Thursday, July 10, 2025
Asia Democracy Chronicles
Follow Us
No Result
View All Result
  • Features & Analysis
    • All
    • Analysis
    • Articles
    Hidden in plain sight

    Hidden in plain sight

    Unwavering rainbow warriors

    Unwavering rainbow warriors

    Beyond queerness, solidarity

    Beyond queerness, solidarity

    A risky heating up

    A risky heating up

    Lives on edge

    Lives on edge

    Stateless, twice over

    Stateless, twice over

    Laboring under a tariff threat

    Laboring under a tariff threat

    Left out by the law

    Left out by the law

    Between memory and forgetting: Keeping the spirit of Tiananmen alive

    Between memory and forgetting: Keeping the spirit of Tiananmen alive

  • Countries
    • NORTHEAST ASIA
      • China
        • Hong Kong
        • Macau
        • Tibet
      • Japan
      • Mongolia
      • North Korea
      • South Korea
      • Taiwan
    • SOUTH ASIA
      • Afghanistan
      • Bangladesh
      • India
      • Nepal
      • Pakistan
      • Sri Lanka
    • SOUTHEAST ASIA
      • Brunei
      • Cambodia
      • Indonesia
      • Laos
      • Malaysia
      • Myanmar
      • Philippines
      • Singapore
      • Thailand
      • Timor-Leste
      • Vietnam
    • GLOBAL / REGIONAL
  • Issues
    • Elections
    • Access to Education
    • Access to Health
    • Authoritarianism and Abuse of Power
    • Civil Liberties
    • Discrimination Against Covid-19 Patients and Specific Sectors
    • Gender-based Violence and Child Abuse
    • Governance
    • Labor and Migrant Workers’ Rights
    • Media Freedom – Issues
    • Movement and Migration
    • Privacy and Surveillance
    • Social Protection and Inclusion
      • Peace and Diplomacy
  • Democracy Digest
    • Democracy Digest Archive
  • Asia Through The Lens
    • Northeast Asia
    • South Asia
    • Southeast Asia
    • Regional / Global
  • Democracy Watch
  • Statements
    • Civil Society Statements
  • About
    • Pitch Us
    • Back to ADN
  • Features & Analysis
    • All
    • Analysis
    • Articles
    Hidden in plain sight

    Hidden in plain sight

    Unwavering rainbow warriors

    Unwavering rainbow warriors

    Beyond queerness, solidarity

    Beyond queerness, solidarity

    A risky heating up

    A risky heating up

    Lives on edge

    Lives on edge

    Stateless, twice over

    Stateless, twice over

    Laboring under a tariff threat

    Laboring under a tariff threat

    Left out by the law

    Left out by the law

    Between memory and forgetting: Keeping the spirit of Tiananmen alive

    Between memory and forgetting: Keeping the spirit of Tiananmen alive

  • Countries
    • NORTHEAST ASIA
      • China
        • Hong Kong
        • Macau
        • Tibet
      • Japan
      • Mongolia
      • North Korea
      • South Korea
      • Taiwan
    • SOUTH ASIA
      • Afghanistan
      • Bangladesh
      • India
      • Nepal
      • Pakistan
      • Sri Lanka
    • SOUTHEAST ASIA
      • Brunei
      • Cambodia
      • Indonesia
      • Laos
      • Malaysia
      • Myanmar
      • Philippines
      • Singapore
      • Thailand
      • Timor-Leste
      • Vietnam
    • GLOBAL / REGIONAL
  • Issues
    • Elections
    • Access to Education
    • Access to Health
    • Authoritarianism and Abuse of Power
    • Civil Liberties
    • Discrimination Against Covid-19 Patients and Specific Sectors
    • Gender-based Violence and Child Abuse
    • Governance
    • Labor and Migrant Workers’ Rights
    • Media Freedom – Issues
    • Movement and Migration
    • Privacy and Surveillance
    • Social Protection and Inclusion
      • Peace and Diplomacy
  • Democracy Digest
    • Democracy Digest Archive
  • Asia Through The Lens
    • Northeast Asia
    • South Asia
    • Southeast Asia
    • Regional / Global
  • Democracy Watch
  • Statements
    • Civil Society Statements
  • About
    • Pitch Us
    • Back to ADN
No Result
View All Result
Asia Democracy Chronicles
No Result
View All Result
Home Hong Kong

A city increasingly silenced

Protests in Hong Kong have become impossible as authorities impose unreasonable requirements and intimidation tactics to deter people from speaking up or organizing public assemblies.

byAndrew Shum
July 11, 2023
in Hong Kong, Opinions, Special Feature
Reading Time: 7 mins read
A A
0
Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...

