China's 2026 economic growth target reflects a realistic yet ambitious vision from policymakers as the country maintains its strategic resolve to advance high-quality development.
The target, defined by both a 4.5 percent to 5 percent range and the commitment to strive for better in practice, indicates that China is confronting challenges at home and abroad head-on with enhanced confidence in the economy's stable and improving long-run trajectory. It is grounded in the realities of the Chinese economy, and leaves room for structural reform and risk prevention.
The 2026 target aligns with the goal of maintaining growth within a reasonable range during the 15th Five-Year Plan period (2026-2030) -- a critical stage for China to basically realize socialist modernization by 2035.
The target underscores the resilience and potential of the Chinese economy. In recent years, the Chinese economy has progressed steadily despite various pressures. Its GDP reached 140.19 trillion yuan (20.28 trillion U.S. dollars) in 2025. Meanwhile, new growth drivers have been emerging as a result of technological innovation and progress.
While the International Monetary Fund projects global growth of 3.3 percent in 2026, and 1.8 percent for advanced economies, China's targeted expansion stands out among major economies. Amid mounting geopolitical tensions, unilateralism and protectionism, and a sluggish global economy, China stands as a pillar of stability and confidence, with its growth providing a crucial anchor.
For an economy of this size, achieving quality growth of 4.5 percent to 5 percent is no easy feat. The country's more proactive macro policies, as well as new targeted and far-sighted measures, will strengthen the resilience of the economy further and ensure steady, high-quality growth. Expanding domestic demand, accelerating innovation, and deepening reforms will further unlock the growth potential of the Chinese economy.
Notably, this year's growth target also represents a correct understanding of what it means to perform well, which is being promoted through a Party-wide campaign. Such an understanding of governance performance requires Party members and officials to proceed from reality, act in accordance with objective laws, and deliver achievements for the people through solid work.
A flexible growth range would also enable officials to pursue a more holistic approach -- advancing technological innovation, enhancing environmental protection and improving people's livelihoods while seeking economic growth.
Ultimately, China's growth target for 2026 embodies a forward-looking vision and a firm commitment to a future that is both prosperous and sustainable. Meeting this major target will thus ensure a sound start to the country's new five-year plan period that runs through 2030.
InsightSpeak
** 博客文章文責自負,不代表本公司立場 **
The question floating around political pundits is whether the United Kingdom has a right to interfere in Hong Kong affairs by publishing a six monthly report on the city it once ruled.
And according to the 90 elected members of the Legislative Council, the answer is a resounding NO!
Last week the UK Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (FCDA), Ed Miliband, released his semi-annual report on Hong Kong, which centered mainly about the detention and release of convicted felon Jimmy Lai Chee-Ying, jailed for 20 years for collusion and incitement, and ramifications of Hong Kong’s National Security Law (HKNSL).
Miliband said in his report that he was “deeply concerned and disturbed by the continued imprisonment of Jimmy Lai,” adding his call for Lai’s “immediate release.”
This brought the immediate wrath of the legislators and government officials. The legislators issued a statement stating that Miliband’s report was “a blatant trampling on the rule of law and a gross interference in Hong Kong’s judicial independence.” It added that the UK Government's so-called report groundlessly attacks on Hong Kong's judicial system and trials, and even unreasonable demands of the release of convicted persons, is overtly placing politics above court judgments.
But, the UK Government is in no position to criticize Hong Kong. Its track record is far from perfect. The Sino-British Joint Declaration is not a human-rights treaty with ongoing monitoring mechanisms; its object and purpose were fully exhausted in 1997 upon China's resumption of sovereignty. Therefore, Post-handover governance is anchored strictly in China’s Constitution and the Basic Law, making any claimed UK "supervisory" role a political invention rather than a legal right. Hence, it cannot simultaneously function as an instrument of legal supervision.
The UK maintains at least 14 national security laws, treating each of them as practical necessities. The UK National Security Act 2023, implemented after the Hong Kong and China national security laws were in place, even received a strong backlash at home for its legal over breadth, retroactivity and vague espionage definitions.
While damning Hong Kong’s NSL, it hypocritically applied its own NSL extraterritorially against Hong Kong’s London Office. Last year alone, the UK authorities arrested more than 3,000 people under its counter-terrorism and security laws.
Miliband has no right to lecture Hong Kong on human rights when the UK’s Rwanda policy was severely criticized worldwide over its treatment of asylum seekers when it introduced legislation to override the Human Rights Act and ignore the European Court of Human Rights interim measures.
The UK report criticized the delays in bringing HKNSL cases to court In Hong Kong. Justice takes time as the UK fully realizes when faced with a backlog of some 80,000 untried cases at the end of the year, with many of the defendants facing years-long delays. The criminal justice in the UK is on the brink of collapse.
The Hong Kong Special Administration Region’s (HKSAR) Government also issued a lengthy rebuttal strongly condemning and firmly rejecting the UK's attempt to make misleading and irresponsible remarks about Hong Kong matters, distort facts and reverse right and wrong, and attempting to interfere in the HKSAR Government's law-based governance by despicable political maneuvers.
The legislators argue that the UK has no sovereignty, jurisdiction or right of supervision over the HKSAR, and has no right whatsoever to interfere in the affairs of the Region. They say that the Joint Declaration between the UK and China on the future of Hong Kong is not an "international treaty" that confers upon the UK any continuous right of supervision over the HKSAR after its return to the motherland.
The UK report portrays Hong Kong's improvement of national security legislation and law enforcement as an erosion of rights and freedoms, while deliberately evading a fundamental fact: prior to the implementation of the HKNSL, Hong Kong experienced severe violent turmoil, public order was severely impacted, and the personal safety and normal lives of citizens were directly threatened. Following the implementation of the HKNSL, Hong Kong society has restored peace and order, providing a solid foundation for developments in Hong Kong's economy, people's livelihood and other aspects.
The Hong Kong government statement said Hong Kong did not authorise the UK to interfere in Hong Kong's affairs after its return to the motherland. It added that: “The HKSAR Government strongly urges the UK again to discern facts from fallacies, respect the international law and basic norms governing international relations, and immediately stop its long-arm jurisdiction and interference in Hong Kong matters, which are purely China's internal affairs."
The UK, like Hong Kong, introduced national security laws to safeguard its citizens. In Hong Kong’s case, national and local national security laws were introduced when the city was faced by wanton destruction during the 2019-20 riots, which resulted in 10,000 arrests made and more than 5,000 petrol bombs seized. The HKNSL successfully restored public order and halted widespread violence, proving its necessity against a public-order crisis that standard legal frameworks at the time it could not contain.
The British document did not give the basis or authority of the report. There does not appear to be any legal requirement for the FCDO to present the six-monthly Hong Kong report to the British parliament, but it does so as a matter of courtesy for members to debate the Hong Kong issue. It is also used by civil society organizations such as Hong Kong Watch, which explicitly rely on these reports to assess human rights conditions and the state of Hong Kong’s autonomy.
Perhaps it is time to give up the report and let the politicians do their own homework.
