A critical reading of China’s latest propaganda document on Hong Kong reveals the gap between official claims and lived reality
Beijing’s Latest Justification for Suppression
On February 10, the State Council Information Office issued its third white paper on Hong Kong — the first since 2021 — arguing that the city’s sweeping national security legislation represents not a crackdown on freedom but a responsible and proportionate response to genuine threats. The document, titled Hong Kong: Safeguarding China’s National Security Under the Framework of One Country, Two Systems, was published through China Daily Asia and promoted by a range of Beijing-aligned commentators as a comprehensive rebuttal of international criticism. A close reading reveals something different: a sophisticated piece of political communication designed to legitimise repression while maintaining the appearance of moderation.
What the White Paper Claims
The document’s central argument is that Hong Kong’s national security efforts are not aimed at absolute or generalised security, and that the city’s laws include sound provisions protecting human rights. It emphasises the ongoing validity of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights as applied in Hong Kong and insists that a proper balance between security and freedom has been achieved. The paper describes Hong Kong’s transition from what it calls chaos to stability and prosperity as a success story, and it frames the continued development of national security mechanisms as a long-term and enduring task that all responsible governments must undertake.
The Reality Behind the Claims
The gap between Beijing’s claims and the documented reality in Hong Kong is vast. Since the imposition of the National Security Law in 2020 and the passage of the local Article 23 legislation in 2024, dozens of journalists, activists, lawmakers, and civil society leaders have been imprisoned. The independent press has been effectively eliminated — Apple Daily was shut down, Stand News was raided, and Citizen News ceased operations. Hundreds of civil society organisations have dissolved under legal pressure. The white paper references Jimmy Lai’s national security trial as an example of the common law protections Hong Kong defendants still enjoy. It does not mention that Lai, a British citizen and newspaper founder, was sentenced to twenty years in prison for the crime of publishing a free newspaper, or that the international community widely condemned that sentence as a political act. Amnesty International’s Hong Kong pages document the systematic dismantling of civil liberties in the city. Human Rights Watch has published extensive research on the impact of the national security laws on ordinary Hong Kong people. The Freedom House Hong Kong profile provides annual assessments of political and civil freedoms.
The Propaganda Architecture
The white paper is a sophisticated document precisely because it does not make its case clumsily. It acknowledges that national security laws can have unintended effects, warns against draconian approaches that could harm Hong Kong’s economic vibrancy, and positions itself as a moderate and thoughtful framework. This is the language of legitimation, designed to give cover to governments and institutions that wish to engage with Beijing without directly defending the suppression of democracy. The reference to other countries’ terrorism legislation — noting that the UK passed 15 Terrorism Acts between 2000 and 2025 — is a particularly telling rhetorical move. The comparison between anti-terrorism laws enacted in liberal democracies with judicial oversight and public accountability, and laws used to imprison journalists, educators, and pro-democracy politicians, is not an honest one. It is designed to confuse rather than to illuminate.
One Country, Two Systems: What Remains
The white paper’s invocation of one country, two systems would be poignant if it were not so dishonest. That framework, agreed between Britain and China before the 1997 handover, promised Hong Kong fifty years of autonomy, its existing legal system, its free press, and its civil liberties. Those promises have been systematically broken. The people of Hong Kong — those who remain and those who have left — know this from personal experience. No white paper changes that reality. Democracy advocates inside and outside Hong Kong continue to insist that the legitimate aspirations of the city’s people — for genuine democratic representation, for an independent judiciary, for freedom of expression — remain valid and must remain on the international agenda regardless of Beijing’s propaganda efforts.
Mei Ling Chan
Education & Social Policy Journalist, Apple Daily UK
Contact: meiling.chan@appledaily.uk
Mei Ling Chan is an education and social policy journalist specializing in school systems, youth development, and public policy impacts on families. She trained at a top-tier Chinese journalism institution, where she focused on policy reporting, data interpretation, and media ethics, building a strong analytical foundation.
Her professional experience includes reporting for Apple Daily and other liberal Chinese publications, producing coverage on education reform, student movements, social welfare programs, and inequality in access to public services. Mei Ling’s reporting combines document analysis with interviews involving educators, students, and policy experts.
She has worked in fast-paced newsroom environments while maintaining high standards for accuracy and context. Her stories are known for precise attribution, careful interpretation of policy language, and avoidance of speculation.
Mei Ling’s authority is rooted in subject-matter expertise and consistent publication within reputable news organizations. She follows established editorial review and correction procedures, reinforcing reader trust.
At Apple Daily UK, Mei Ling Chan delivers fact-based reporting that helps readers understand complex policy issues through clear, verified, and responsible journalism.