In March this year, a group of Hong Kong residents participated in a protest against a land reclamation project and garbage processing facility. But the atmosphere was starkly different from that of previous demonstrations in Hong Kong. 

All 80 participants were required to wear numbered lanyards. They walked with a security ribbon while police officers filmed the protest with handheld cameras. Many Hong Kong residents continue to wear masks in public places for health reasons, but the protesters were prohibited from doing so under the anti-mask ban imposed by the government with emergency powers during the Anti-Extradition Law Amendment Bill Protest in 2019. The ban remains in effect despite the absence of violent protests over the past three years.

Per police request, the organizers repeatedly reminded journalists to maintain distance from the participants. They had also been instructed to ensure that the protesters did not exceed 100 people. In addition, the police had pre-checked their banners and placards to ensure there were no “sedition words.”

May 2020 protest in Hong Kong against National Security Law
Hong Kong protests before the national security law was implemented in June 2020 were already met with brute force. Photo above shows protesters during the May 2020 rally opposing Beijing’s plans to implement the law fleeing tear gas deployed by police. (Photo: PaulWong/Shutterstock.com)

The protest garnered attention of both local and international media because it was the first public demonstration approved by the Hong Kong police since 2020. According to the Public Order Ordinance, protest organizers must inform and obtain a “no-objection notice” before mounting a public procession of more than 30 persons or a public meeting of more than 50 persons. In practice, however, this notification system has devolved into a form of censorship, granting the police the power to prohibit public demonstrations or impose arbitrary requirements.

The land reclamation protest appears to epitomize the erosion of the freedom of assembly in Hong Kong — and it is not an isolated case. In the same month, the Hong Kong Women Workers’ Association planned a Women’s Day protest but abruptly canceled the event on the eve of the scheduled rally without disclosing any reason. 

Interestingly, there had been many anonymous comments on the organizer’s Facebook page beforehand, encouraging people to join the protest. Subsequently, the police said “a lot of people, including some violent groups” were planning to attend the event, and that the organizer should cancel it “after balancing the interests of all parties.” But the local media outlet Ming Pao later discovered that some of the comments had actually been made by pro-government supporters, raising further questions on whether the so-called public order risks were actually orchestrated by the government. 

Mounting restrictions and requirements

For the longest time, Hong Kong was regarded as a ‘protest capital,’ with numerous peaceful protest rallies and assemblies taking place each year, showcasing the diversity and vibrancy of civil society. But since the implementation of the National Security Law in June 2020, it has become nearly impossible for Hongkongers to express their demands and grievances through public demonstrations.

Just this April, Joe Wong Ngai-yuen, former chairman of the now-defunct Hong Kong Confederation of Trade Unions, and former Confederation member Denny To Chun-ho prepared to organize a protest rally on Labor Day (1 May). They were interrogated by the police about their funding source and whether they have a connection with Hong Kong Labor Rights Monitor, an overseas advocacy group. Notably, they were also asked about how to prevent violent groups from “hijacking” the protest. Four days after being questioned, Wong was suddenly taken by the police and “disappeared” for a few hours. In a statement later, To revealed that Wong had  withdrawn the protest application after apparently being subjected to enormous pressure.

Following Wong’s application withdrawal,  Hong Kong Secretary for Security Chris Tang Ping-keung said, “If someone is unable to ensure the safety of any public order event or the orderly running of the event, it is a responsible act to withdraw the application.”

