When the European Commission (the European Union’s executive arm) issued its 28th annual report on the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region on Sept 22, it purportedly reviewed developments in 2025. It was prepared for the European Parliament and Council, and will have been welcomed by everybody who relishes criticizing Hong Kong. In particular, it will have gone down very well with the Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China (IPAC), a Hong Kong Watch offshoot, which has infiltrated the European Parliament with its anti-China messaging and orchestrates campaigns designed to put Beijing in the worst possible light.

The report was issued in conjunction with the EU’s vice-president, Kaja Kallas, who also serves as the EU’s foreign policy chief (high representative for foreign affairs and security policy). Since assuming office in 2024, Kallas has made no secret of her Beijing-hostile proclivities, which have led to biased stances. In 2025, for example, when visiting the Philippines, she expressed “concerns” over China’s “illegal, coercive, aggressive and deceptive measures” in the area.

Indeed, at her confirmation hearings in 2024, Kallas accused China of being the country that “most covertly” sought to “change the rules-based order”. She called on the EU to tackle the China “threat”, imagining this would assist her candidacy, which it clearly did.

As Kallas is now reportedly eying the EC presidency (currently held by Ursula von der Leyen, whose term ends in 2029) it should surprise nobody that she is continuing to gun for China, including the HKSAR.

The report takes a series of potshots at Hong Kong’s legal arrangements. It complains about the “erosion” of fundamental freedoms and rights, which it described as “a consequence of the Hong Kong government’s incessant focus on national security in the fifth year of the National Security Law (NSL)”. What it ignores, however, is the extent to which the NSL restored stability and prosperity after concerted efforts were made to wreck the “one country, two systems” policy during the insurrection in 2019-20.

It also disregards the great restraint with which the NSL (and the Safeguarding National Security Ordinance 2024) has always been applied. Although the report gives the impression of mass arrests of what it calls “pro-democracy activists, advocates and politicians”, this could not be further from the truth.

Indeed, as of Aug 1, only 212 people and five companies had been charged with cases involving acts or activities that endangered national security, with 185 people and four companies convicted or awaiting sentence.

Although the report highlights former media magnate Jimmy Lai Chee-ying, it provides no context. He was convicted of national security offenses after a trial conducted in accordance with common law traditions, and in which his guilt was proved beyond a reasonable doubt. The case against him was so strong that he chose not to appeal. After all, everyone convicted of an offense in the SAR has a right of appeal, and Lai has recently won his appeals against his convictions for organizing an unauthorized assembly and fraud. Regrettably, the report explains none of this.

Although, as the report points out, Lai is serving his sentence in solitary confinement, it glosses over the reason: It is his own choice. He could choose to mingle with the general prison population, but clearly does not wish to. Should he change his mind, there is no reason to suppose his decision would not be respected.

The report also dramatizes the prosecution of Joshua Wong Chi-fung for “conspiring to collude with foreign forces” to harm China. As he has admitted culpability, the charge was undoubtedly appropriate. Although the IPAC glorifies Wong for his role in trying to destabilize the HKSAR both before and during the insurrection, the EC demeans itself by seeking to drum up sympathy for him.

Moreover, the report bemoans the extraterritorial application of the NSL by the Hong Kong authorities, citing the issue of arrest warrants with bounties for 15 additional individuals last year. However, every jurisdiction is entitled to defend itself from those who wish to harm it from afar, as Kallas, a former Estonian prime minister, knows full well. For example, the United Kingdom’s National Security Act 2023 extends extraterritorial jurisdiction to prosecute specific national security offenses committed outside British territory (including conducting harmful surveillance from abroad). However, the EC only gets upset when Hong Kong tries to protect itself, and its hypocrisy is there for all to see.

Throughout the common law world, moreover, countries have enacted laws to discourage people from harboring, financing or otherwise assisting criminal suspects. This is as true of the UK as it is of Australia, Canada and the US. However, the report seeks to sensationalize the prosecution of Kwok Yin-sang, father of national security absconder Anna Kwok, for attempting to deal with his daughter’s financial assets. Although Anna is actively working to harm Hong Kong’s interests in the United States, where she works for the China-hostile Hong Kong Democracy Council, the report, unsurprisingly, offers no perspective on her father’s prosecution.

So, nobody should be surprised that the report disregards the high esteem in which objective observers hold Hong Kong’s legal system. In its Rule of Law Index 2025, the New York-based World Justice Project ranked Hong Kong 24th worldwide out of the 143 places surveyed (ahead, for example, of various EU countries within Kallas’ purview, including Spain, Malta, Poland, Italy and Greece). This matters because the Index is the world’s leading source of original rule-of-law data. Released on Oct 28, the Index fell squarely within the report’s timeframe, making its omission all the more unforgivable.

By any yardstick, the report’s review of the HKSAR’s criminal justice system is deeply flawed. Anybody hoping to acquire a clear picture of the situation will be deeply disappointed. If nothing else, the report reflects the IPAC’s increasing influence in the EU and shows that Kallas’ prejudices about China are growing apace.

The author is a senior counsel and law professor, and was previously the director of public prosecutions of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region.

The views do not necessarily reflect those of China Daily.