The spokesperson of the Office of the Commissioner of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of China in the HKSAR firmly rejected and strongly condemned the so-called “six-monthly report on Hong Kong” of the British government, the “Hong Kong Policy Act Report” of the US government, and the article published by some British politician in the South China Morning Post, which meddled with Hong Kong affairs, slandered the successful practice of “one country, two systems”, discredited the National Security Law for the HKSAR and Hong Kong’s new electoral system, and seriously flied in the face of international law and basic norms governing international relations. Whatever tricks the UK and the US play, be it the “BNO card”, the “judge card”, the “sanction card”, or the shoddy bills and reports with no credibility, they will eventually miscarry.

The spokesperson said the Chinese government is the founder, champion and defender of “one country, two systems” and has fully and faithfully implemented the principles of “one country, two systems”, “Hong Kong people administering Hong Kong”, and “Hong Kong enjoying a high degree of autonomy”. Under the National Security Law and the new electoral system, national security of China and the tranquility of Hong Kong have been effectively safeguarded, the rights and freedoms of Hong Kong residents better protected in an environment featuring security, stability and the rule of law, and democratic elections with Hong Kong characteristics successfully held, marking a new chapter in Hong Kong’s sound governance. At the height of Hong Kong’s fight against the fifth Covid wave, those British and American politicians who claim to “support Hong Kong” and “stand with Hong Kongers” have not shown respect or caring for the people of Hong Kong. On the contrary, they are busy playing political tricks, vilifying democracy and the rule of law in Hong Kong, and writing off Hong Kong’s development prospects, fully uncovering their hypocrisy and double standards.

The spokesperson pointed out that after Hong Kong’s return to the motherland, the legal basis for the Chinese government to govern the HKSAR is the Chinese Constitution and the Hong Kong Basic Law, not the Sino-British Joint Declaration. The British side is seeking political publicity stunts  by citing the Declaration to advocate its so-called “historical responsibility”. By revisiting what Hong Kong has gone through since it’s return to the motherland 25 years ago, Hong Kong people and the international community have been clear-eyed about who is the defender of “one country, two systems” as well as the interests of Hong Kongers, and who is the saboteur of Hong Kong’s prosperity and stability .

The spokesperson stressed that the rule of law is the cornerstone of Hong Kong’s prosperity and stability. No one has the privilege to be above the law, and no right and freedom should harm the public interest. The rule of law in Hong Kong has been developing under “one country, two systems” and the Basic Law, and Hong Kong police and judiciary have taken all actions in strict accordance with law. The UK and the US have turned a blind eye to the rule of law in Hong Kong and attempted to interfere with and tarnish the judicial system in Hong Kong under the cover of protecting its legal order, which tramples on the spirit of the rule of law.

The spokesperson reiterated that Hong Kong is part of China and Hong Kong affairs are purely China’s internal affairs. We urge the UK and the US to abide by the principles of international law, including “non-interference in others’ internal affairs” and the basic norms of international relations, face squarely the reality that Hong Kong has returned to the motherland for 25 years, change its course, abandon double standards, and do more things that promote Hong Kong’s prosperity and stability. The UK and the US must immediately stop their botched political performances, stop undermining the rule of law and judicial independence in Hong Kong, and stop interfering in Hong Kong affairs and China’s internal affairs under any pretext.