A drained democracy: The clash between national security and freedom of expression in Hong Kong

Introduction

Historically seen as a bastion of democratic values in Asia, Hong Kong maintained its unique status even after the 1997 handover to China under the “One Country, Two Systems” framework. In recent years, however, it has become a powerful symbol of the global tension between national security and individual freedoms.
The 2020 enactment of the Law of the People’s Republic of China on Safeguarding National Security in Hong Kong (NSL) marked a turning point, sparking widespread concern over its impact on human rights. This legislation signalled the beginning of a significant and ongoing erosion of democratic values, culminating in March 2024 with the introduction of the local Safeguarding National Security Ordinance (SNSO). Through a combination of vague legal provisions, expansive enforcement powers, and mounting pressure on civil society, the Chinese central government has reshaped Hong Kong’s political, legal and social landscape under the pretext of safeguarding national security.
As governments globally contend with analogous challenges, striking a careful balance between protecting national security and upholding the democratic values at the heart of free societies, such as freedom of expression, has never been more urgent.

Decolonization without independence

Understanding Hong Kong’s current trajectory requires revisiting its complex colonial and post-colonial history. A British colony from 1842 to 1997, Hong Kong developed a common law legal system and an open civic culture that stood in sharp contrast to the political and legal structure of mainland China.

The 1984 Sino-British Joint Declaration and the 1990 Basic Law created the legal foundation for Hong Kong’s return to Chinese sovereignty under the “One Country, Two Systems” model. This arrangement was designed to safeguard the city’s capitalist economy, independent judiciary, and civil liberties, including freedom of expression, for fifty years after the handover.

However, in practice, the dual structure has become increasingly imbalanced. Over the past two decades, the “one country” principle has progressively overshadowed the autonomy envisioned under the “two systems” model. This shift has been most visibly contested through three major waves of mass protests: the 2003 demonstrations against proposed national security legislation under Article 23; the 2014 Umbrella Movement advocating for universal suffrage; and the 2019 anti-extradition protests opposing legal integration with the mainland. Each of these movements was met with suppression rather than reform, revealing both the persistence of popular demands for democratic accountability and the Chinese government’s growing determination to assert political control. Together, they mark a critical turning point in Hong Kong’s democratic decline and the erosion of its distinct legal-political identity.

Freedom of expression under pressure

Freedom of expression serves as a cornerstone of democratic governance, enabling individuals to voice opinions, access information, and participate meaningfully in public life. Recognizing its fundamental nature, international human rights law enshrines this right in Article 19 of both the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). In Hong Kong, this right is protected under Article 27 of the Basic Law and through the Hong Kong Bill of Rights, which incorporates provisions from the ICCPR. 

International law permits limitations on freedom of expression for reasons of national security—but only under strict conditions. According to the Human Rights Committee’s General Comment No. 34 on Article 19 of the ICCPR, such restrictions must be clearly defined, necessary, and proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued. They must not be used to silence criticism, suppress dissent, or shield governments from accountability. 

In the case of Hong Kong, the invocation of national security has clearly veered into impermissible territories, as these guarantees increasingly conflict with the government’s expansive interpretation of national security. This instrumentalization of security concerns has transformed the legal landscape, curtailing freedoms and fostering a pervasive climate of fear and self-censorship.

The collapse of civil space under the 2020 National Security Law

Following the social unrest of 2014 and 2019, authorities adopted a progressively restrictive stance toward dissent. In response to these waves of mass demonstrations, Beijing imposed the National Security Law (NSL) in 2020 — a legislation that fundamentally reshaped Hong Kong’s legal and political landscape marking the first significant step toward establishing a security framework for the region. 

The NSL criminalizes acts of secession, subversion, terrorism, and collusion with foreign forces—terms left deliberately broad to silence opposition and tighten control like never before. Despite local authorities assuring that the security law would impact only a small minority, it has significantly affected Hong Kong’s previously vibrant civil society, leaving few areas in the city’s social and political realms unaffected. 

Following the implementation of the NSL, the Chinese Central government modified Hong Kong’s electoral system to guarantee governance exclusively by individuals deemed as “patriots”. The reformed electoral system significantly constrained democratic representation, effectively excluding the pro-democracy faction in Hong Kong from participating in the electoral process. This situation is exemplified by a case known as “Hong Kong 47”, which pertains to the arrest of a group of pro-democracy activists and politicians by charging them with “conspiracy to commit subversion”. 

The constraints encompass not only public demonstrations and an active, democratically elected political opposition but also includes newspapers, broadcasts, and books, among other elements. The erosion of self-regulatory autonomy within various professional councils and boardrooms has further exacerbated the deterioration of civil society. 

The application of the NSL by governing bodies has been utilised as a mechanism to criminalise dissent and reform the juridical framework, consequently leading to the transformation of Hong Kong into a “city of fear”, progressively lacking the capacity to oppose additional national security measures.

