Hong Kong Rights Scores Fall Toward Mainland Levels as Taiwan Leads Regional Comparison

Low Scores Reveal a Widening Divide in Freedoms

Hong Kong's score for freedom from arbitrary detention has fallen from 4.7 to 4.5 out of 10, while its rating for freedoms such as expression, assembly and political participation stands at just 2.4, close to mainland China's 1.9. The figures from the Human Rights Measurement Initiative (HRMI) describe a city where economic prosperity increasingly sits alongside restrictions on public life.

As of June 23, 2025, the comparison with Taiwan is striking. Taiwan scores 7.3 for empowerment rights, the category covering people's ability to speak, organize, worship and participate in government. Its score for physical integrity rights, which concern protection from abuses such as arbitrary detention and torture, is 7.9, compared with Hong Kong's 7.4 and China's 2.3.

Hong Kong's relatively high combined physical integrity score sits alongside much weaker results for detention and torture. Its empowerment score reveals a broader squeeze on the activities through which residents can challenge decisions, express disagreement or organize together.

The deterioration has unfolded around two major legal changes: the National Security Law introduced in 2020 and the Safeguarding National Security Ordinance passed in 2024. Hong Kong's government defends its measures as necessary for stability and order. Human rights organizations describe growing restrictions on civil society, journalism and opposition politics.

What the Rights Measurements Cover

The New Zealand based Human Rights Measurement Initiative assesses human rights performance using 13 indicators grouped into three categories. Its measurements bring together questions about living conditions, personal safety and the freedoms people can exercise.

• Quality of life rights cover needs such as health, education and housing.
• Physical integrity rights cover protection from arbitrary detention, torture, extrajudicial killing and other serious abuses.
• Empowerment rights cover expression, assembly, association, participation in government and religious freedom.

The scores described here run from zero to 10, with higher numbers indicating stronger protection. Arbitrary detention means depriving someone of liberty without proper legal justification or safeguards. Freedom of association concerns people's ability to form or join organizations, while freedom of assembly concerns their ability to gather together.

Hong Kong ranks fifth among 37 surveyed countries for physical integrity rights. Taiwan has the highest score among those surveyed in that category and ranks second for empowerment rights, behind the Cook Islands. Those rankings place the numerical results within the group being assessed.

Prosperity Alongside Weaker Legal Protections

Hong Kong recorded gross domestic product per person of more than US$50,000 in 2023. That measure divides economic output by population and helps describe the scale of the city's prosperity. Its human rights results tell a different story about residents' security and freedoms.

Freedom from arbitrary detention is Hong Kong's weakest physical integrity subcategory, falling by 0.2 points from 4.7 to 4.5. The decline reflects concerns about detention without due process, often justified on national security grounds. Due process means the legal procedures and protections intended to ensure that authorities treat people fairly.

Hong Kong scores six out of 10 for freedom from torture, at the upper boundary of HRMI's poor category. The city has no death penalty or widespread forced disappearances, but harsh treatment and intimidation tactics have increased.

Patrick Poon, HRMI's East Asia affairs lead, describes the government's use of national security powers as a means of discouraging dissent:

The Hong Kong government is using national security as a pretext to further tighten control and continue arrests, aiming to create a chilling effect.

A chilling effect occurs when people hold back from otherwise expressing themselves or taking part in public activity because they fear punishment. For residents, the pressure can shape decisions long before an arrest or prosecution takes place.

Assembly, Journalism and Opposition Under Pressure

Hong Kong's empowerment score of 2.4 places it among the lowest performers globally in that category, only 0.5 points above China's 1.9. Restrictions affect public gatherings, media activity and access to political office.

Freedom of assembly and association scores 2.5, near the bottom of the rankings. Large protests and commemorative events, including the annual June 4 vigil, have effectively been banned for four consecutive years. Police use informal channels and checks before events to discourage applications for public gatherings, creating what rights advocates describe as a silent ban.

Freedom of expression scores 2.7. Media organizations face censorship, pressure to censor themselves and legal threats. Authorities have removed books from public libraries, restricted access to information and prosecuted journalists under national security charges criticized as vague.

Political participation scores 2.4, reflecting the near total exclusion of opposition voices from the political process. Religious freedom is a stronger area at 6.7 and the only one in which Hong Kong substantially outperforms China, although concerns about state interference are growing.

Pressure Extends Beyond Arrests and Court Cases

The Hong Kong Human Rights Information Center's 2024 report describes legal, administrative and technological methods used to suppress dissent. Its account extends beyond the most visible actions, such as arrests, to pressures affecting the daily work of organizations and individuals.

Tax audits, restrictions on venues and selective law enforcement are used to constrain nongovernmental organizations, journalists and civil society groups. A group that cannot secure a meeting space, for example, loses a practical means of bringing people together, even before a public prosecution enters the picture.

Facial recognition and monitoring of online activity have expanded. The report also describes repression reaching across borders to Hong Kong communities overseas, extending the pressure beyond the city's territory.

The judiciary, once viewed as a strong defense of rights, is increasingly marginalized in national security cases. Legal aid and public interest litigation face new obstacles. Legal aid helps people obtain legal representation, while public interest litigation uses court cases to address issues affecting a wider community.

Hong Kong's civil society has consequently come under sustained pressure. Many organizations have disbanded or continued their work in exile. Their departure reduces the number of groups available locally to organize campaigns, support affected residents and challenge official decisions.

The Legal Changes Behind the Decline

Hong Kong's restrictions have developed across several years, with national security legislation central to the changing environment. The sequence connects legal changes with the economic figures and rights assessments now being discussed.

