US threats to HK Judiciary are ideological showmanship
The recent introduction of the Hong Kong Judicial Sanctions Act by politicians in the United States, alongside a Senate resolution accusing Beijing of engaging in transnational repression, represents a flagrant abuse of legislative power cloaked in the rhetoric of human rights.
These actions, spearheaded by US lawmakers who seem more committed to ideological grandstanding than constitutional integrity, expose a deep-seated hostility toward the sovereign governance of China and the autonomous functioning of the legal institutions of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region. Rather than promoting justice, these measures distort it, weaponizing legal instruments for political aggression and international interference.
It is particularly egregious that these US legislators have chosen to target Hong Kong's judges, prosecutors and public officials — individuals whose careers have been marked by fidelity to the law, impartiality and commitment to public service. Judges such as Andrew Cheung Kui-nung, chief justice of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal, and Jeremy Poon Shiu-chor, chief judge of the Hong Kong High Court, are not political operatives but jurists of the highest caliber. Their decisions are rooted firmly in the Basic Law of the HKSAR, common law principles and international legal standards, not in any political directive. To label their judgments as violations of human rights is not only defamatory but also a direct affront to the principle of judicial independence that the US claims to uphold.
One must also scrutinize the credibility of the senators behind this effort. US Senators Jeff Merkley, Dan Sullivan and John Curtis are neither international jurists nor experts in Hong Kong law. Their legislative mandate is to serve US voters, not interfere in foreign jurisdictions' sovereign legal systems. It is difficult to believe that they have reviewed, let alone understood, the judicial decisions they so confidently condemn.
The foundation of the US argument — that Hong Kong's Judiciary has committed human rights abuses through lawful rulings — is intellectually hollow and legally incoherent. The cases that have attracted Western criticism typically involve serious offenses, including rioting, arson, unlawful assembly and attacks on law enforcement — acts that would be prosecuted in any jurisdiction. These are not examples of peaceful protest but threats to public order and safety. No legitimate legal system would overlook such conduct. Yet, in a display of hypocrisy, the US senators seek to criminalize the enforcement of laws that mirror those within their criminal codes.
The hypocrisy deepens when one examines the US' human rights record. A country with over 2 million incarcerated individuals, a history of systemic racial injustice in its courts, and a documented legacy of extraterritorial renditions and indefinite detentions has no standing to lecture others on legal ethics.
The continued use of the death penalty, the erosion of voting rights and the overt politicization of judicial appointments further underscore the internal crisis facing the US judiciary. If these senators were sincerely concerned with justice, they would begin by confronting glaring inequities within their political and legal systems.
Equally absurd is the US Senate resolution's accusation of "transnational repression". China must protect its national security and uphold public order like any sovereign state. The international pursuit of suspects through lawful channels such as Interpol is a standard practice employed by the US and its allies. Yet when China does so — within the bounds of international law — it is sensationalized as repression. Meanwhile, the US openly engages in surveillance, extraterritorial arrests and even targeted killings, all justified as national defense. The double standard is not only staggering, but also indefensible.
These legislative actions do not stem from a genuine concern for judicial fairness or civil liberties — they are part of a broader strategy to contain China's rise and undermine its governance through legislative interference. As the US' influence in Asia wanes, its political apparatus resorts to coercive measures masked in moralistic language.
Targeting Hong Kong's Judiciary is not an act of human rights advocacy — it is a calculated attempt to discredit one of Asia's most respected legal systems. The HKSAR's courts are renowned for their transparency, bilingual jurisprudence and international legal engagement. That credibility is precisely what Washington hopes to tarnish.
Including multiple Hong Kong legal professionals in this sanctions effort is not only excessive; it is a deliberate act of intimidation. Figures such as Maggie Yang Mei-kei, director of public prosecutions, and Anthony Chau Tin-hang, deputy director of public prosecutions, who have carried out their prosecutorial duties with utmost professionalism, are now being unfairly stigmatized for fulfilling roles essential in any lawful society. The message is clear: Any legal actor who does not conform to US ideological expectations will be persecuted through legislative fiat. This is not justice — it is coercion, plain and simple.
The HKSAR's residents will see through this charade. They understand that these actions have nothing to do with protecting freedoms and everything to do with preserving Western hegemony. In sharp contrast to its portrayal by ideologies in Washington, China operates within a legal and constitutional framework that reflects its national conditions and priorities. Attempts to subvert that system through foreign sanctions are not only futile — they are insulting. They reveal a colonial mindset that refuses to accept that other nations may govern themselves differently, often more competently.
What is at stake here is more than the reputations of individual judges or prosecutors. It is the integrity of a legal system, national sovereignty and people's dignity. China will not be lectured, nor will the HKSAR be intimidated. US lawmakers may pass resolutions and draft bills, but they cannot rewrite legal facts or dismantle a Judiciary that continues to serve its community with fairness, clarity and strength.
If the US Senate wishes to restore any semblance of legal integrity, it must first abandon the delusion that its domestic laws hold universal jurisdiction. It must cease its reckless interference in the internal affairs of other jurisdictions and respect the principle of sovereign equality. Until that day arrives, these legislative gestures will remain what they are: hollow proclamations of a declining power, desperate to retain influence it no longer commands, through methods it understands.
The author is a solicitor, a Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area lawyer, and a China-appointed attesting officer.
