Skip to Content Facebook Feature Image

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

Blog

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
Blog

Blog

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

2025-04-23 11:22 Last Updated At:20:58

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

** The blog article is the sole responsibility of the author and does not represent the position of our company. **

Next Article

When American Judges Encounter Hong Kong’s National Security Law

2025-05-18 22:28 Last Updated At:22:28

by Dr. Celeste Lo, Solicitor

In my recent research, I uncovered a noteworthy U.S. district court decision that directly engaged with Hong Kong’s National Security Law (NSL) and related judicial determinations (Chung Chui Wan v. Michel Dale Debolt, No. 20-cv-3233, 2021 WL 1733500 (C.D. Ill. May 3, 2021)). This ruling presents significant jurisprudential implications that warrant careful examination, which this analysis will explore.

The case involved a child custody dispute under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, implemented in the U.S. via the International Child Abduction Remedies Act. The respondent (father) had unilaterally removed the children from Hong Kong to the U.S. in August 2020. The petitioner (mother) sought the children’s mandatory return under the Convention, while the father invoked three exceptions on the grounds of “age and maturity” (Article 13), “grave risk” (Article 13) and “protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms” (Article 20) to oppose the petition.

Regarding the “grave risk” defence, the father argued that the children would face a grave risk of harm because Hong Kong would not adequately protect the children after the passage of the NSL. Moreover, the NSL had unleashed a psychological war, and the children would have to live under the culture of fear and silence instilled by the NSL.

In evaluating the father’s claim, the court scrutinised the legal threshold for “grave risk”. It emphasised that a generalised risk of violence in a jurisdiction was not enough. The potential harm to the children must be severe, and the legal of risk and danger required to trigger the “grave risk” exception had consistently been held to be very high. The gravity of a risk involved not only the probability of harm, but also the magnitude of harm if the probability materialised.

The U.S. court thus reviewed Hong Kong’s constitutional and legal framework post-1997, including the “One Country, Two Systems” principle, the large-scale protests in 2019, and the NSL’s enactment. Notably, it cited the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal’s ruling in HKSAR v. Lai Chee Ying [2021] HKCFA 3, which affirmed that the rights, freedoms and values in the Basic Law and the Bill of Rights [Ordinance] were to be protected and adhered to in applying the NSL. The court therefore found no evidence that the Basic Law had ceased to exist or that the children would face arbitrary detention risks.

The father’s expert, Dr. Phil C.W. Chan, claimed Hong Kong’s rule of law had “collapsed,” but the court dismissed this as highly speculative. Conversely, it credited testimony from the mother’s expert, Mr. Azan Aziz Marwah, a Hong Kong barrister, who confirmed that the Basic Law was still intact and the people of Hong Kong enjoyed freedom and human rights. The court concluded that returning the children to Hong Kong posed no grave risk.

On the Article 20 “human rights and freedoms” exception, the court noted this defence had never been used in a published opinion in the U.S. to prevent the return of children, and this case did not present circumstances that would make it the first. Even if this exception was applicable, the respondent had not presented sufficient evidence that returning the children to Hong Kong would raise “human rights concerns” or “utterly shock the conscious of the court”. The situation in this case certainly did not rise to that level.

As the first U.S. case to engage substantively with the NSL, this ruling notably affirmed that the continued operation of rights and freedoms under Hong Kong’s Basic Law, while offering an implicit counterpoint to politicised narratives about Hong Kong’s legal environment by grounding its analysis in documented legal protections rather than speculative assertions.

While the decision contained certain factual inaccuracies (notably the erroneous suggestion that Hong Kong was “meant to have governing autonomy until 2034”), its overall evaluation of Hong Kong’s post-NSL legal framework demonstrates judicial restraint. This case establishes an important precedent suggesting that U.S. courts may adopt a more nuanced approach than political rhetoric when assessing Hong Kong matters. The decision warrants careful consideration by policymakers formulating evidence-based positions on Hong Kong-related issues.