Dispossessed, the million dollar bounties on China’s defiant voices

By: Bryan Fu

On December 24, 2024, Hong Kong authorities intensified their transnational crackdown on dissent, revoking the passports of seven pro-democracy activists and issuing million dollar bounties on six more. This escalation marks a new phase in Beijing’s campaign to stifle opposition and extend its reach far beyond its borders. By targeting exiled activists and effectively rendering them stateless, Beijing sends a clear and unmistakable message: no one who opposes the regime is beyond its grasp.

The roots of Beijing's current repression lie in the 1997 handover of Hong Kong from British to Chinese control, under the “one country, two systems” framework. This arrangement was supposed to guarantee Hong Kong a high degree of autonomy for 50 years. However, these promises began to unravel with the 2014 Umbrella Movement, which mobilised tens of thousands to protest against proposed electoral reforms. The momentum carried over into the 2019 anti-extradition bill protests, where multitudes of people marched against legislation that would allow extraditions to mainland China’s opaque legal system. In 2020, Beijing responded with a National Security Law (NSL) that criminalised acts of secession, subversion, terrorism, and collusion with foreign forces. Vague and expansive, the law has become a tool for silencing dissent domestically and internationally. Its extraterritorial provisions have brought exiled activists, journalists, and NGOs under threat, demonstrating Beijing’s intent to pursue critics wherever they may be.

The use of million dollar bounties, such as those placed on activists like Anna Kwok, Carmen Lau, and Ted Hui, is a calculated strategy made to intimidate. By targeting individuals abroad, Beijing seeks to instill fear not only among activists but also among their networks and supporters. The revocation of passports further heightens this fear. For those affected, the loss of mobility exacerbates their vulnerability, exposing them to potential deportation or extradition.

As Anna Kwok remarked on Social Media after her passport was revoked:

“All these attempts, all these rhetoric, in my opinion, is a way for them to instill fear into Hong Kong people’s mind. So [...] now you would have to think twice before you act because you’re worried about the implication.”

Chris Tang, Hong Kong’s Secretary for Security, underscored this approach with his own warnings:
“These people may think that they will be given identities by overseas politicians, but when their use is exhausted then they will lose their identities.”

Tang’s statements lay bare Beijing’s dual strategy: isolate activists by undermining credibility while intimidating others into silence through fear of similar repercussions.

The implications of these measures extend far beyond the individuals targeted. The revocation of passports and imposition of bounties serve as warnings to activists still in Hong Kong and those contemplating dissent abroad. The message is clear: the cost of opposition is unthinkably high. Such tactics have already begun to erode trust in Hong Kong’s few remaining democratic institutions and silence voices that otherwise challenge Beijing’s tightening grip. Meanwhile, Beijing’s strategy is being met with an international response that has thus far proven inadequate. Governments hosting exiled activists, including the United States and the United Kingdom, have condemned these actions, but diplomatic rebukes have done little to curb Beijing’s resolve.

Beijing’s transnational crackdown is a strategy of attrition, gradually eroding the resources and reach of its critics until dissent is no longer sustainable. Yet this approach risks galvanising international opposition. Each act of repression underscores Beijing’s blatant disregard for human rights and international norms, further isolating itself on the international stage.

For Hong Kong’s pro-democracy movement, the struggle continues. Activists in exile remain vocal, leveraging their platforms to amplify the cause despite the escalating risks. The December 24th revocations mark yet another chapter in the erosion of Hong Kong’s freedoms, but they are unlikely to be the final word. Whether Beijing’s campaign succeeds in silencing dissent or sparks a renewed push for accountability remains to be seen. What is certain is that activists remain defiant, a testament to the resilience of those who refuse to be silenced.