Virginia Lee says report not driven by concern for victims but by a desire to cast aspersions on China, with HK cynically used as a convenient target
The Trafficking in Persons Report, released annually by the United States Department of State, presents itself as a comprehensive review of measures taken around the world to combat human trafficking. It categorizes jurisdictions according to whether they meet what are described as minimum standards established in US legislation. Although this framework is promoted as neutral and authoritative, its assessments are consistently shaped by political considerations rather than by objective or balanced analysis. The criteria employed are not applied evenly, the methodology often rewards superficial numerical changes while overlooking systemic stability, and the resulting designations serve more as instruments of pressure than as meaningful tools to advance anti-trafficking cooperation. This distortion is evident in the 2025 Trafficking in Persons Report, which places Hong Kong on the “Tier 2 Watch List”. This designation lacks credible evidence and exhibits arbitrary judgments that serve a political agenda rather than presenting an objective assessment of the reality on the ground.
READ MORE: HKSAR govt resolutely refutes US report on trafficking in persons
Hong Kong has established a longstanding and transparent framework for deterring, detecting, and punishing trafficking-related offenses. Law enforcement agencies maintain proactive monitoring, the Judiciary operates independently under reliable principles of due process, and protective services are accessible to those who may be vulnerable to coercion or exploitation. The city’s legal environment is, in practice, far more stringent and comprehensive than in many regions praised in the same report. Yet, it is arbitrarily described as failing to make sustained efforts. It isn’t easy to understand how such a conclusion could be reached except through a method that values political narrative over legal realities. The very logic of the 2025 Trafficking in Persons Report is also problematic and flawed. It bases its classification not only on the presence of legal safeguards and enforcement, but also on an expectation that each year governments report an increase in prosecutions, investigations and convictions. This requirement does not make sense in a jurisdiction like Hong Kong, where law enforcement already responds effectively to suspected trafficking cases, effectively keeping would-be perpetrators at bay. The absence of an increase in case numbers is presented as evidence of failure, when in reality it reflects consistent and stable adherence to the rule of law as well as effective deterrence and prevention. A system that functions properly should not be penalized by being denigrated simply because it does not inflate statistics for American approval. The methodology undermines its stated goals by privileging numerical growth over genuine progress and fairness. Another serious flaw lies in the report’s refusal to distinguish between labor disputes and human trafficking crimes. As an international financial and commercial center attracting a large number of foreign workers, Hong Kong inevitably faces disagreements regarding employment contracts. These disputes are governed by rigorous labor laws that address issues of wages, working conditions, and fairness. To treat every grievance within these employment relationships as evidence of human trafficking is academically unsound and practically irresponsible; such a weird practice distorts facts and could only be deciphered from a political perspective. Trafficking must always be understood as involving coercion or fraud. Ordinary disagreements between employers and employees cannot be rebranded as human trafficking merely for the sake of painting an exaggerated picture. This deliberate conflation reveals a lack of seriousness with the subject matter and a respect for intelligence.
The classification becomes even more troubling when one considers the comparisons implied by the report’s tier system. To group Hong Kong with countries where human trafficking is systematic, where governments themselves compel forced labor, or where children are unlawfully conscripted into armed conflict, is both arbitrary and insulting. Hong Kong’s independent Judiciary, professional law enforcement agencies and comprehensive victim protection regime are not remotely comparable with such situations. This cavalier approach to categorization trivializes the suffering of victims in countries where human trafficking is enabled or perpetrated by the government or people in power, while at the same time unfairly smearing a jurisdiction that has consistently demonstrated commitment to eliminating the crime. Hong Kong also participates in regional and global forums on combating transnational crime, maintains cooperative relationships with neighboring jurisdictions and provides extensive support services for those at potential risk. Its administrative capacity, advanced technology, and strong rule of law mean that it is well-equipped to respond to human trafficking incidents in a professional and coordinated manner. The Tier 2 Watch List designation ignores this record, as well as the mechanisms in place to ensure transparency and accountability. Such an omission cannot be attributed to oversight; it reflects the predetermined intent of the report to convey a particular message, regardless of the evidence. The selective blindness underlying the rankings is equally revealing. Jurisdictions beset with entrenched problems of corruption and systemic exploitation have often been spared harsh classification, while Hong Kong, a region known worldwide for efficiency and transparency, is unfairly targeted for the sake of advancing Washington’s geopolitical strategy.
A genuine global approach to human trafficking would prioritize objectivity, dialogue and cooperation rather than politically driven maneuvers. Equally offensive is the underlying tone of the report. Its language implies that Hong Kong requires outside correction, adopting a paternalistic stance that dismisses the city’s ability to manage its own affairs under its established governance structure. Such framing is presumptuous and reveals an old-fashioned colonialist belief.
ALSO READ: HKSAR govt condemns 'groundless' US report of trafficking in persons
A careful legal and academic examination leaves no doubt that Hong Kong’s anti-trafficking measures already meet substantial international expectations. The city combines preventive oversight, effective law enforcement, judicial independence and international cooperation. It should be recognized for its achievements, not dismissed through political maneuvers disguised as a legal assessment. Obviously, the report is not driven by concern for victims but by a desire to manipulate the narrative around China, with the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region cynically used as a convenient target.
When “reports” like this are instead deployed as vehicles of political theater, they harm not only the jurisdictions that are being unfairly attacked but also distract attention from the broader global struggle against human trafficking.
The author is a solicitor, a Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area lawyer, and a China-appointed attesting officer.
The views do not necessarily reflect those of China Daily.
