British police asked expatriate activist Carmen Lau to agree to avoid public gatherings and refrain from speaking out publicly against China’s dictatorship and its repression of Hong Kong (The Guardian, August 2, 2025).
The request, outlined in a signed “memorandum of understanding”, has alarmed exiled dissidents who fear it would embolden attempts to silence criticism of Chinese and Hong Kong officials worldwide.
Carmen Lau, who moved to the UK in 2021, was asked to sign the formal agreement in March by Thames Valley police in South East England after her neighbors received letters offering a £100,000 bounty (US$131,947) for information on her movements or for her being taken to authorities.
In 2024, the Hong Kong government issued arrest warrants for six now-overseas pro-democracy activists who had fled the compromised city, including Lau (shown above). Along with the warrants, the police offered rewards for information leading to the arrests of the six escapees. The Hong Kong government later issued more warrants and bounties to paint targets on the backs of several other prominent Hong Kong activists now living overseas.
In 2020, China had imposed a National Security Law on Hong Kong to complete the work of destroying Hongkongers’ rights and liberties begun shortly after Great Britain turned Hong Kong over to the People’s Republic of China in 1997.
Doing what China wants
Lau indicates that although, taken aback, she signed the agreement when the police showed up at her home, she has continued to speak out against the Chinese government.
“It is alarming that instead of safeguarding my right to speak and gather freely in the UK, the response shifts responsibility on to me to limit my basic freedoms in the face of China’s transnational repression,” Lau says.
“In effect, this mirrors the very outcome the Chinese and Hong Kong authorities are seeking: silencing dissent through fear and isolation. A truly democratic response should center on protecting the rights of those targeted, not advising them to retreat from public life.”
The Thames Valley police answer Lau thus: “We would never confirm or deny details of individuals that we may or may not be safeguarding, nor would we confirm or deny safeguarding tactics that we may or may not use, as this would undermine any such protection.”
