Opinion | Why smear Hong Kong’s prosecution of secession as political persecution?

The Hong Kong government recently declared bounties against a number of former residents now in the United Kingdom and the United States for alleged offences against the Hong Kong national security law. This prompted a strong reaction from the UK government, which considered the move to be an example of “transnational repression”.

This week, The Guardian published an interview with Chloe Cheung Hei-ching, who faces a warrant for her arrest that was issued last year. Its article portrayed her as someone fleeing political persecution for daring to criticise the Hong Kong government and advocate for democratic reform. This framing is misleading. Cheung is being charged with incitement to secession and foreign collusion.

Contrary to common misconceptions, the national security law does not criminalise political advocacy or criticism of the authorities.

The Hong Kong Basic Law stipulates in Articles 45 and 68 that universal suffrage is a political ideal for the entire city. Moreover, according to the 2024 Safeguarding National Security Ordinance, defendants can argue against the statutory offence of sedition – inherited from British colonial times – in court if they were giving “an opinion on the system or constitutional order … with a view to improving the system or constitutional order”.

According to Article 52 of the Chinese constitution, citizens have the obligation to safeguard national unity. Article 1 of the Basic Law stipulates that Hong Kong is an “inalienable part of the People’s Republic of China”. What is more, those in the UK, in particular, should not lose sight of Article 1 of the Sino-British Joint Declaration, which states that it is the “common aspiration of the entire Chinese people” that China should resume sovereignty over Hong Kong.