Assessing the Impact of Hong Kong's Freedom of Information Regime on Transparency and Accountability
Executive Summary
Key Recommendations
This paper recommends a coordinated international response to the deterioration of Hong Kong’s information environment.
For foreign governments, this includes updating business risk advisories, raising transparency concerns in bilateral meetings with Hong Kong officials, documenting developments in official reporting mechanisms such as the UK Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office’s Six Monthly Report and the U.S. State Department’s Hong Kong Policy Act report, and working jointly through consulates to underscore the importance of open information. Governments should also engage with the business community to support contingency planning, liaise with the technology sector to prevent complicity in censorship, and consult Hong Kong diaspora groups and civil society to assess broader geopolitical implications.
For international businesses, the recommendations focus on assessing and communicating the operational risks posed by restricted information access, engaging with Hong Kong authorities and regulators to advocate for transparency, and developing internal protocols to protect staff and intellectual property. Strategic communications and the use of Chambers of Commerce are encouraged to voice opposition to changes, while symbolic actions – such as reducing participation in high-profile events – may signal discontent. Civil society actors are urged to continue documenting changes, advocate collectively, and build public awareness both within the diaspora and among policymakers about the growing constraints on information access in Hong Kong.
Hong Kong’s deteriorating information environment
Hong Kong’s open information environment was once a hallmark of its autonomy from mainland China following the end of British rule in 1997. Unlike mainland China, Hong Kong’s media freedoms and civil liberties were to be upheld under the ‘One Country, Two Systems’ approach. Combined with higher levels of transparency and public accountability, this made Hong Kong an extremely attractive destination for international businesses and investors seeking to access the markets in the People’s Republic of China (PRC) and the broader region. With free flows of information at its core, Hong Kong quickly became an international financial centre on par with New York, London and other global hubs. Hong Kong also became a base for international media outlets, civil society groups and academic researchers seeking a window into China’s opaque political environment.
However, the advent of the 2020 National Security Law (NSL) and 2024 Safeguarding National Security Ordinance (SNSO) has fundamentally transformed Hong Kong’s information landscape. The 2025 subsidiary legislation (Legal Instrument A305A) further expanded these powers by enabling direct mainland enforcement operations within Hong Kong's legal system. The national security crackdown has put enormous restrictions on media freedoms and all but eliminated Hong Kong’s civil society. New powers granted under these laws have enabled authorities to arrest journalists, force the closure of independent media outlets, block websites of civil society groups and remove critical books from schools and public libraries. Also notable is the incremental censorship of internet content, which began with the blocking of videos featuring the Hong Kong protest anthem "May Glory be to Hong Kong." Hong Kong's press freedom ranking fell from a high of 18th in 2002 to a dismal 140th across all countries globally in 2025.
The quiet decline of Access to Information
While changes to Hong Kong’s media freedoms, academic freedoms and civil liberties have been well documented, a less noticed, but equally pernicious development has taken place in parallel: a quiet crackdown on Access to Information held by public bodies. Access to Information – defined as the right to seek, receive and impart information held by public bodies – is an integral part of the fundamental right of freedom of expression. Access to Information is also essential to freedom of expression, defined under Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) as the freedom to "to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers".
This paper documents the quiet decline of Access to Information in Hong Kong, and its far reaching implications for international businesses, civil society groups and Hong Kongers in the city and abroad.
The first section of this paper looks at the undermining of Hong Kong’s already weak Freedom of Information (FOI) regime. Unlike democratic jurisdictions that employ statutory FOI laws, Hong Kong relies on a non-binding administrative "Code on Access to Information". The Code provides limited enforcement mechanisms and lacks independent oversight. Concerningly, recent cases show that businesses seeking publicly held information are increasingly being denied by the broad and extensive list of exempted categories within the Code – including exemptions for information related to the “management of the economy”, “management and operation of public services” and “research, statistics and analysis”.
Recent cases, such as denied requests from journalists on license plates, suggest that government agencies are more reluctant to disclose information through the Code following the national security crackdown, with a growing number of cases in which information requests have been delayed and ultimately withheld. The Hong Kong government's approach to information access appears deliberately bureaucratic rather than overtly restrictive, creating a façade of procedural normalcy while effectively blocking access through delays, complex requirements, and inconsistent implementation. This approach likely reflects a strategic calculation that maintaining the appearance of Access to Information is important for Hong Kong's international reputation as a business and financial centre, even as substantive transparency diminishes.
This systematic approach to information restriction differs fundamentally from bureaucratic delays found in democratic jurisdictions. Unlike democracies where administrative inefficiencies may result from resource constraints or procedural requirements, Hong Kong's information restrictions represent a deliberate strategy to maintain the appearance of transparency while systematically eliminating substantive access. Democratic systems typically include independent oversight bodies, judicial review mechanisms, and legislative accountability that can address bureaucratic failures. In contrast, Hong Kong has systematically dismantled these safeguards — silencing legislative critics, eliminating independent oversight, and removing judicial review of national security decisions — creating a parallel system designed to obstruct rather than facilitate information access while maintaining plausible deniability about maintaining international standards."
