CIVICUS discusses Hong Kong’s latest security laws with Laura Naw, East Asian and ASEAN Programme Officer at the Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development (FORUM-ASIA), a regional human rights network comprising 90 organisations across 23 countries. As a regional organisation, FORUM-ASIA has maintained close collaboration with Hong Kong activists and civil society organisations. This interview reflects the perspective of a regional organisation.

In May, the Hong Kong government rushed two pieces of security-related legislation through the Legislative Council, Hong Kong’s parliament. The new laws aim to expand government powers to tackle perceived security threats by introducing vague and far-reaching offences that are likely to limit freedoms of expression and peaceful assembly. Critics warn that they could result in increased surveillance and criminalisation of activism, further weakening the freedoms China once promised to respect. Civil society is responding with advocacy and awareness campaigns.

How have the latest security laws expanded government powers?

The new laws build upon previous security legislation to dramatically expand government control. The 2020 National Security Law (NSL) criminalised purported acts of secession, subversion, terrorism and collusion with foreign forces. It reshaped Hong Kong’s legal and civic landscape, forcing civil society organisations (CSOs) to shut down or relocate to other countries, dismantling trade unions and leading to the prosecution and imprisonment of numerous activists.

Building on this foundation, the Safeguarding National Security Ordinance, also called Article 23, was adopted in March 2024, significantly intensifying the NSL’s impacts. On top of NSL prohibitions, it criminalises acts of treason, sedition, subversion against the Chinese government and theft of state secrets. It also bans foreign political organisations or bodies from conducting political activities in Hong Kong and bans Hong Kong political organisations from establishing ties with foreign political entities. Most concerningly, it dramatically expands police powers: authorities can detain suspects for up to 16 days and deny them early access to lawyers, while people guaranteed bail may face limits on movement and communication. The law has global jurisdiction, meaning that actions by non-residents taken outside Hong Kong can also be subject to prosecution.

A total of 332 people were arrested under the NSL, resulting in 165 convictions, including 76 under the NSL itself and six under the Safeguarding National Security Ordinance.

In May, Hong Kong approved two subsidiary laws under Article 23 to target offences related to the Office for Safeguarding National Security (OSNS), which oversees and guides the Hong Kong government’s enforcement of national security laws. People can be sentenced to seven years in prison or fined up to HK$500,000 (approx. US$63,700) if found guilty of disclosing or falsifying information tied to OSNS investigations. Obstructing, impersonating OSNS staff or forging OSNS documents are also criminal offences with the same penalties. Six OSNS sites were designated as ‘prohibited places’ to prevent unauthorised access and espionage.

What impact have these laws had on civic freedoms?

The impact on civic freedoms has been devastating. In 2022 the United Nations (UN) Human Rights Committee warned that the NSL is overly broad and arbitrarily applied, and urged its repeal. It also called for public input on Article 23, but its recommendations were ignored. Since these laws took effect, Hong Kong’s civic space has sharply declined.

Independent media outlets have been particularly hard hit. Publications such as Apple Daily and Radio Free Asia have shut down, while Amnesty International was forced to leave Hong Kong. The New Trade Union Ordinance, passed in July 2025, restricts people convicted of ‘endangering national security’ from leadership roles and foreign funding is prohibited without prior approval. High-profile activists such as Chow Hang-tung and media mogul and activist Jimmy Lai remain detained on serious charges, despite UN findings that Lai’s detention is unlawful and arbitrary.

Meanwhile, expanded OSNS powers and the inclusion of national security education on the school curriculum have deepened control. Transnational repression has also become part of the picture, including the 2025 case against exiled activist Anna Kwok’s father. This was the first prosecution under Article 23 of a family member of an exiled activist. Kwok Yin-sang was charged with attempting to handle the financial assets of his US-based daughter, who is wanted by Hong Kong authorities with a HK$1 million (approx. US$127,400) bounty.

The result is clear: broad laws, severe penalties and surveillance have created a climate of fear and widespread self-censorship.

How do these laws strengthen China’s control over Hong Kong?

These laws have undermined Hong Kong’s rule of law and weakened the ‘One Country, Two Systems’ framework, the arrangement established when the UK returned Hong Kong to China in 1997. This promised that Hong Kong would maintain ‘a high degree of autonomy’ and its own system of governance, judiciary and way of life for 50 years while being part of China.

Traditionally, Hong Kong’s Court of Final Appeal included international judges, symbolising judicial independence. Since the NSL’s enactment, many foreign judges have resigned or declined to renew appointments, citing political pressure and erosion of judicial autonomy.

In May 2023, Hong Kong passed a law barring foreign lawyers from national security cases. This was seen as a direct response to attempts to involve a UK barrister in the defence of Jimmy Lai.

Subsidiary legislation under Article 23 has expanded Chinese influence, empowering Beijing-controlled bodies. The designation of six sites as ‘prohibited areas’ occupied by China’s national security office further embeds mainland authority in Hong Kong’s legal and political systems, clearly signalling the erosion of the territory’s autonomy.

How is civil society responding to these changes?

Civil society has adapted by relocating operations and building international networks. Numerous CSOs have shut down in Hong Kong but many have relocated. Amnesty International closed its Hong Kong office in December 2021 but continued its work from exile, and in April it launched Amnesty International Hong Kong Overseas. This organisation is registered in Switzerland and led by Hong Kong diaspora activists based in key international hubs.

The diaspora is playing key roles in advocating for human rights, mobilising resources to support the democracy movement and raising international awareness. For many years, Hong Kong was home to the world’s largest Tiananmen Square Massacre candlelight vigil, held annually to commemorate the victims of the 1989 crackdown in Beijing and serving as a powerful symbol of collective memory and resistance. However, after COVID-19 restrictions and the imposition of the NSL, public commemorations became banned in Hong Kong, and the vigil is now held by the diaspora and international solidarity groups in countries such as Australia, Canada, Japan, the UK and the USA.

Meanwhile, international organisations including FORUM-ASIA have raised alarm over transnational repression – including the harassment of exiled activists’ families, passport revocations and bounties – and called for protections by host countries and legal action through joint statements. In May 2024 we urged international opposition to Article 23 and hosted a webinar featuring a legal expert and media representatives to explore its implications and discuss response strategies. We have consistently called on the Hong Kong government to repeal all restrictive laws, including Article 23, the NSL and the Cybersecurity Law.

Ultimately, the situation in Hong Kong should not be viewed in isolation; rather, regional and international organisations must contextualise it within the wider landscape of democratic backsliding in Asia. Coordinated advocacy, solidarity efforts and policy responses are crucial to addressing these interconnected challenges and supporting civil society across the region. Exiled Hong Kong activists have benefited from and should continue to strengthen connections with CSOs in East Asia, Southeast Asia and beyond. This can help foster solidarity, share strategies and amplify their voices across Asia and globally.