CIVICUS speaks about the erosion of civic space and the implications of the 20-year sentence handed to democracy campaigner and media entrepreneur Jimmy Lai with Alric Lee, co-founder of Lady Liberty Hong Kong, a civil society organisation that documents human rights violations and advocates for democratic freedoms in Hong Kong.

On 9 February, a Hong Kong court convicted Lai, founder of the now-closed pro-democracy tabloid Apple Daily, of colluding with foreign forces and sedition under the National Security Law (NSL). Prosecutors alleged he used the paper to lobby foreign governments for sanctions against China in the wake of large-scale democracy protests in 2019.

What does Lai’s sentence tell us about China’s use of the NSL?

Lai’s case shows China deepening its control through a fundamental transformation of political expression. The NSL reaches across administration, education and media, reshaping political participation and public speech. Formally, the ‘One Country, Two Systems’ framework still appears intact, with courts, a freedom of speech law and an independent judiciary, but their substance has been drastically redefined. The Chinese Communist Party has positioned itself as the sole authority over what counts as legitimate political expression. Activities once understood as normal civic life, including international engagement, journalism and political advocacy, can now be reinterpreted as crimes.

The result is collective intellectual paralysis. People no longer know where acceptable speech boundaries lie, and many choose silence as the safest option. Lai’s sentence signals Hong Kong’s new political grammar: the language of freedom still exists, but the state increasingly defines its meaning. The language of democracy, judicial independence and the rule of law remains on paper. The substance has been hollowed out.

Even at 78, and after his newspaper was closed in 2021, Lai faces 20 years in prison for journalism. His sentence is a warning to anyone who challenges China’s authority and a signal of Hong Kong’s trajectory, where the institutional facade of democracy remains while genuine freedoms are systematically eliminated.

What has been the NSL’s impact on civil society and the media?

The impact has been rapid and measurable. By mid-2025, at least 332 people had been arrested in national security cases, with 189 formally charged and 76 convicted. Around 85 per cent of cases involved acts normally considered legitimate, such as commentary or political advocacy. Among those brought to trial, the conviction rate stands at 91 per cent, evidence of systematic suppression.

The crackdown hit journalism particularly hard. Apple Daily closed in June 2021 following asset freezes and police raids. Stand News was raided in December 2021; the court cited 11 published articles as seditious simply for covering police brutality, supporting Hong Kong independence or criticising the government, establishing that reporting on sensitive issues is now a potential crime.

For remaining journalists, the environment is defined by deliberate ambiguity. An August 2024 survey by the Hong Kong Journalists Association rated press freedom perceptions at 25 out of 100, with 92 per cent reporting a decline in press freedom. Reporting on protests can be prosecuted as advocating terrorism. Foreign journalists who have covered China-related topics are advised to avoid transit through Hong Kong airport, as past reports could be construed as crimes.

Civil society has been severely affected, with hundreds of organisations disbanded since 2020. The NSL’s clause on collusion with foreign forces triggered foreign donor withdrawal and funding crises across civil society. National security clauses now appear in government and public contracts, extending compliance into everyday life. Even booking a tennis court requires national security compliance. The message is clear: all activity falls within the framework of national security monitoring and potential criminalisation.

What space remains for civil society, and how have organisations adapted?

Civic space has closed. Prominent pro-democracy figures and journalists have been jailed. High-profile trials have reinforced a pervasive climate of fear and self-censorship. Many civil society organisations (CSOs) calculated that continuing operations posed unacceptable legal risk to members, leading to pre-emptive closures. Over 90 CSOs, 175 trade unions and multiple media outlets have disbanded. The Hong Kong Confederation of Trade Unions, representing over 90 affiliated unions, dissolved in 2021. Amnesty International closed its Hong Kong offices, stating the NSL had made it ‘effectively impossible for human rights organisations to work freely without fear of serious reprisals’.

The CSOs that remain have shifted toward non-political work such as community services, carefully avoiding sensitive topics. Funding has become a critical vulnerability, so CSOs avoid foreign grants to mitigate legal risk and pre-emptively distance themselves from pro-democracy donors to avoid reputational risk. The result is downsizing and fragmentation. For those that remain, the risk of engaging with United Nations (UN) mechanisms now outweighs the expected benefit.

