On July 1st, marking the fourth anniversary of the implementation of the “National Security Law for Hong Kong,” the Longren Cultural and Educational Foundation in Taiwan held a seminar inviting scholars and experts specializing in Hong Kong issues to engage in in-depth discussions. The experts pointed out that the once shining Pearl of the Orient is no longer the same, as Hong Kong has been fully “sinicized” over the past four years of the implementation of the “Hong Kong version of the National Security Law.”
The Longren Cultural and Educational Foundation in Taiwan stated that during the four years since the enforcement of the “National Security Law for Hong Kong” on July 1st, the impact on Hong Kong’s development and the Taiwan-Hong Kong relationship has been immense. Furthermore, the Hong Kong government further tightened its control by implementing the “National Security Law Maintenance Regulations” based on Article 23 of the Hong Kong Basic Law on March 23 this year, completely stifling the limited freedoms and human rights in Hong Kong. The foundation organized the seminar to help various sectors gain a comprehensive understanding of the current situation in Hong Kong.
Professor Chen Yujie, a research assistant at the Institute of Legal Studies of the Academia Sinica, analyzed from a legal perspective that in less than four years since the passing of the “National Security Law for Hong Kong” in 2020, the legislation of the “National Security Law Maintenance Regulations” has set up a security law system in Hong Kong similar to that of the Chinese Communist Party, posing unprecedented challenges to human rights and the rule of law in Hong Kong.
Chen pointed out that in the future, Hong Kong residents face national security risks even when expressing opinions on social media, leading to a situation akin to a form of censorship. She believes that after 27 years since the handover, Hong Kong has completely embraced “sinicization,” with no room left for the “one country, two systems” principle.
Samp Lawyer, the chairman of the Taiwan-Hong Kong Association in Hong Kong, expressed concern about the further deterioration of Hong Kong’s political, judicial, human rights, freedom, and justice in the future. Important indicators to observe would be population control (immigration and emigration), capital control (foreign exchange restrictions, uncoupling of the Hong Kong dollar, restrictions on bank deposits and loans, foreign exchange reserves), information control (internet censorship and the Great Firewall), and the implementation of a comprehensive societal credit system under digital authoritarianism.
Samp Lawyer also emphasized that the recent elevation of the travel warning to Taiwan, China, and Hong Kong to orange for Taiwanese citizens is a correct move, showing the Taiwanese government’s objective assessment of the risks posed by the Communist Party’s “22 measures for Taiwan independence” and the severe situation in Hong Kong.
Professor Dong Liwen, a consulting committee member of a Taiwanese think tank, stressed that China’s legislation for Hong Kong violated legal principles such as non-retroactivity, proportionality, and protection of legitimate expectations, making it no longer qualified as a legal system but rather a tool for restructuring Hong Kong’s political, economic, social, and cultural aspects.
Dong further warned that the “22 measures for Taiwan independence” were essentially a replication of the experiences in Hong Kong to control Taiwan, aiming to gradually reshape Taiwan’s economy, society, and culture. He highlighted that Taiwanese people must recognize the dangers to national sovereignty posed by the Communist Party – any form of support against unification, including advocating for the sovereignty of the Republic of China, falls within the punitive scope of the “22 measures for Taiwan independence.”
Assistant Professor Xiao Duhuan from the Department of Political Science at the Chinese Culture University pointed out that since the implementation of the “Hong Kong version of the National Security Law” in 2020, Hong Kong’s status as an international financial center has been greatly compromised. Especially with the significant outflow of the middle-class population in recent years, the Hong Kong government actively implemented the “Quality Migrant Admission Scheme” to replenish the lost population, with over 180,000 people moving to Hong Kong, of which over 90% have Chinese backgrounds. The government’s post-pandemic promotion of the “Event Economy” has not yielded the expected results, and the city is gradually losing its former luster as the Pearl of the Orient.
Professor Hong Yaonan, Associate Director of the Mainland China Studies Institute at Tamkang University, further analyzed that Hong Kong’s diminished status as the former “Pearl of the Orient” can be attributed to three main factors: the political implications of implementing the “Hong Kong version of the National Security Law,” excessive reliance on China leading to economic structural crises, and the global pressure brought by intensified U.S.-China competition forcing Asian countries to take sides.
Hong believed that after the enactment of the “National Security Law Maintenance Regulations” in Hong Kong this year, the city can no longer return to its former days of freedom, diversity, and prosperity.
Professor Wang Zhisheng from the Asia-Pacific Elite Exchange Association expressed that from the past “Hong Kong version of the National Security Law” to the current “National Security Law Maintenance Regulations,” Hong Kong is no longer the “Hong Kong of the world” but merely the “Hong Kong of China.” The Hong Kong government is now preparing to sentence Professor Benny Tai and other members of the “Hong Kong Democratic Party Primary Case.” He urged the public to continue supporting and encouraging the people of Hong Kong in their pursuit of democracy and freedom, even though Hong Kong has become “China’s Hong Kong,” so that Beijing sees the collective commitment of the people of Taiwan and Hong Kong to universal values.