Aside from imposing rather unreasonable requirements, it seems Hong Kong authorities are now attempting to coerce protest organizers into canceling their events also by shifting the responsibility of maintaining public order onto them. And yet the burden of maintaining public order should not fall on organizers; it is the government that has an obligation to ensure that people can exercise their freedom of assembly without fear.

In its General Comment No. 37 on the right of peaceful assembly, the U.N. Human Rights Committee (UNHRC) stresses the duties State Parties should uphold. These include an obligation not to “prohibit, restrict, block, disperse or disrupt peaceful assemblies without compelling justification.” They are also obliged to “facilitate peaceful assemblies and to make it possible for participants to achieve their objectives.” 

Besides, any restriction on protests should not be disproportionate. The strict limitation on the number of participants is clearly unreasonable and onerous as it is impossible for protest organizers to precisely predict the eventual turnout. There are no sufficient grounds to prohibit people from joining protests or to require organizers to urge them to leave just because the number of participants exceeds expectations or an imposed limit. The requirement of wearing numbered lanyards is also obviously a form of surveillance that infringes on participants’ right to privacy and serves as an attempt to deter people from joining the protest. (It can be argued as well that the numbered lanyards are rather humiliating to wear as they remind some of either prisoners or branded livestock.)

Moreover, while the government cites the need to consider the potential for violence during protests — hence all these measures — it should be noted that the UNHRC says that protesters’ anonymity “should be allowed unless their conduct presents reasonable grounds for arrest.” Accordingly, any additional requirements, including the anti-mask ban that prevents people from preserving their anonymity — while exposing them to possible health risks — are arguably inconsistent with international human rights standards.

Flowers and candles now “threats”

Unfortunately, it appears that the Hong Kong government now disregards these obligations as its behavior increasingly deviates from international human rights standards.

The recent 34th anniversary of the Tiananmen Square massacre set yet another example of how the Hong Kong government tramples on the exercise of the freedom of assembly and expression. From 1990 to 2020, Hong Kong had played a vital role in commemorating the victims of the 4 June 1989 massacre, hosting the largest candlelight vigils in the world every year. Beginning 2020, the government banned the vigils for pandemic reasons. All pandemic preventive measures have since been lifted, but public commemorations remain prohibited. 

Until three years ago, public commemorations of the 1989 Tiananmen Square massacre were held yearly in Hong Kong, highlighted by candlelight vigils to honor the victims. Beginning 2020, the government banned these vigils, citing the pandemic. Today, such commemorations remain prohibited. (Photo: Hsiuwen Liu/Shutterstock.com)

On this year’s anniversary, 6,000 police officers were deployed across Hong Kong, and individuals were stopped and searched near Victoria Park, the previous venue of the famous candlelight vigils. The park this time around was occupied by pro-government groups hosting a carnival. According to the local online news outlet The Collective,  most of the 23 people taken by the police for “breaching public peace” were simply wearing black t-shirts or peacefully holding flowers or electronic candles.

It has become a common practice for Hong Kong authorities to heavily suppress any form of dissent by deploying a substantial number of police forces on special occasions, creating a disconcerting parallel to the longstanding situation in mainland China. On 1 July, the anniversary of Hong Kong’s handover from Britain to China, which had historically seen mass protests, thousands of police were mobilized; anti-riot armored vehicles stood ready on the city’s streets. According to a report by The Collective, the police that day forced an 87-year-old man who had a portrait of Jesus hanging from his neck and was clutching an A3 paper with Chinese scribbling to leave the city center via the subway. Written on the paper that the man held were demands for the repeal of the National Security Law, the fulfillment of international human rights standards, and the release of political prisoners.

Sources: Deutsche Welles, Hong Kong Free Press, Bloomberg, Voice of America, Al Jazeera, Reuters

The Hong Kong government wants to show that the people of one of China’s Special Administrative Regions are greatly contented with the city’s current state of affairs. But if Hong Kong’s people genuinely feel as content and supportive of the government as the authorities want everyone to believe, then why does the government go to great lengths in imposing all kinds of requirements and restrictions for those planning protests and deploying a significant number of police officers to intimidate citizens and impede their right to speak up?