• 2020: Hong Kong's National Security Law was implemented.
• 2023: The city's gross domestic product per person exceeded US$50,000.
• 2024: The Safeguarding National Security Ordinance was passed. The Hong Kong Human Rights Information Center's report for that year detailed legal, administrative and technological pressure on civil society.
• 2024/2025: Amnesty International's global report highlighted shrinking civic space, citing Hong Kong as an example of national security being used to justify repression.

Hong Kong's government maintains that its actions protect stability and order. Critics argue that the same measures are eroding the freedoms and distinct identity that set the city apart from mainland China.

The dispute concerns both formal rules and their practical effects. Arrests and prosecutions carry direct legal consequences, while pressure on venues, libraries, organizations and public gatherings affects whether residents can use their freedoms in everyday life.

Mainland China Provides a Stark Comparison

China scores 2.3 out of 10 for physical integrity rights and 1.9 for empowerment rights, placing it consistently near the bottom of HRMI's global rankings. The physical integrity result reflects widespread arbitrary detention, torture, forced disappearances and extrajudicial killings.

Human rights defenders, journalists and critics of the Communist Party face particular risks, including imprisonment, harassment and violence. International concern also centers on the treatment of ethnic minorities, including Uyghurs and Tibetans, and the extension of repressive tactics into Hong Kong.

Hong Kong remains far above China on the combined physical integrity measure, with 7.4 against 2.3, a gap of 5.1 points. The empowerment gap is much narrower: 2.4 against 1.9. Together, those figures show why concerns focus especially on the narrowing space for speech, organization and political participation.

Access to information also affects the assessment of mainland conditions. Jia-Wei Pan, identified as HRMI's East Asia affairs lead, cautions that China's scores may be artificially high because information from the mainland is often difficult to obtain.

Taiwan's Stronger Results and Democratic Institutions

Taiwan's physical integrity score of 7.9 is the highest among surveyed countries, while its empowerment score of 7.3 is second only to the Cook Islands. On empowerment, Taiwan stands 4.9 points above Hong Kong's 2.4 and 5.4 points above China's 1.9.

Freedom of expression, assembly and association are robustly protected in Taiwan, supported by a vibrant media environment and active civil society organizations. Democratic elections, open political competition and high public engagement underpin participation in government. Religious freedom receives a perfect score of 10, reflecting a pluralistic and tolerant society.

Jia-Wei Pan, HRMI's East Asia affairs lead, links the results to the freedoms enjoyed by much of Taiwan's population:

Taiwan's high scores reflect the fact that most people enjoy political freedom and basic human rights, and that citizens' empowerment is relatively high compared to other countries.

Pan attributes Taiwan's performance to successful democratization and established checks and balances. These are arrangements through which different institutions can limit one another's power, helping prevent any single authority from acting without scrutiny.

The account also links Taiwan's physical integrity performance to an absence of executions in recent years and movement toward abolishing the death penalty. Its broader comparison presents Taiwan as a regional leader whose democratic institutions support stronger protection of civil liberties.

Calls for Monitoring, Release and Refuge

Amnesty International's 2024/2025 global report places Hong Kong within a wider trend of shrinking civic space. Civic space means the room people have to organize, debate public issues and act collectively. The report cites Hong Kong as a central example of governments using national security to justify repression.

Local human rights groups have called on the United Nations and other international bodies to strengthen monitoring and accountability. Their recommendations include repealing both the National Security Law and the Safeguarding National Security Ordinance, and releasing political prisoners.

Taiwanese civil society groups have advocated stricter entry controls for people responsible for serious human rights abuses in Hong Kong. They have also supported Hong Kong residents seeking refuge or asylum, connecting the rights debate with the practical needs of people who leave the city.

No dates are given for action on these demands. Hong Kong's government continues to defend its policies, while rights groups seek stronger scrutiny and support for those affected.

What the Divide Means for the Region

Hong Kong's changing rights environment puts pressure on the one country, two systems framework that once distinguished its freedoms from those of mainland China. Critics increasingly regard that distinction as a fiction as restrictions spread through civil society, journalism and the courts.

The consequences reach beyond opposition politics. Organizations have closed or moved abroad, journalists face legal threats, and residents encounter fewer opportunities to gather publicly or take part in political competition. Pressure on the judiciary and media also threatens the city's position as an international financial center.

Taiwan offers a contrasting example within the Chinese speaking world. Its open elections, active organizations and stronger protection of expression demonstrate the connection between democratic institutions and the freedoms people can exercise. The comparison is especially sharp in empowerment rights, where Taiwan's 7.3 stands far above Hong Kong's 2.4.

International monitoring, demands for accountability and assistance for people facing repression remain central to the response. The regional divide concerns concrete choices: whether residents can organize a gathering, publish criticism, obtain legal support or compete openly for political power.

Key Points

• Hong Kong's freedom from arbitrary detention score fell from 4.7 to 4.5 out of 10.
• Hong Kong scores 7.4 for physical integrity rights but only 2.4 for empowerment rights.
• China scores 2.3 for physical integrity and 1.9 for empowerment, with information restrictions complicating measurement.
• Taiwan scores 7.9 for physical integrity, 7.3 for empowerment and 10 for religious freedom.
• Rights groups describe pressure through arrests, administrative restrictions, surveillance and limits on legal challenges.
• Campaigners seek stronger international monitoring, repeal of Hong Kong's national security laws and the release of political prisoners.
• Hong Kong's government defends its actions as necessary for stability and order.