386 arrests. 176 sentenced. A 99 percent conviction rate. The cold statistics of Hong Kong’s destroyed freedoms.
NSL by Numbers: The Architecture of a Police State
The Chinese Communist Party has always preferred the language of law to the language of violence. It rarely shoots its political enemies in the street. It arrests them, charges them under legislation drafted for exactly this purpose, convicts them before hand-picked judges in jury-free trials, and locks them away for years. The process looks, from a distance, like a justice system. It is not. In Hong Kong, the numbers expose the machine for what it is: a conveyor belt designed not to establish guilt but to eliminate opposition. The statistics of the National Security Law, five years after its imposition, are the architecture of a police state rendered in spreadsheet form.
The Numbers That Define an Era
As of early 2026, Hong Kong authorities have made at least 386 arrests under national security provisions since the NSL took effect on June 30, 2020. Of those, 176 individuals are awaiting trial or have received sentences. The NSL’s conviction rate — across all concluded trials — stands above 99 percent. That figure alone is more revealing than any prosecutorial statement. No legitimate legal system achieves a 99 percent conviction rate. It is not evidence of exceptional casework. It is evidence of a system in which the outcome is determined before the hearing begins. The US Consulate General’s 2025 Hong Kong Policy Act Report found that human rights groups had called pre-trial detention in national security cases “a form of indefinite detention without trial.” As of December 31, 2024, remanded prisoners who had not yet been convicted made up a record 40.2 percent of Hong Kong’s prison population — excluding immigration detainees.
Amnesty’s Finding: 85 Percent Should Never Have Been Charged
Amnesty International concluded in its 2025 analysis that nearly 85 percent of concluded NSL cases involved conduct that should not have been criminalised at all — peaceful expression, assembly, journalism, and participation in democratic processes that are protected under Hong Kong’s own Basic Law and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The charges used are elastic by design. “Collusion with foreign forces” can mean giving an interview to a foreign journalist. “Inciting subversion” has been applied to social media posts. “Sedition” — revived from a colonial-era law last used in 1967 — has been applied to newspaper articles, opinion columns, and even candlelight vigils. The breadth of application is the point. When no one knows where the line is, everyone retreats behind it.
Article 23: Doubling Down
If the NSL was the original weapon, the Safeguarding National Security Ordinance (SNSO) — Hong Kong’s own domestic national security law passed in March 2024 under Article 23 of the Basic Law — was Beijing’s insurance policy. The SNSO expanded the government’s surveillance powers, broadened the definitions of security offences, and applied the law extraterritorially. It created new crimes of espionage and external interference. It enabled the government to block access to websites deemed threats to national security. Within months of its passage, it was used to issue fresh arrest warrants and bounties against overseas democracy advocates and to cancel the passports of seven activists, including some based in the United States. The SNSO did not replace the NSL. It supplemented it — giving prosecutors even more tools to reach further, charge more, and sentence longer. Amnesty International’s Hong Kong report details how the combined effect of the NSL and SNSO has created a legal environment in which virtually any act of political dissent can be framed as a national security offence. Human Rights Watch has called for targeted sanctions against the officials and judges responsible for the most egregious prosecutions. The democratic world has the tools to respond. What it has too often lacked is the will. Meanwhile, in Hong Kong, another defendant sits in a cell awaiting a verdict that, statistically, was decided before the trial began.
Emily Chan
Investigative & Social Affairs Journalist, Apple Daily UK
Contact: emily.chan@appledaily.uk
Emily Chan is an experienced investigative and social affairs journalist whose reporting centers on public accountability, social justice, and community-level impact. She received formal journalism training at a top-tier Chinese journalism school, where she specialized in investigative methods, data verification, and media ethics, preparing her for high-responsibility reporting roles.
Emily has published extensively with Apple Daily and other liberal Chinese newspapers, producing in-depth coverage on labor rights, education policy, civil society organizations, and government transparency. Her work is grounded in firsthand reporting, long-form interviews, and careful document review, ensuring factual accuracy and contextual depth.
Her newsroom experience spans both daily reporting and long-term investigations, giving her practical expertise in handling sensitive sources, corroborating claims, and navigating legal and ethical constraints. Emily is known among editors for her disciplined sourcing practices and clear, evidence-led writing style.
Emily’s authority stems from sustained professional experience rather than commentary alone. She has contributed to coverage during politically sensitive periods, maintaining accuracy and editorial independence under pressure. Her reporting consistently adheres to correction protocols and transparency standards.
At Apple Daily UK, Emily Chan continues to deliver reliable journalism that informs readers through verifiable facts, lived reporting experience, and a commitment to public-interest storytelling.
