OPINION | From Protest to Silence: Hong Kong After Article 23

by Ashu Maan

In 2003, half a million Hong Kong residents poured into the streets to oppose the first attempt to pass Article 23. The mass mobilisation forced the government to shelve the legislation, proof that civic resistance could still check Beijing’s reach. Two decades later, in 2024, the same city that once embodied defiance fell silent. With opposition crushed, civil society dismantled, and media stifled, Article 23 was passed in just 11 days without a single dissenting vote. The city that once symbolised resilience now embodies submission.

From the 2020 National Security Law to Article 23, repression in Hong Kong has been institutionalised. What began as emergency legislation to suppress pro-democracy protests has hardened into a permanent system of thought control, transforming the territory from an international financial hub into an outpost of authoritarian governance.

A Legal Architecture of Oppression

The Safeguarding National Security Ordinance, known as Article 23, was rushed through Hong Kong’s legislature in March 2024 with unprecedented speed. Averaging less than four hours of scrutiny per day, the 212-page bill was unanimously approved on 23 March. Chief Executive John Lee hailed it as a “historic moment.”

Article 23 criminalises treason, espionage, theft of state secrets, and “external interference”, categories defined so broadly that almost any criticism of government actions could be prosecuted. By adopting Beijing’s definition of national security as encompassing “major interests of the state,” the law extends far beyond genuine security threats into political and civic life.

Most ominously, Article 23 applies globally. Its provisions claim jurisdiction over Hong Kong residents and businesses worldwide, providing authorities with legal cover to target critics in exile. This extraterritorial scope turns a local ordinance into an instrument of transnational repression.

Rubber-Stamping Repression

Warnings from UN experts, Western governments, and the European Parliament about the law’s incompatibility with international obligations were ignored. Officials claimed a 98.6 per cent public approval rate, an implausible figure in a climate where dissent risks arrest.

The Legislative Council, purged of opposition since 2020, functioned as a rubber stamp. The debate lasted barely more than a week. What once required mass protests to defeat was now imposed with authoritarian efficiency.

Exporting Fear: Targeting the Global Diaspora

By 2025, Article 23 was already being deployed against the Hong Kong diaspora. Authorities invoked its provisions to penalise 13 activists in the UK, US, Canada, and Australia through measures such as passport cancellations, suspension of professional licences, and restrictions on financial transactions.

Intimidation has become systematic. Chinese officials routinely photograph Hong Kong activists at international forums, while host governments are pressured to curtail diaspora advocacy. Bounties issued under the 2020 National Security Law now work in tandem with Article 23’s administrative penalties, creating multiple layers of extraterritorial control.

As one legal scholar warned, Article 23 enables Beijing to “target potentially anyone, anywhere” who dares to criticise the Chinese or Hong Kong authorities. Every Hong Kong passport holder, regardless of residence, is now a potential subject of the Chinese national security law.

India’s Constitutional Contrast

The contrast with India illustrates what Hong Kong has lost. Article 19 of the Indian Constitution guarantees freedom of expression and peaceful assembly. The Supreme Court has repeatedly affirmed that protest is “crucial in a democracy which rests on participation of an informed citizenry in governance.” Even restrictions imposed under Section 144 of the Criminal Procedure Code remain subject to judicial review.

In Hong Kong, by contrast, peaceful protest can now be prosecuted as treason. Security cases are handled by government-approved judges, and the judiciary operates within Beijing’s security apparatus. While Indian citizens can contest restrictions in independent courts, Hong Kong residents face a system designed to extinguish dissent.

The New Normal of Repression

The trajectory from the 2020 National Security Law to Article 23 confirms that repression is no longer exceptional; it is institutionalised. Together, the two laws form overlapping jurisdictions that ensure dissent is criminalised both locally and globally.

Five years ago, Hong Kong still retained some capacity to resist. Today, the territory has become an exporter of repression, extending Chinese legal reach from the Pearl River Delta to Sydney and London. What was promised to remain free until 2047 has been hollowed out well before its halfway point.

Global Consequences

The normalisation of repression in Hong Kong reflects more than the city’s democratic collapse. It signals Beijing’s determination to redefine “national security” as a doctrine of global thought control. Article 23’s extraterritorial reach ensures that Beijing’s authoritarian transformation of Hong Kong will not remain confined within its borders.

The international community’s failure to resist this transformation reveals how quickly democratic institutions can be dismantled when economic ties are prioritised over human rights. The silence that replaced the 2003 marches is more than a local tragedy; it is a global warning.

---

About Author

Ashu Mann is an Associate Fellow at the Centre for Land Warfare Studies. He was awarded the Vice Chief of the Army Staff Commendation card on Army Day 2025. He is pursuing a PhD from Amity University, Noida, in Defence and Strategic Studies. His research focuses include the India-China territorial dispute, great power rivalry, and Chinese foreign policy.