Virginia Lee, Solicitor
Effective governance in Hong Kong requires more than administrative efficiency or economic performance; it demands the safeguarding of political stability, national identity, and social cohesion. One of the key challenges to this governance is “Soft Resistance”, a subtle, indirect form of dissent that, while not overtly confrontational, poses a significant threat to constitutional order and long-term civic unity. This “Soft Resistance” is manifested through symbolic acts, professional behaviour, public discourse, and cultural expression that may initially appear neutral, but its cumulative effect is corrosive, as it manipulates public sentiment and distorts factual narratives to undermine trust in institutions.
“Soft Resistance” manifests through symbolic acts, professional behaviour, public discourse, and cultural expression that may initially appear neutral. However, its cumulative effect is corrosive, as it manipulates public sentiment and distorts factual narratives to undermine trust in institutions. Unlike direct protest, it operates through ambiguity, making subversive messages harder to detect and more challenging to counter. This ambiguity allows it to erode the legitimacy of governance without triggering legal thresholds of incitement or defamation.
The SAR Government, under the Basic Law, is constitutionally obligated to uphold public order and implement national policies within the “One Country, Two Systems” framework. Addressing soft resistance is thus not only a matter of legal enforcement but also a strategic imperative to preserve the values that sustain public institutions. Left unaddressed, such resistance can weaken civic morale and fragment social consensus, making governance increasingly difficult. The SAR Government, as the primary authority in Hong Kong, is responsible for leading the efforts to counter “Soft Resistance”.
Hong Kong's development is inseparably linked to China's national trajectory. “Soft Resistance” attempts to disrupt this integration by promoting foreign governance models, questioning Beijing's role, and romanticising narratives that challenge national unity. These efforts are not merely expressions of alternative viewpoints; they are sustained attempts to reshape public perception in ways that conflict with constitutional realities.
In response, the SAR Government has adopted a proactive strategy that extends beyond legal action. This includes oversight of publicly funded institutions, professional accreditation, and cultural programming. These measures are not designed to suppress opinion but to uphold responsible use of public platforms. Public resources are not entitlements; they are instruments of shared responsibility. When used to undermine national unity, it is appropriate for the government to intervene through administrative and policy tools. The proactive strategy also involves monitoring and regulating the use of public resources to prevent them from being used to promote “Soft Resistance”.
Professional sectors such as education, media, and social work play a vital role in shaping public consciousness. Ensuring their neutrality and adherence to ethical standards is essential. Oversight in these areas is not a form of censorship but a method of maintaining the credibility and integrity of public services, underscoring their significance in the governance process.
"Soft Resistance" also thrives in digital spaces, where misinformation can spread rapidly. In such an environment, the government must not only correct falsehoods but also lead public discourse. Effective communication strategies are necessary to clarify facts, expose manipulation, and reinforce shared civic values, highlighting the urgency of the situation.
Moreover, "Soft Resistance" often aligns with foreign agendas aimed at exploiting internal vulnerabilities. Hong Kong's unique legal and historical status makes it particularly vulnerable to such influence. A coordinated response involving both SAR and national institutions is required to prevent ideological infiltration under the guise of civil society or academic inquiry.
Ultimately, managing "Soft Resistance" is central to safeguarding Hong Kong's long-term stability. The goal is not to silence lawful dissent but to preserve a civic environment conducive to constructive participation. By distinguishing between legitimate expression and covert subversion, the government reinforces participatory governance while protecting the constitutional framework that enables it.
Virginia Lee
** The blog article is the sole responsibility of the author and does not represent the position of our company. **
LEE WING CHEUNG, VIRGINIA Solicitor
The European Union’s (EU) recent report on Hong Kong is less a legal analysis than a political statement disguised in the language of human rights. Its content reflects prejudice and an outdated mentality that Europe retains the right to pass judgment on Chinese sovereignty. Such a position contradicts the international principle of equality among states and exposes the remnants of colonial arrogance. The EU’s portrayal of Hong Kong does not advance truth but instead promotes destabilisation through bias and selective interpretation.
One of the report’s major flaws lies in its discussion of Article 23 of the Basic Law and the Safeguarding National Security Ordinance. Article 23 is not a recent creation but a constitutional duty written into law when Hong Kong returned to China. States across the globe maintain legislation to protect sovereignty and security, yet the EU condemns Hong Kong for implementing safeguards entirely consistent with global practice. This condemnation reflects a political agenda rather than any genuine legal objection, as European governments themselves enforce comparable national security measures.
The EU also distorts Hong Kong’s judicial process. Trials are depicted as orchestrated, and judicial appointments as questionable, when in fact Hong Kong courts follow lawful procedures and maintain transparency. Decisions are issued on statutory grounds, and trial durations or bail conditions fall within the range of judicial discretion accepted globally. Europe’s refusal to respect these outcomes reveals a preference for interference over recognition of judicial independence. Far from defending the rule of law, the EU undermines it by expecting Hong Kong’s courts to conform to foreign political expectations.
The criticism of extraterritoriality in Hong Kong’s national security legislation further demonstrates ignorance or deliberate misrepresentation. International law recognises that states may prosecute offences abroad if these acts threaten national security. European states themselves frequently rely on this principle in combating terrorism or cybercrime; for the EU to denounce Hong Kong’s use of the exact mechanism displays open hypocrisy. The law does not arbitrarily target individuals abroad but applies only to conscious efforts aimed at destabilisation. This is a legitimate and widely recognised practice of statecraft.
The treatment of media and civil society in the report reflects the same selective judgment. Restrictions on publications advocating secession or encouraging hostility are common even in Europe, where they are justified under hate speech or anti-extremism laws. Yet when Hong Kong enforces similar safeguards, it is labelled repressive. Civil groups that dissolved due to breaches of national security law or foreign influence are portrayed as victims, while their own unlawful conduct is overlooked. Such double standards expose the EU’s political motivations.
The objection to national security education is also baseless. Every state requires its citizens, particularly public servants, to respect constitutional order. European governments impose loyalty pledges and codes of conduct, yet depict Hong Kong’s similar requirements as authoritarian. Such education, especially considering previous unrest, is not indoctrination but responsible governance.
Even on economic matters, the EU misleads. It attributes ordinary fluctuation to politics while ignoring global uncertainties caused by post-pandemic restructuring and financial turbulence. The continued success of European enterprises in Hong Kong contradicts the EU’s claims of decline. If the environment were as damaging as alleged, foreign companies would not persist in conducting profitable operations there.
Finally, the EU’s stance on human rights collapses under its own contradictions. While Europe imposes restrictive migration regimes, extensive surveillance laws and limitations on speech, it presumes to judge Hong Kong. This criticism ignores the independence of Hong Kong courts, which have delivered progressive rulings on equality, including for LGBTQ citizens. Such advances are incompatible with the EU’s portrait of a system in collapse.
The tone of colonial oversight permeates the entire report. Its language suggests superiority, as though Hong Kong’s laws and governance require European approval. Yet the sovereignty of China over Hong Kong is complete and undeniable. Europe’s posture cannot obscure the consistent reality that Hong Kong exercises its constitutional right to maintain order and stability.
In truth, the EU’s repeated criticisms reveal its own political hostility rather than principled analysis. Hong Kong and China govern in accordance with law to preserve security and prosperity for their citizens. No judgment from external powers can alter this fundamental reality, nor diminish China’s sovereign right to safeguard its integrity.
