HK Macau Affairs Office: Those who do wrong will inevitably destroy themselves — The United States' evil deeds in Hong Kong will bring shame upon itself and backfire

Hong Kong and Macau Affairs Office of the State Council issued a commentary by GangAoPing (港澳平) on 22 April, 2025. Details are as follows:

On 21 April, the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs announced its decision to impose sanctions on US congressmen, officials and non-governmental organisation leaders who have behaved badly on Hong Kong issues. This is a resolute countermeasure and a strong response to the evil deeds of the United States.

Lately, the United States has, under the pretext of safeguarding the rule of law, democracy, freedom, and human rights, intensified its smear campaigns and attacks against Hong Kong, and has gone to great lengths to suppress and stifle Hong Kong's development: First, it fabricated the so-called ‘2025 Hong Kong Policy Act Report’ to slander Hong Kong's rule of law, democracy, freedom, and human rights, and imposed so-called sanctions on officials from the Chinese Central Government's Hong Kong-based institutions and the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region Government. It then imposed so-called ‘reciprocal tariffs’ on Hong Kong, a place that had never imposed tariffs on imports, and re-activated a bill to revoke the treatment of Hong Kong's economic and trade offices in the United States or even close the offices. All these actions once again expose the ugly face of its hegemonic bullying and its wolfish ambition to ‘disrupt Hong Kong and contain China,’ arousing strong indignation among all Chinese people, including Hong Kong compatriots, and allowing the world to see more clearly its despicable and shameless actions and its desperate and hysterical behaviour, which can only lead to self-humiliation and self-destruction.

The United States' smear campaign and attacks on Hong Kong's rule of law, democracy, freedom, and human rights are nothing but a blatant inversion of truth and a case of a thief yelling “stop the thief”!  Today's Hong Kong has transitioned from chaos to stability and is moving toward prosperity. The constitutional order of the Special Administrative Region, based on the Constitution and the Basic Law, is functioning steadily. The existing legal system, including the common law, has been maintained and developed. The national security system and mechanisms are continuously improving. Judges at all levels adjudicate cases in accordance with the law, and Hong Kong's “golden brand” of the rule of law is renowned worldwide. Hong Kong residents enjoy broader rights and freedoms than at any time in history. All elections are conducted in accordance with the law, in a fair, just, and open manner. The principle of ‘patriots administering Hong Kong’ has been fully implemented, and the democratic path suited to Hong Kong's actual conditions is becoming increasingly broad. Hong Kong has demonstrated to the world a safer, freer, more open, and more predictable business environment. It is precisely the United States that cannot bear to see Hong Kong thrive. It has arbitrarily slandered the Hong Kong National Security Law and the Hong Kong National Security Ordinance, blatantly interfered in Hong Kong's judicial independence, and dared to call for sanctions against Hong Kong judicial officials, demanding the ‘unconditional release’ of those already sentenced or on trial. It is the greatest destroyer of Hong Kong's rule of law! It is precisely the United States that has long nurtured those who are anti-China and disrupting Hong Kong, instigating them to challenge the bottom line of the ‘one country, two systems’ principle, interfere with the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region government's lawful governance, and infringe upon the democratic rights of Hong Kong residents, while cheering them on and providing them with support. It is the United States that serves as the largest ‘black umbrella’ protecting those who are  “anti-China and disrupting Hong Kong! It is precisely the United States that manipulated the ‘amendment turmoil,’ leading to the rampant spread of ‘Hong Kong independence,’ the rampant violence of ‘black riots,’ and the rampant ‘mutual destruction move,’ making it the mastermind behind the Hong Kong version of  ‘colour revolution’!

— Let me ask the U.S. government and politicians: As brutal lawbreakers who trample on the rule of law, what qualifications do you have to talk about the rule of law? In the United States, political parties control judicial appointments to divide up judicial power. Where is judicial independence? The former president signed a pardon for his son just before leaving office, and key evidence in cases involving high-power people accused of sexual assaults of underage girls mysteriously disappeared. Where is judicial fairness? You have long and frequently imposed ‘long-arm jurisdiction’ on other countries, using tariffs to exert extreme pressure and engage in economic bullying, openly declaring that you will ‘get Greenland by any means necessary,’ ‘seize the Panama Canal,’ and even threaten to make Canada the ‘51st state’ of the United States, completely abandoning international laws and order, and promoting ‘legal terrorism’ worldwide. For you, the rule of law is merely a fig leaf to safe-keep the interests of a few who are rich and powerful, and advance hegemony!

— Let me ask the U.S. government and politicians: as adherents of oligarchy and money politics, what qualifications do you have to talk about democracy? In the United States, political parties openly manipulate district boundaries to influence election outcomes, amend rules to deprive the voting rights of minority groups, low-income individuals, and young people; the 2020 presidential election sparked the ‘Capitol riot,’ resulting in multiple deaths and injuries that shocked the world; the 2022 midterm elections cost nearly 17 billion dollars, becoming the most expensive election in history, with ‘political donations’ turning elections into a wealth competition—where is the fairness and justice? You promote ‘neo-Monroe doctrine’ in Latin America and constantly instigate ‘colour revolutions’ across the Eurasian continent, leaving behind countless ruins of failed ‘democratic reforms.’ The ‘American-style democracy’ you promote is a global menace and the world's greatest source of chaos!

