offices in Geneva, Jakarta, and Kathmandu.

  The Asia Democracy Network (ADN) works to promote and advance democratisation and democratic governance at all levels of society through effective solidarity and cooperation among civil society organisations and democracy advocates in Asia. ADN is committed to building a just, equitable and sustainable community of democratic societies in Asia, where all human rights of all individuals, groups and peoples are fully respected and realised.

  ---

  1 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-55555299 
  2 prominent pro-democracy personalities 
  3 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-57005120 
  4 https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/13/world/asia/hong-kong-election-law.html
  5 https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/apr/28/hong-kong-passes-law-that-can-stop-people-leaving

   
• Hongkong: Civic space deteriorates as another civil society group plans closure

  #HongKong: The closure of @amnesty & other civil society groups highlights the devastating impact of the draconian #NationalSecurityLaw on #civicspace. The int'l community must stand in solidarity with #civilsociety in Hong Kong & call these abuses out https://t.co/4LYNjYstIY pic.twitter.com/syZ6IKaO2L

  — CIVICUS (@CIVICUSalliance) October 29, 2021

  CIVICUS, the global civil society alliance, expresses grave concern over increasing restrictions of civic space in Hong Kong exacerbated by the implementation of the National Security Law (NSL). These restrictions have led to the closure of human rights organisations and independent unions and highlight the proliferation of a climate of fear for activists and those who are critical of the authorities. 

  In the most recent case, prominent human rights watchdog Amnesty International announced the closure of its local and regional office in Hong Kong. In a statement, the organisation said that the NSL “has made it effectively impossible for human rights organizations in Hong Kong to work freely and without fear of serious reprisals from the government”. It added that “the recent targeting of local human rights organisations  and trade unions  signals an intensification of the authorities’ campaign to rid the city of all dissenting voices.”

  Between August and October 2021, several other organisations announced their disbandment in the wake of the sweeping NSL. These include the Civil Human Rights Front (CHRF), the pro-democracy group that organized some of Hong Kong's biggest protests in 2019. Other groups include the Hong Kong Alliance, responsible for organising three decades of vigils commemorating the victims of the Tiananmen Square massacre, Hong Kong Professional Teacher’s Union, the city’s largest teachers’ union and the Hong Kong Confederation of Trade Unions (HKCTU), the largest independent trade union.

  All the groups cited the drastic change in the political situation in Hong Kong and the potential risks of criminalisation under the NSL as the main driving force behind their decision.

  “The recent closure of offices announced by Amnesty International and the disbandment of other organisations out of a fear of potential reprisals send a chilling message to people in Hong Kong and across the region. It confirmed concerns raised by many when the law came about that it was not so much about security but rather designed as a tool to crackdown on civic freedoms in Hong Kong,” said Cornelius Hanung, Asia Advocacy and Campaigns Officer, CIVICUS.

  CIVICUS has previously documented the detrimental impact of the NSL imposed by Beijing, which criminalises four types of activities, namely secession, subversion, terrorism and collusion with “foreign forces.” According to the law, these  carry a maximum sentence of life in prison. Following the passage of the law in June 2020, several pro-democracy organisations including Demosisto, one of Hong Kong’s most prominent pro-democracy political groups, ceased their operations.  Some civil society staff left their jobs while others have exercised greater caution in their activities. More than a year on, it has been arbitrarily used to criminalise more than a hundred activists and opposition politicians, restrict press freedom and silence protests.

  “We stand in solidary with the people of Hong Kong and our civil society colleagues, and reiterate our calls for the government to repeal the National Security Law which is clearly in contravention of international human rights law. We further urge the international community not to remain silent in the face of increasing  restrictions on civil society but to use all avenues to speak up on these abuses” said Cornelius Hanung.

  In September 2020, CIVICUS supported the call by 50 United Nations experts calling for decisive measures to protect fundamental freedoms in China, including Hong Kong, and for an international mechanism to address the Chinese government’s human rights violations. We call on delegations to the Human Rights Council to take collective, coordinated action at the next Council session to make clear that systemic human rights violations in China, including those taking place in Hong Kong, will not go unnoticed and unchecked. 

• Human Rights Council adopts resolution on peaceful protests

  Reaction to resolution on peaceful protests at the 44th Session of the UN Human Rights Council

  With the adoption of a new resolution on peaceful protests, the Human Rights Council has sent a strong message that it stands by peaceful protesters who mobilise for change, and that law enforcement officials who perpetrate violence against protesters must be held to account.

  All over the world, protesters have been mobilizing and standing up to win better working conditions, further equality, and end forms of oppression. But in too many cases, from Chile to Hong Kong to the US, protesters, protest monitors and journalists have been met with repression and police brutality, often with complete impunity. We urge states to ensure full accountability for human rights violations perpetrated by law enforcement in the context of peaceful protests. 

  The COVID-19 pandemic has accelerated the urgency of the protection of online assembly. Given this context, CIVICUS welcomes that the resolution strongly reaffirms that the rights of peaceful assembl guaranteed offline are also guaranteed online. We thank Switzerland and Costa Rica in bringing forward this resolution, which could not come at a more critical time for the protection of peaceful protests worldwide.

  The resolution mandates the Special Rapporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association to prepare over the next two years a dedicated report on the protection of human rights in the context of peaceful protests during crisis situations. It also provides for a panel discussion on the promotion and protection of human rights in the context of peaceful protests, looking at achievements and contemporary challenges, at the Council Session next June.

  ---

  Current council members:

  Afghanistan, Angola, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Chile, Czech Republic, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Denmark, Eritrea, Fiji, Germany, India, Indonesia, Italy, Libya, Marshall Islands, Mauritania, Mexico, Namibia, Nepal, Netherlands, Nigeria, Poland, Pakistan, Peru, Philippines, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Senegal, Slovakia, Somalia, Sudan, Spain, Togo, Ukraine, Uruguay, Venezuela

  Civic space ratings from the CIVICUS Monitor

  OPEN	NARROWED	OBSTRUCTED	REPRESSED	CLOSED