The second section of this paper looks at concerted efforts by a range of government agencies to limit access to information in Hong Kong, focusing on the systemic erosion of transparency through weakened archival protections and restrictive information practices. Unlike the UK’s Public Records Act, Hong Kong lacks comprehensive archives legislation, allowing the destruction of tens of millions of files annually with minimal oversight. The lack of legal protections has facilitated systematic removal of government information, including the deletion of 11 annual prosecution reports (2009-2020) by the Department of Justice, which also stripped identifying details from newer reports. Additionally, the government removed historical context from its 2022 Annual Yearbook and deleted a national security case database containing 106 case summaries shortly after publication, despite initially promoting it as promoting transparency. These removals coincided with broader policy shifts following the National Security Law implementation and educational reforms. At the same time, government departments have curtailed access to public records, such as vehicle registration searches, and removed identifying information from official documents, making accountability harder to trace.
The erosion has accelerated dramatically in 2025, with unprecedented institutional capture exemplified by the Ombudsman's removal of decades of investigation reports in May 2025, the silencing of Legislative Council criticism through official 'warm reminders,' and the June 2025 implementation of direct mainland enforcement through joint National Security Office operations. This systematic coordination across institutions—from transparency bodies to legislative oversight to prosecutorial accountability—demonstrates how information control has become institutionalised rather than ad hoc.
Why Access to Information in Hong Kong matters globally
Hong Kong’s rapid deterioration as an information environment has significant implications for a range of stakeholders who once relied on its unique position as a window into China’s political system, as well as being one of the top international financial centres globally.
For the business community, the shift has created major challenges. Companies previously depended on Hong Kong’s relatively transparent information ecosystem to conduct due diligence on mainland-connected entities and to access reliable insights into Chinese economic trends and policy directions. With access to official records, databases, and regulatory disclosures now increasingly restricted, firms are being forced to adopt alternative methods of intelligence-gathering – often less reliable, more costly, and risk-laden.
More broadly, declining Access to Information takes place against a backdrop of increasingly restricted information flows for international businesses in Hong Kong. Corporate transparency is being undermined by new restrictions requiring companies to remove “China risk” sections from their prospectuses before public listings. Most concerningly, the SNSO’s use of mainland China’s broad definition of ‘state secrets’ in Hong Kong means businesses must be much more cautious about what kinds of information they can gather and publish as part of their due diligence processes and transparency requirements. Behind-the-scenes disputes between CK Hutchinson and the Chinese and Hong Kong authorities regarding a planned deal to sell its port arm is reflective of the opaque and politicised environment in which businesses in Hong Kong now operate.
Civil society actors have also been directly impacted by declining Access to Information in Hong Kong. Journalists, academics, and NGOs once used Hong Kong as a secure base for information gathering and dissemination on developments in China. This environment has been fundamentally altered. Many international organisations have since relocated their regional operations, and remaining scholars have begun removing Hong Kong- and China-related content from courses, reflecting growing constraints on academic freedom and institutional risk calculations. However, major IPOs such as the Chinese battery manufacturer CATL continue to draw attention to Hong Kong’s equities market. Hong Kong remains relevant for many international investors.
According to Reporters Without Borders' latest press freedom rankings published in May 2025, Hong Kong has tumbled five places to 140th globally, entering the "red zone" – indicating a "very serious" situation – for the first time. The city now sits between Sri Lanka and Kazakhstan, with sharp declines across all five of the watchdog's indicators: political context, legal framework, economic context, socio-cultural context, and safety. This constriction of the information ecosystem compounds the effects of other transparency restrictions, as diminished press scrutiny means fewer challenges to official narratives about policy decisions, legal cases, and social issues. International organisations relocating their regional operations further reduce information flow, while academics removing China-related content from courses demonstrate how knowledge production and dissemination are being systematically constrained, creating long-term implications for Hong Kong's role as an information hub in the region.
These ramifications extend far beyond Hong Kong. Since 2020, over 500,000 Hong Kong residents have emigrated, many under the British National (Overseas) visa scheme. Despite their relocation, these individuals maintain substantial financial and familial ties to Hong Kong, including significant holdings in the Mandatory Provident Fund (MPF) system and family members who remain employed in the territory. The ability to monitor legal and political developments, manage investments, and ensure the welfare of relatives is heavily dependent on access to reliable information from Hong Kong.
Similarly, members of the Hong Kong diaspora engaged in civil society and pro-democracy advocacy abroad rely on transparent information from Hong Kong to assess the state of civil and political rights within the territory. Their efforts to inform the international community about the gradual erosion of rights and the undermining of Hong Kong's autonomy are contingent upon the availability of open-source information and the transparency of Hong Kong institutions.