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,  Chinese Association of Hong Kong & Macao Studies

Since the release of Hong Kong’s first five-year plan, one line of interpretation has grouped together its provisions on cooperation with the mainland and security governance, and from there concluded that a substantial part of the plan is not really about Hong Kong’s own development. With the latest Policy Address continuing to place strong emphasis on national security, the argument goes a step further: Hong Kong’s development agenda, it is said, is increasingly being crowded out by other priorities.

The central problem with this interpretation is that it artificially separates policy objectives that are, in reality, deeply intertwined.

For Hong Kong today, can “integration with the mainland,” “security” and “economic development” really be treated as three distinct agendas?

The answer is more complicated than it may appear.

On the one hand, the five-year plan explicitly calls for Hong Kong to align itself proactively with national development strategies. On the other, it also defines Hong Kong as a “super connector” between the mainland and global markets.

The provisions concerning the Closer Economic Partnership Arrangement, or CEPA, go further still, calling for wider access to the mainland market for Hong Kong service providers. In finance, the plan proposes deeper links with both mainland and overseas markets, enabling international capital to participate through Hong Kong in the growth of China and Asia while helping mainland companies and capital expand globally.

To classify all of this simply as “supporting mainland policy” is already to assume something that should instead be examined: that anything connected with national development is, by definition, separate from Hong Kong’s own development.

Yet Hong Kong’s economic structure makes that distinction increasingly difficult to sustain.

Hong Kong’s most distinctive economic value lies in its ability to connect two economic spheres vastly larger than itself. On one side is mainland China; on the other are global capital, trade, professional services and institutional networks. Much of Hong Kong’s competitive advantage has long rested on precisely this intermediary role.

That is why, in many cases, there is no clear line separating policies that “serve the country” from policies that “develop Hong Kong.”

Rather than asking how much of the plan is devoted to the mainland, the more meaningful question is whether those connections ultimately make Hong Kong more difficult to replace.

If closer access to China’s vast market generates greater demand for international financing, asset management, legal and arbitration services, RMB business and corporate globalization in Hong Kong, then deeper integration with the mainland and a stronger international role can advance at the same time.

Security should be understood within the same framework.

A common intuition is that policy attention is finite: the more emphasis placed on security, the less attention remains for economic growth and social welfare. But for a highly open international financial centre such as Hong Kong, security and development do not exist in a simple zero-sum relationship.

Capital does not merely chase the highest nominal return. It seeks the best risk-adjusted return.

For a highly open international financial centre, security is not separate from development. It is part of the economic environment that businesses and investors assess when deciding where to place capital, establish regional headquarters or manage wealth. They look not only at taxes and growth prospects, but also at financial stability, reliable infrastructure, cybersecurity and regulatory predictability.

In other words, companies choosing Hong Kong are not simply choosing lower taxes or office space. They are choosing an institutional environment that reduces uncertainty.

The International Monetary Fund’s 2026 assessment of Hong Kong illustrates this relationship well. On the one hand, the IMF recognised the financial system’s strong capital and liquidity buffers and its sound regulatory foundations. On the other, it noted that Hong Kong’s highly open and interconnected economy leaves it exposed to geopolitical and trade tensions, volatility in global financial markets, and disruptions to trade and capital flows. It also highlighted risks associated with commercial real estate, cybersecurity and operational resilience.[1]

The more open Hong Kong is, the more important strong risk management becomes.

This is also why the five-year plan’s emphasis on “coordinating development and security” should not be understood solely through a narrow conception of security. The plan also calls for stronger economic and urban resilience, better risk-warning mechanisms, closer cross-departmental coordination, improved cybersecurity and emergency governance, and greater use of technology to enhance the efficiency of public administration.

These priorities reflect a broader shift in global economic governance in recent years: economic competition is moving away from a singular pursuit of maximum efficiency towards a balance between efficiency and resilience.

The earlier phase of globalisation prized the lowest possible costs, minimal inventories and ever-longer cross-border supply chains. After the pandemic, geopolitical conflict, financial volatility and repeated supply-chain disruptions, however, governments and companies have become increasingly concerned with a different question: when a system is hit by a shock, can it continue to function?

For Hong Kong, that resilience is itself part of what an international financial centre offers. Clear rules, predictable enforcement and reliable institutions allow businesses to price risk with greater confidence; uncertainty, by contrast, raises risk premiums and discourages long-term investment.

The proper measure of Hong Kong’s future security governance, therefore, is not how often security appears in the five-year plan or the Policy Address. The more important question is whether that governance ultimately makes Hong Kong more predictable.

Over the next five years, several developments will be worth watching.

As Hong Kong deepens its links with the mainland, will demand increase for international capital to use the city as a platform for allocating assets in China and across Asia? As mainland companies expand globally, will they rely more heavily on Hong Kong’s financial, legal and professional services? Will Hong Kong’s ties with Europe, the United States, ASEAN and the Middle East deepen at the same time? And will security governance reduce the uncertainty costs inherent in operating an open economy?

If these functions become stronger, then “integrating into national development,” “safeguarding security” and “remaining international” are not competing objectives.

They may, in fact, be three dimensions of the same question:

In an increasingly fragmented and uncertain world, how can Hong Kong remain an interface that both China and the rest of the world want to use—and one that neither can easily replace?

[1]https://www.elibrary.imf.org/view/journals/002/2026/114/002.2026.issue-114-en.xml?cid=576398-com-dsp-crossref