— Let me ask the U.S. government and politicians: As the biggest perpetrators of privacy theft and media manipulation, what right do you have to talk about freedom? You implement the ‘PRISM programme’ to conduct round-the-clock, in-depth surveillance of global communications; disregarding the wishes of 170 million American users to forcibly ban TikTok; and even put pressure on Twitter to delete 170,000 Chinese accounts and remove tens of thousands of anti-war posts. Where is the freedom of speech? You amend White House interview rules to marginalise and suppress ‘non-compliant’ media, and even have multiple journalists criminally charged for normal news reporting. Where is the freedom of the press? You violently suppress peaceful assemblies, wantonly arrest students participating in anti-war protests, unjustly persecute Chinese scientists, and invoke wartime laws to deport immigrants by force. Where is the so-called ‘freedom from fear’? The ‘beacon of freedom’ you claim to be has long been dark and collapsed!

— Let me ask the U.S. government and politicians: as the perpetrators of countless atrocities and wars, what qualifications do you have to talk about human rights? In the United States, gun violence claimed the lives of over 16,100 innocent civilians in 2024. The desperate plea of black man George Floyd, ‘I can't breathe,’ as he was being brutally restrained by police, still echoes in our ears. The Guantanamo Bay detention camp continues to be plagued by reports of torture, with some detainees held without trial for over 20 years. You have waged wars of aggression, causing the deaths of over 900,000 people and displacing countless civilians in your foreign military operations over the past 20 years. You have been accused of war crimes and crimes against humanity by multiple countries. Your hands are stained with blood. Yet you dare to wear the mask of ‘human rights defenders.’ This is truly shameless and a gross irony!

We solemnly warn the U.S. government and politicians that your schemes to ‘disrupt Hong Kong and contain China’ will never succeed! The Chinese government's resolve to safeguard national sovereignty, security, and development interests is unwavering. Its commitment to implementing the ‘one country, two systems’ policy is unwavering. Its opposition to any external interference in Hong Kong's affairs is unwavering. The Chinese people have never believed in evil, feared ghosts, or been intimidated by oppression. The reckless actions of the U.S. government and politicians will only serve to unite all Chinese people even more closely together, including our compatriots in Hong Kong, and strengthen our resolve to safeguard national security and the prosperity and stability of Hong Kong. For all enemies who dare to attack, China has already ‘prepared its hunting rifles.’ The schemes to ‘disrupt Hong Kong and contain China’ are doomed to fail completely, and the death knell of hegemony is sounding ever louder!

InsightSpeak

** 博客文章文責自負,不代表本公司立場 **

 Liang Yaqi, a member of the Chinese Association of Hong Kong and Macau Studies

 On 7 May 2026, the Central Criminal Court in London delivered its verdict on Chung Biu Yuen, Administrative Manager of the Hong Kong Economic and Trade Office in London, and Chi Leung Wai, a former UK border official. This first national security case to be heard under the UK National Security Act 2023 has been marred by an air of irregularity from start to finish: persistent procedural flaws, a fragile chain of evidence and numerous inconsistencies have led many to question whether this was a fair trial or a carefully orchestrated political manoeuvre.

 Preconceived notions shaped public perception, undermining procedural fairness. Even before the trial had formally commenced, the public discourse was already fraught with tension. Following the case’s first court appearance in 2024, a document purported to be a ‘summary of the charges’ circulated widely in the media. It disclosed in detail the defendant’s specific actions, included screenshots of CCTV footage from relevant activities, and even listed details concerning the London Economic and Trade Office’s involvement in the case, clearly intended to steer public attention towards the Office’s role. Some Hong Kong media outlets have questioned why, in the past, law enforcement agencies would typically handle indictments involving sensitive case details with great caution or even keep them confidential; the current situation appears rather unusual. Even before a jury has been selected and the formal trial has begun, the public and potential jurors have already been led by preconceived notions into a narrative of the case dominated by the prosecution. This directly crosses the red line set by Section 52(a) of the UK’s Crime and Disorder Act 1998, which prohibits the media from reporting content that may prejudice the defendant during the preliminary hearing stage. Before the defendants have even spoken, they have been labelled – this practice of ‘pre-conviction’ by the media is clearly extremely unfair to the defence and undermines procedural fairness.