The answer to that question is undoubtedly evident. ◉

Tags: Authoritarianism and Abuse of PowerCivil Libertieshong kongNortheast Asia
Andrew Shum

Andrew Shum

Andrew Shum is a Hong Kong human rights activist based in the United Kingdom. He was Chief Executive of the Hong Kong Professional Teachers’ Union and cofounder of Civil Rights Observer. Both groups disbanded due to political pressure.

Next Post
Indonesia passes Health Bill into law, allowing foreign doctors to practise locally

Indonesia passes Health Bill into law, allowing foreign doctors to practise locally

Nepalis working abroad keep home fires burning

Nepalis working abroad keep home fires burning

In Myanmar, ‘Some PDFs are behaving like the junta’

In Myanmar, ‘Some PDFs are behaving like the junta’

Features and Analysis

  • All
  • Special Feature
Hidden in plain sight
Special Feature

Hidden in plain sight

byKrixia Subingsubing
June 30, 2025
0

Despite Brunei's restrictive environment for LGBTQIA+ individuals, a new report reveals queer activists are creatively contributing to social change through...

Read more
Unwavering rainbow warriors
Special Feature

Unwavering rainbow warriors

byCristina Chi
June 30, 2025
0

As queer expression is heavily policed in Malaysia, LGBTQIA+ activists in civil society work learn to carve space and build...

Read more
Beyond queerness, solidarity
Special Feature

Beyond queerness, solidarity

byCristina Chi
June 29, 2025
0

Singapore's LGBTQIA+ activists are putting skills to good use as they navigate a fraught civic space to champion other rights...

Read more
A risky heating up
Articles

A risky heating up

bySuvendrini Kakuchi
June 27, 2025
0

Japan’s longer sizzling summers pose a deadly risk to the country’s growing elderly population and disproportionately impacts the poor.

Read more

Pitch Us A Story

Have a story to tell, nuanced insights, or expert analysis to share with a regional (i.e. Asia), even global, audience? Want to weigh in on specific issues, including those disproportionately affecting specific segments of society, which run the gamut from poverty and inequality to human rights violations? We’d love to hear from you.

We run features, op-eds, analyses, among others, that probe issues around fundamental rights and civil liberties, and illuminate the challenges of governance in Asia.

Yes, I’m Interested

Follow Us

Facebook
Twitter
RSS

©  Asia Democracy Chronicles.

Web Design and Development by Neitiviti Studios.

  • Features & Analysis
  • Countries
  • Issues
  • Democracy Digest
  • Asia Through The Lens
  • Democracy Watch
  • Statements
  • About
No Result
View All Result
  • Features & Analysis
  • Countries
    • NORTHEAST ASIA
      • China
      • Japan
      • Mongolia
      • North Korea
      • South Korea
      • Taiwan
    • SOUTH ASIA
      • Afghanistan
      • Bangladesh
      • India
      • Nepal
      • Pakistan
      • Sri Lanka
    • SOUTHEAST ASIA
      • Brunei
      • Cambodia
      • Indonesia
      • Laos
      • Malaysia
      • Myanmar
      • Philippines
      • Singapore
      • Thailand
      • Timor-Leste
      • Vietnam
    • GLOBAL / REGIONAL
  • Issues
    • Elections
    • Access to Education
    • Access to Health
    • Authoritarianism and Abuse of Power
    • Civil Liberties
    • Discrimination Against Covid-19 Patients and Specific Sectors
    • Gender-based Violence and Child Abuse
    • Governance
    • Labor and Migrant Workers’ Rights
    • Media Freedom – Issues
    • Movement and Migration
    • Privacy and Surveillance
    • Social Protection and Inclusion
      • Peace and Diplomacy
  • Democracy Digest
    • Democracy Digest Archive
  • Asia Through The Lens
    • Northeast Asia
    • South Asia
    • Southeast Asia
    • Regional / Global
  • Democracy Watch
  • Statements
    • Civil Society Statements
  • About
    • Pitch Us
    • Back to ADN

© 2022 Asia Democracy Chronicles - Designed and Developed by Neitiviti Studios.

Welcome Back!

Login to your account below

Forgotten Password?

Retrieve your password

Please enter your username or email address to reset your password.

Log In