The primary adaptation has been relocation to the diaspora. Civil society has not disappeared; it has been displaced, both geographically and structurally, with resistance now operating largely from outside Hong Kong’s borders. Communities in Canada, Taiwan, the UK and increasingly Japan now provide vital space for Hong Kong civil society to continue its work. Exiled activists and organisations advocate for human rights, document abuses and maintain international awareness.

But this shift also creates new vulnerabilities. Diaspora media outlets face funding pressure. Under the NSL, donating to them can be construed as supporting foreign forces, causing significant subscription drops. Transnational repression and surveillance pose further risks.

What patterns are emerging in the crackdown?

The crackdown is broad and systematic, and extends beyond democracy movements. Over 300 people have been arrested in national security cases since June 2020, with around 200 formally charged and dozens convicted. Prosecuted people include activists, community organisers, former legislators, journalists and student leaders. In one significant case, 47 pro-democracy activists and politicians were prosecuted for organising an unofficial primary election in 2020, which in a democracy would be considered normal political activity.

Suppression extends beyond organised opposition to basic civic engagement. After a major fire in November 2025, at least five people who questioned government responsibility and demanded accountability were arrested or detained. Even trivial activities now carry national security implications.

Independent civil society is being dismantled and replaced with state-aligned structures, mirroring mainland China’s model. The government has created state-aligned community committees and fire-prevention mutual aid committees that extend monitoring and political management into everyday community life. Control is no longer exercised only through top-down enforcement but through bottom-up networks embedded in local communities.

The objective is not only to dismantle democracy movements, but to replace independent civic life with a system of state-managed participation and supervision. It is a fundamental restructuring of Hong Kong’s political and social fabric.

Who’s pushing back, and what needs to happen to reverse this trend?

Resistance comes from inside Hong Kong, diaspora communities and international institutions, all under severe constraints. Within Hong Kong, Barrister Chow Hang-tung, jailed since 2021 and facing 10 years for organising vigils to commemorate the 1989 Tiananmen Square Massacre, continues to use her legal knowledge to defend rights from prison, publicly challenging the National Security Committee’s non-public, non-reviewable executive directives that can instruct courts on evidential and procedural matters in national security cases. The League of Social Democrats continues symbolic protest under heavy police presence. Environmental and welfare CSOs persist in service roles, walking carefully around political boundaries.

The diaspora has become the primary vehicle for organised civic resistance. Exiled journalists report on seditious topics and counter government disinformation. Organisations such as the Committee for Freedom in Hong Kong Foundation and Washington DC-based Hong Kong Watch conduct advocacy and sanctions campaigns.

International response has been vocal but limited in effect. The US State Department imposed targeted sanctions. The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights called for Lai’s immediate release and for the verdict to be quashed. The European Union, UK and allied governments issued formal condemnations and sanctions. Together, these measures have imposed some diplomatic cost and helped preserve diaspora civic infrastructure, but have not reversed, halted or meaningfully slowed the crackdown.

Reversing this process will be a long-term effort, not achievable through any single policy change. Domestically, it is key to preserve an accountability culture, civic identity and historical memory. Hong Kong’s diaspora preserves the memory that Hong Kong was once defined by freedom of expression, rule of law and a vibrant civil society.

Internationally, governments must recognise that this is not only a local issue but a challenge to international norms and the advance of a broader authoritarian governance model. Responses must include sustained diplomatic pressure, coordinated sanctions against those responsible for abuses, legal frameworks to address transnational repression and stronger protections for diaspora communities and independent media.

The international community can play a crucial role in preserving the organisational capacity of the Hong Kong diaspora by supporting, welcoming and amplifying Hong Kong civic rights and cultural activities.

Individuals also have a role to play: speaking to local elected representatives about concerns over Hong Kong and the influence of China helps keep the issue on the political agenda. These acts of solidarity reinforce international awareness and signal to Hongkongers in exile that they are not alone, enabling them to carry forward and sustain their struggle for freedom overseas.

CIVICUS interviews a wide range of civil society activists, experts and leaders to gather diverse perspectives on civil society action and current issues for publication on its CIVICUS Lens platform. The views expressed in interviews are the interviewees’ and do not necessarily reflect those of CIVICUS. Publication does not imply endorsement of interviewees or the organisations they represent.