 The mysterious death of the third defendant has deepened the mystery surrounding the case. Even more chilling is the fact that shortly after the case was brought before the court, the third defendant, Matthew Trickett, a former Royal Marines serviceman, died under mysterious circumstances in a park. As a former soldier and an enforcement officer with the Home Office’s Immigration Service, Trickett could have provided crucial testimony to clarify whether the operation was ‘officially authorised’ or a private act. His sudden passing deprived the defence of a vital witness, preventing the full chain of evidence from being thoroughly examined in court and sparing the prosecution from the potential risks of cross-examination. Given the highly sensitive timing of his death, Trickett’s solicitor expressed shock at his passing, whilst some netizens have even suspected that he was “silenced”. Although the authorities have denied foul play, it is lamentable that the judicial process has been “streamlined” due to the death of a single individual.

 The prosecution’s evidence was flimsy and unconvincing. Section 3 of the UK National Security Act 2023 stipulates that the offence of “aiding a foreign intelligence service” requires proof that the act “is likely to substantially assist a foreign intelligence service”. Yet throughout the trial, the prosecution failed to present any fundamental evidence that the defendant’s actions had substantially harmed UK national security. The alleged acts cited by the prosecution—such as the defendant’s purported surveillance of Hong Kong residents, unauthorised access to immigration databases, and door-to-door “debt collection”—sound more like ordinary criminal offences. The prosecution essentially pieced together a case based on electronic evidence such as communication records and financial transactions, yet never produced irrefutable proof that the defendant engaged in “intelligence activities” that posed an actual security threat to the UK. Forcing ordinary behaviour to be elevated to the level of national security constitutes a “hat trick” that fails to convince.

 The judge’s guidance was markedly biased, contravening her role of impartiality. Prior to the verdict, the judge’s instructions to the jury were also biased. She repeatedly emphasised the prosecution’s perspective regarding the admissibility of evidence and the assessment of witness credibility. For instance, although much of the evidence presented by the prosecution in court occurred before the UK National Security Act 2023 came into force—and should therefore not have retroactive effect—the judge reminded the jury that they could treat this as “background information” to understand the defendant’s network of contacts. Although the judge stated that such background information could not be used directly as a basis for conviction, and this appeared neutral on the surface, in reality it had already painted the defendant in a negative light. Furthermore, when the jury had deliberated for several days without reaching a ‘unanimous verdict’ on all charges against the defendant, the judge instructed that the standard be lowered from a ‘unanimous verdict’ to a ‘majority verdict’. Whilst this move was not unlawful, in such a highly sensitive national security case, might the proactive lowering of the threshold to facilitate a conviction give rise to public doubts regarding the impartiality of the trial? Might it create a negative perception that the judicial process is not sufficiently fair?

The jury’s deliberations were fraught with difficulties, and there appeared to be political pressure. The deliberation phase was marked by a series of setbacks: one juror was hospitalised due to ill health, whilst another requested to withdraw. Chi Leung Wai’s defence counsel at one point questioned whether this juror had been ‘bullied’ by other dissenting jurors; this was precisely why the judge instructed the jury that day to ‘respect differences of opinion but continue to work together to seek consensus’.After four days of deliberations, the jury had still failed to reach a “unanimous verdict”, indicating that it was struggling to reach a consensus on the facts of the case. It was not until the fifth day, following the judge’s instruction to lower the standard of the verdict, that the jury, after a protracted stalemate, barely met the minimum threshold of a 10-2 majority verdict on the charge of “assisting a foreign intelligence agency”, whilst they remained unable to reach a verdict on the charge of “foreign interference”. Whether this outcome truly reflects the jurors’ inner conviction or is merely a compromise born of prolonged pressure is a matter for reflection.

 The UK National Security Act is defined in overly broad terms, making it highly susceptible to expansion and abuse. A review of the entire case process exposes the fundamental flaw of the UK National Security Act 2023, which is its extreme vagueness. The Act stipulates that the offence of “aiding a foreign intelligence service” is committed whenever an act is likely to assist a foreign intelligence service in carrying out activities relating to the UK; the definition of a foreign intelligence service is even broader, encompassing any person conducting intelligence activities for or on behalf of a foreign state. It is clear that the threshold for the offence of “aiding a foreign intelligence service” is so low that it could encompass many ordinary activities. Even Jonathan Hall KC, the independent reviewer appointed by the UK Home Secretary, has publicly stated that the relevant provisions of the UK National Security Act 2023 could extend to political, journalistic and other everyday activities, placing legitimate lobbying, journalistic investigations and even ordinary commercial activities at risk of criminalisation. He emphasised that the Act must be subject to oversight to prevent its “abuse and overreach”.

 Ironically, the UK completely ignores the fact that its own national security provisions are vague and broadly applicable, and turns a blind eye to the various flaws in the adjudication of national security cases, yet it repeatedly criticises and meddles in the Hong Kong National Security Law. Such double standards appear particularly hypocritical and laughable. If the UK truly cares about the rule of law, it would do well to return to the principles of evidence-based adjudication and procedural justice, rectify errors in cases as soon as possible, and ensure that the judiciary does not become a mere appendage of politics, thereby trampling the spirit of the rule of law underfoot!