The 2024 Safeguarding National Security Ordinance

Hong Kong has a constitutional obligation to protect national security. Under Article 23 of the Basic Law, it is mandated to independently legislate measures to prohibit acts that threaten national security. Since the 1997 handover, successive administrations have been tasked with enacting a local national security law, yet they have consistently faced substantial challenges in its implementation. However, on the 23^rd of March 2024, the Hong Kong government enacted the Safeguarding National Security Ordinance (SNSO), fulfilling its long-delayed constitutional obligation. 

Several experts have determined that the primary motivation for enacting a local security law is to serve as a political indication of Hong Kong’s submission to Beijing’s projection of a comprehensive security state and the political oversight of civil society, as has been established throughout mainland China.

The SNSO, while presented as a domestic complement to the NSL, deepens the chilling effect on civil society, the press, and political opposition. Further entrenching state control, it introduces an array of new offenses and harsher penalties, criminalizes seditious intent, expands surveillance powers, and heightens the risk of arbitrary detention.

The enactment of the Ordinance has provoked widespread international criticism, sparking discussions about its impact on Hong Kong’s governance, freedoms, and global standing. Human rights organizations, Western states, and the United Nations have condemned the law’s ambiguous language, expansive scope, and regressive nature.

A critical examination of the Ordinance revealed four main areas of conflict with established human rights law. The primary issue concerns the broad and ambiguous definition of “national security”, as the Ordinance aligns Hong Kong’s definition of national security with that of China. This convergence effectively dissolves the distinction between the national security governance approaches of Hong Kong and mainland China, thereby harmonising security policies within a unified framework. Notably, China’s national security definition is overly broad and applicable to virtually all aspects of society. This vagueness allows authorities to target a wide range of activities, threatening freedom of expression and civic engagement. 

The second issue is the expansion of sedition laws. The Ordinance criminalizes      expressions critical of the state, lowering the threshold for prosecution by removing the need to prove incitement to violence. On a global scale, sedition laws have been contested and repealed in numerous countries due to their indeterminate and extensive scope. These laws have frequently been misapplied to suppress dissent, resulting in politically driven prosecutions against activists, human rights advocates, journalists, authors, academics, and students. This regression directly contradicts United Nations recommendations to repeal sedition laws and constitute a severe threat to the freedom of expression and the press in Hong Kong. 

The third issue is the overbroad classification of state secrets and espionage.  The Ordinance expands the definition of state secrets to include economic development, scientific research, and international relations—allowing authorities to classify vast amounts of information as secret. Additionally, a widened concept of “espionage” punishes “collusion with external forces,” endangering journalism, academic freedom, and global cooperation. These imprecise and broad definitions and their predominant emphasis on national security are predicted to chill Hong Kong’s society. Journalists, academics, researchers, and other information seekers may be discouraged from engaging in legitimate inquiries. 

The ultimate issue is the criminalization of external interference. The Ordinance effectively prohibits collaborations with foreign entities, including NGOs and international organizations, granting the government unchecked power to ban organizations deemed a threat to national security. Moreover, it is plausible that this offence could be extended to encompass recommendations advanced by UN bodies and other neutral international organisations, thereby exacerbating concerns of legal retribution for participating in legitimate advocacy and human rights endeavours.

As of January 2025, at least 316 individuals have been arrested under national security charges. The SNSO has deepened an already pervasive atmosphere of fear, pushing Hong Kong further away from democratic norms and toward a model of governance rooted in control and surveillance.

A global trend of democratic regression

Hong Kong’s experience is not isolated. Around the world, governments are leveraging national security rhetoric to expand executive power and limit civic freedoms. In countries such as Belarus, Myanmar, Iran, and Venezuela, authoritarian regimes have adopted similar strategies—citing security threats to justify restrictions on expression, criminalize protest, and neutralize opposition.

These parallels underscore a global pattern of democratic backsliding, raising pressing questions about the very future of democracy. Over the past decade, global democratic governance has experienced a marked decline, with freedom of expression emerging as one of the most affected pillars. 

The erosion of freedom of expression, once seen as a warning sign, has become a tactic of governance. As states invoke legal frameworks to shrink civic space, the legitimacy of international human rights law is increasingly at stake. 

Conclusion

Hong Kong’s transformation under the guise of national security reveals the vulnerability of democratic institutions when confronted by unchecked state power. The 2020 National Security Law and the 2024 Safeguarding National Security Ordinance have not only restricted freedoms but redefined the city’s legal architecture in a way that is fundamentally incompatible with democratic governance. The rule of law in Hong Kong resembles a piece of glass with a crack; it may remain intact as long as these laws are confined within the national security framework, yet it risks shattering if the crack continues to widen.

The city has become a testing ground for authoritarian repression, where national security narratives are manipulated to justify crackdowns on civil liberties. The global community must counter these efforts with transparency, accountability, and unwavering support for fundamental rights. Most importantly, the resilience of civil society must not be underestimated. Hong Kong’s struggle is not just a regional issue—it is a call to action for all who believe in the principles of democracy and human rights.