This English version may have been machine-generated from the Chinese original and may not convey the original meaning accurately.
In recent years, independent bookstores in Hong Kong have been repeatedly searched, while large numbers of books have been removed from library collections. The latest case involved police, acting on a referral from customs authorities, raiding two independent bookstores, confiscating several boxes of books, and arresting multiple people on suspicion of “incitement.” Viewed together, these incidents are clearly no longer isolated law-enforcement cases, but part of a systematic “purification” campaign—it is not merely the words on bookshelves that are being cleansed, but also the space for free expression and civic trust that the city once took pride in.
It is worth asking: what kind of law allows “selling books” and “money laundering” to stand side by side as criminal offenses? Who defines the vague and highly elastic offense of “incitement,” and according to what standards is it reviewed? According to reports, after the National Security Law came into effect, a series of books dealing with political issues were singled out, removed from shelves, and even designated as prohibited materials, while ordinary citizens and bookstore operators were often left with no way of knowing where the boundaries lay. When the wording of the law itself is ambiguous and the standards of enforcement depend entirely on the authorities’ discretion, the claim of “acting in accordance with the law” becomes nothing more than a fig leaf for the arbitrary expansion of power. This is a classic symptom of an authoritarian system: legislative power, executive power, and the authority to interpret the law are highly concentrated within the same power structure. Without independent judicial institutions to effectively constrain executive power, citizens’ basic rights can be sacrificed at any time to serve the political needs of those in power.
The deeper problem is that Hong Kong’s phenomenon of “banned books” is not an isolated local governance issue, but a concrete manifestation of the mainland’s one-party rule extending into Hong Kong. In a system lacking genuinely democratic elections, where those in power are not accountable to voters, the ruling authorities need not explain to the public why a particular book is “inciting,” nor accept review by an independent court of the constitutionality of provisions in the National Security Law—because the judiciary itself has been required to serve political stability rather than protect citizens’ rights. Bookstores, libraries, and publishers have become targets; at its core, this is a microcosm of the systematic suppression of freedom of expression and freedom of the press and publication. Its root does not lie in any single decree, but in an entire power structure that lacks the separation of powers and checks on those who govern.
Imagine if Hong Kong had a judicial system genuinely independent of the executive, with judges hearing cases according to clear and predictable legal standards rather than trying to read the political winds; if the legislature were elected through universal suffrage and accountable to voters, then any bill restricting freedom of publication would have to undergo public debate and accountability, rather than being referred for enforcement unilaterally by the executive. Only within a constitutional democratic framework—in which powers are separated, the judiciary is independent, and freedom of the press and expression are effectively protected by the constitution—could citizens read or publish a book without fearing imprisonment.
The disappearance of bookstores has never been merely about the closure of a few shops; it represents the shrinking of an entire society’s space to think boldly and speak freely. Defending the freedom to read and publish is, at its core, a defense of every person’s dignity—the dignity of thinking independently and living free from fear. That is why we must continue to ask questions and continue to speak out: only constitutional democracy and the rule of law can make the “age of banned books” a thing of the past rather than the norm.
News background: The original report on which this commentary is based can be found at BBC Chinese。