Few, if any, places are fortunate enough to have their media freedoms protected by a triple lock. However, the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region is one such place. This is because press freedom is integral to the rights and freedoms associated with the “one country, two systems” policy.

The SAR’s media protections go well beyond those enjoyed by residents before the reunification in 1997, when press clampdowns were always a possibility.

Indeed, when the British Hong Kong government enacted its draconian Sedition Ordinance in Hong Kong in 1938 (“to make better provision for the prevention and punishment of sedition”), there were genuine fears it could be abused. Because this was almost 40 years before the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (with its free speech protections) was extended to Hong Kong, the sedition law could be used to clamp down arbitrarily on newspapers whose coverage upset the authorities. After Ta Kung Pao was prosecuted in 1952 for its reporting of the Tung Tau Tsuen squatter fire, its staff were imprisoned. The same thing happened in 1967, when three leftist newspapers were prosecuted for articles that allegedly sought to arouse discontent among police officers.

However, HKSAR residents’ rights and freedoms have long since matured, and they now enjoy a battery of protections denied to their predecessors.

Whereas the Basic Law (Art.27) stipulates that residents shall enjoy freedom of speech, of the press and of publication, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (Art.19) (ICCPR) (domesticated by the Hong Kong Bill of Rights), guarantees the right to freedom of expression, including the right to seek, receive and impart information through the media.

As if this were not reassuring enough, the national security legislation also drives the same point home. Whereas the Hong Kong SAR National Security Law 2020 (Art. 4) (NSL) provides that, in the NSL’s enforcement, the freedoms of speech, publication, and the press shall be protected, the same imperative is mirrored in the Safeguarding National Security Ordinance 2024 (Sect. 2).

The triple lock therefore makes residents’ rights and freedoms (enforceable through the courts) more secure than ever.

Although the ICCPR indicates (Art. 19) that these rights can be restricted, this can occur only in specific situations. Any restrictions must be provided for by law, and they must also be necessary for (a) respect of the rights and reputations of others, or (b) for the protection of national security or public order or of public health or morals.

In other words, media rights are not absolute in the HKSAR (or anywhere else where the ICCPR’s writ runs), and the various freedoms must be exercised responsibly. As in any free society, there are red lines that cannot be crossed. The media, therefore, must not use its platforms to endanger national security, and it cannot expect to be allowed to indulge in seditious activity intended to destabilize society (as happened, for example, with Apple Daily during the insurrection of 2019-20).

Therefore, seditious activity that threatens the “one country, two systems” policy by generating hatred, contempt, or disaffection toward the central authorities, the SAR government, legislature, or judiciary is taboo. Also abhorrent is the use of media outlets to stoke ill will between different classes of residents in Hong Kong or citizens on the Chinese mainland.

As in many other places, anyone who deliberately disseminates false information, whether through a news outlet or otherwise, is playing with fire and should not be surprised if there are consequences.

Even if this was not always appreciated in the past — when some individuals imagined they could do whatever they wanted under the umbrella of “press freedom” — there are now no excuses. The measured application of national security laws in several judiciously initiated prosecutions (for example, Apple Daily, convicted of sedition and foreign collusion) has put everyone on notice that journalists are expected to exercise responsible commentary whenever national security issues are engaged.

At a media event on Sept 29 to mark the 77th anniversary of the founding of the People’s Republic of China, Chief Executive John Lee Ka-Chiu spelled out some home truths. He urged media workers to safeguard the truth, dispel falsehoods and be alert for “hidden dangers”. He said risks to social stability must be identified, with the antidote being “objective and fair reporting”.

Lee, who has repeatedly expressed support for the local media industry, said reporters should “adhere to professional ethics when reporting facts and uphold an objective, fair and impartial approach”. He wanted the industry to extend its global outreach, and “present the true picture of Hong Kong to the world”, a worthy enough objective in anybody’s book.

Although China’s critics have repeatedly sought to besmirch the state of press freedom in the HKSAR, they have shown scant interest in the situation on the ground. Few have tried harder to diminish China’s reputation than Reporters Sans Frontieres (Reporters Without Borders) (RSF), renowned for its China-hostile posturing. It receives funding from the National Endowment for Democracy (known as the “second CIA”). It has also forged links with the likes of Hong Kong Watch, the Beijing-hostile hate machine, and its partner, the Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China.

RSF claims China is “the world’s largest prison for journalists”, and its propaganda is eagerly recycled by, for example, the Congressional-Executive Commission on China (whose latest attempt to destabilize China emerged on Sept 16 with the introduction of the “Jimmy Lai Hong Kong Political Prisoner Accountability Act of 2026”).

If anybody wondered why it is said “birds of a feather flock together”, RSF has shown why. In 2025, for example, it joined hands with Hong Kong Watch, the Committee for Freedom in Hong Kong Foundation (run by Jimmy Lai Chee-ying’s acolyte, Mark Clifford), and the Hong Kong Democracy Council (chaired by Brian Leung Kai-ping, who helped trash the Legislative Council in 2019), in calling on the then-British prime minister, Sir Keir Starmer, to secure the release of Lai, notwithstanding his convictions for national security crimes.

With antecedents like these, nobody should be surprised that RSF incessantly churns out derogatory posts about China.  

It is, therefore, unsurprising that RSF has also regularly targeted the HKSAR. For example, in its Global Press Freedom Index 2026, it ranked Hong Kong as 140th out of the 180 places surveyed. It beggars belief that Hong Kong, a modern city with a sophisticated common law system, was bracketed with a series of “basket cases”, and the rating was manifestly politically driven. As the HKSAR government explained, RSF is largely funded by the European Union, the US Department of State and individual European governments, and “serves as a tool for anti-China forces in the US and some Western countries”.

In reality, Hong Kong has a vigorous media scene, in which foreign organizations feature prominently. Although many are critical of the HKSAR’s governance, including the BBC, CNN, CNA, The Wall Street Journal and The New York Times, they operate freely and convey their views (for what they are worth) to their overseas audiences.

At the start of 2026, moreover, there were 56 Chinese-language dailies registered in the HKSAR, 10 English-language dailies, 16 bilingual dailies, three Japanese dailies and two Korean dailies. Many are outward-looking and have their own distinct views on the issues of the day. They all enjoy, within legal parameters, freedom of expression, often criticizing official policies. For example, the Hong Kong Free Press prides itself on its candor and rarely pulls its punches when it sees things it dislikes (which may explain why its most avid readers include ex-Hong Kong governor Chris Patten, now the senior patron of Hong Kong Watch).

Although not always easy, the HKSAR government invariably does its best to rebut foreign criticisms as expeditiously as possible. However, as Lee has emphasized, Hong Kong’s mainstream media must also step up. If it expands its networks overseas and promotes truthful narratives, it will buttress official efforts to set the record straight.

After all, the SAR’s first five-year plan envisages the local media being more vocal internationally. And with global investors eyeing the city and tourist arrivals increasing, now is as good a time as any to tell Hong Kong stories well. Although the HKSAR is going from strength to strength, its antagonists continue to spread fallacies about it, hoping to frustrate its progress. Even in a fake-news era, this cannot be countenanced, and torches must be shone on damaging propaganda whenever it appears.

If people know the truth about the miracle that is modern Hong Kong, they will undoubtedly embrace it. One sure way to enlighten people is for residents (journalists or otherwise) to do everything possible to make their voices heard. If everybody who loves Hong Kong does their bit, there is every reason to hope that, as William Shakespeare explained, “in the end truth will out”.

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.