On July 1, the last Governor of Hong Kong, Lord Patten of Barnes, encouraged Hongkongers, stating, “As long as people have a strong desire for freedom, the Chinese Communist Party’s dictatorship has no long-term future.”
It’s been 27 years since Hong Kong’s sovereignty was handed over on July 1, 1997. In a video address released through the NGO Hong Kong Watch, Patten reflected on the changes since the implementation of the National Security Law four years ago.
Patten mentioned that the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) calling the Sino-British Joint Declaration, an international treaty registered with the United Nations, a “historical document” proves that the CCP is no longer trustworthy. He directly called Xi Jinping, the “dictatorial President of China,” highlighting that since Xi came to power, he has become increasingly uneasy about people’s freedoms, failing to understand that the freedoms and rule of law exemplified by Hong Kong are the cornerstones of a free society.
He continued, stating that since the authorities enforced the National Security Law in 2020, Hong Kong has quickly regressed into a city governed by incompetent police, banning June 4th commemoration activities, prohibiting the song “Glory to Hong Kong,” and imprisoning political prisoners like Jimmy Lai for pursuing freedom and rights.
Patten also shared his interactions with about a thousand Hongkongers holding BNO (British National Overseas) passports in Oxford. He noted that most expressed that leaving Hong Kong was a difficult decision, but they did so hoping the next generation could grow up in a free society. He said, “This is the strongest indictment against the Chinese Communist Party. We must hold hope for the future because as long as people have a strong desire for freedom, the CCP’s dictatorship has no long-term future.”
"Dictatorships never end well, and the CCP is no exception. Therefore, I encourage those remaining in Hong Kong to understand that people in other parts of the world are aware of what you are going through and share your aspiration to eventually become free citizens who can speak openly and share opinions without the risk of imprisonment. We also want to say that we warmly welcome the diaspora contributing to British society."
— Lord Patten of Barnes, former Governor of Hong Kong
On the same day, a group of Hong Kong civil society workers anonymously released a report summarizing the changes in Hong Kong’s government structure and governance logic since the implementation of the National Security Law, and the tangible and intangible impacts on the lives of Hongkongers. The report is titled “The National Security System in Hong Kong — Three Years of Observation since the Implementation of the Hong Kong National Security Law.”
The report made 12 key observations about the “national security system”:
- Weaponization of laws and the judicial system.
- Comprehensive restructuring of Hong Kong’s governance: mechanisms for vetting Chief Executive and Legislative Council candidates; central and local national security and administrative bodies overriding the judiciary.
- Eradication of large-scale marches and demonstrations.
- “Layered governance”: few actual detentions, but widespread fear from arrests.
- Long-term pre-trial detention of pro-democracy activists, prolonged legal procedures, and very low bail rates.
- Regulation of “soft resistance” through media, arts, culture inciting dissatisfaction with the government.
- Foreign connections considered “collusion with foreign forces,” with extraterritorial jurisdiction over “Hong Kong” and “non-Hong Kong” residents.
- Use of colonial-era laws or continuous legal amendments; administrative or informal means to maintain national security.
- “Informal” threats and harassment through public criticism, interviews, surveillance, directly affecting freedom of expression, assembly, and civil society actions.
- “Administrative” measures such as policy changes or alterations in administrative authority by government departments and statutory bodies, involving political scrutiny of qualification recognition, information and funding applications, and performance spaces.
- Government-supported pro-establishment figures and media using reports, statements, and accusations as external intimidation.
- Promotion of “national security” ideology through political propaganda and education.