There was once a city in Asia known as the “Outpost of Freedom”. I remember it so well. When evening fell and its millions of lights came on, we journalists would gather at the Foreign Correspondents’ Club to discuss everything under the sun—not least the latest news from China.That outpost of freedom has long since died. Only the place name remains: Hong Kong.
When the British handed Hong Kong over to the People’s Republic of China in 1997, China’s leaders promised that the territory would be allowed to retain its economic and political system for another fifty years. But it was not long before Beijing began interfering in matters large and small. Independent voices were silenced, stringent security laws were introduced, and political activities once regarded as normal were gradually outlawed.
Some time ago, the British weekly The Spectator described the process as “death by a thousand cuts”.
Since 1997, the people of Hong Kong have repeatedly flooded into the streets to protest against the regime in Beijing. As early as 2003, half a million people demonstrated against the government’s proposed new security law. Even more took part in the demonstrations of 2014, when the so-called Umbrella Movement demanded a freer electoral system. Five years later, Hong Kong erupted in protest against a Beijing-backed extradition bill. An estimated two million demonstrators believed that the law would undermine Hong Kong’s own legal system and place thousands of dissidents at risk.
Today, hardly anyone dares to speak their mind. Even the courts have found it prudent to obey Beijing. Much can be said against British rule in Hong Kong, but the courts were independent and highly respected.
But now?
The sentences handed down last week told most of the story. Three veterans of Hong Kong’s democracy movement received lengthy prison terms: Chow Hang-tung was sentenced to seven years and three months, Lee Cheuk-yan to seven years, and Albert Ho to five years and two months. They had led the Hong Kong Alliance in Support of Patriotic Democratic Movements of China, which for decades organised the great candlelight vigils commemorating the 1989 Beijing massacre.
What is most striking is what they were convicted of. The prosecution and the judges held that they had challenged the Communist Party’s constitutional leadership by calling for an end to the one-party dictatorship. Until 2020, such a demand could be voiced openly in Hong Kong under the freedoms guaranteed by the territory’s Basic Law, its “mini-constitution”. But the court concluded that such plain speaking was no longer permitted. Conditions had “changed” because of the security law introduced that same year.
Earlier this year, newspaper founder Jimmy Lai, the man behind the now-defunct pro-democracy newspaper Apple Daily, was sentenced to twenty years in prison. He was convicted on three charges: two counts of conspiracy to collude with foreign forces and one count of conspiracy to publish seditious material.
The prosecution placed particular emphasis on Lai’s contacts with American politicians and his efforts to persuade the United States and other countries to put pressure on China and Hong Kong. The judges described him as the mastermind behind the operation. Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch argued that he was being punished for legitimate journalism, political expression and international advocacy. Six former Apple Daily executives, an activist and a paralegal were also sentenced to prison terms ranging from six to ten years.
The twenty-year sentence is the harshest yet imposed in Hong Kong under the controversial security law. Lai is 78. This may mean that he will remain behind bars for the rest of his life. The United States, Britain, the European Union and several others protested strongly, while the central government in Beijing and Hong Kong’s own government maintained that the case was an ordinary matter of law enforcement.
Apple Daily was forced to close in 2021. In March this year, the authorities went a step further by forcibly dissolving three companies formally associated with the newspaper. In practice, all the former opposition newspapers have ceased to exist. Even the South China Morning Post, long a beacon of freedom, has become conspicuously servile towards Beijing. Hong Kong has consequently suffered a dramatic fall in Reporters Without Borders’ World Press Freedom Index. In 2002, the city ranked 18th; today it is 140th out of 180.
Two years ago, Reporters Without Borders estimated that at least 900 journalism jobs had disappeared since the security law was introduced. Many of the journalists moved abroad, particularly to Taiwan, Britain, Canada and the United States, where some established new online media outlets covering Hong Kong.
Hong Kong has also experienced a significant exodus of academics and other highly educated people. At the city’s colleges and universities, subjects such as law, history and the social sciences have become extremely sensitive. The fate of historian Rowena He, whose research focuses on the Tiananmen massacre, tells most of the story. In 2023, she lost the right to work in Hong Kong after the immigration authorities refused to renew her visa. The Chinese University of Hong Kong subsequently terminated her employment.
“We would like to write fiction because we cannot write the truth on paper anymore,” she said in parting.
The historian Frank Dikötter, known for his books on Mao and the Chinese revolution, worked for many years at the same university. After the security law came into force, he found that colleagues were no longer willing to speak to the media because they were afraid of saying the wrong thing.
“The heart has been ripped out of Hong Kong,” he says. “Basic civil liberties have been ground into dust.”
Dikötter is now affiliated with Stanford University in the United States.
It should be added that over the past couple of years, Hong Kong has once again succeeded in attracting financiers, technology specialists and other highly qualified professionals. The city is therefore no longer experiencing the same brain drain as before. But the liberal, pro-democracy section of its intellectual community has been severely weakened, and few, if any, believe that it can be rebuilt in the foreseeable future.
In London, 82-year-old Chris Patten is following developments with particular interest. He was Britain’s last governor of the Crown colony before it was handed over to China. In books and articles, he has described China’s conduct as a tragedy, placing much of the blame on its present leader, Xi Jinping. The fact is, he writes, that Hong Kong did reasonably well for many years after the handover. Then came Xi with his iron fist.
“But nothing lasts forever,” he adds. “Freedom will prevail over China’s authoritarian system.”
faeroevi@online.no
