By Katherine Leung, February 3, 2025
In the Hogue Inquiry’s final report, the Commissioner acknowledged transnational repression, including by the People’s Republic of China (PRC), to be “one of the most prevalent types of foreign interference… the real foreign interference threat to Canada.” For overseas Hong Kongers, whose retirement savings are being withheld by Beijing, transnational repression is a dreaded and daily reality.
Picture this: You witness your hometown transform into an unrecognizable place, where dissent is silenced, and basic civil rights are routinely violated. Friends who once openly spoke their minds have been imprisoned for daring to challenge the government, while your children’s school curriculum grows more insidiously loyal to a communist regime with each passing day. Realizing that this is no longer the life you want – for yourself or for your family – you make the difficult choice to leave it all behind and seek a new beginning in Canada, where safety and freedom await.
Immigration is a costly endeavour for those fleeing persecution. Many of the immigrants from Hong Kong to Canada following the 2020 implementation of the National Security Law are early to mid-career professionals with young families who need to cover costs of relocation and building a new life. Hong Kongers should have access to retirement savings through the Mandatory Provident Fund (MPF), a compulsory retirement savings scheme for the people of Hong Kong that is funded through deductions from every paycheck.
However, many Hong Kongers are not able to access their savings once they have fled from the city. Beijing is directing Canadian and British institutions to withhold these funds from those who have left Hong Kong using a British National Overseas (BNO) passport.
Beijing has several motivations for financial transnational repression as a tactic to disincentivize emigration from Hong Kong. With many of the people leaving Hong Kong being highly educated, skilled, and entrepreneurial, their departure creates a talent drain and diminishes the strength of the labour force, which impacts the economic stability of Hong Kong and makes it less attractive for global investment. The mass exodus is also symbolic of public discontent with Beijing’s policies, it harms Hong Kong’s reputation as a stable and prosperous city under Chinese rule, and it allows dissidents who can no longer speak out in the city to do so internationally. The economic impact of mass emigration is also noteworthy – as Hong Kongers leave and withdraw their financial assets, this creates a large outflow of funds and impacts local markets.
By controlling access to retirement savings, the PRC exerts a form of economic coercion that crosses borders. Hong Kongers abroad must weigh their political activism carefully, knowing that access to funds that are rightfully theirs could be undercut if Beijing interferes. When these funds are withheld, the financial hardship serves as a tool of control and intimidation, exerting a psychological toll on Hong Kongers abroad.
In addition to blocking those trying to access their MPF savings with a BNO passport, earlier this year, The Guardian reported two cases involving pro-democracy activists whose MPF accounts were labelled as “under investigation,” likely from the Hong Kong government’s issuance of bounties amounting to HK$1 million for their arrest due to their advocacy for democracy in Hong Kong. One of these activists’ funds are withheld by Manulife which, along with Sun Life, is a Canadian financial services firm that serves as a trustee of MPF savings.
This issue came under parliamentary scrutiny in Canada. MP Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, vice-chair of the Immigration Committee, directly questioned representatives from Manulife and Sun Life. During an immigration committee meeting on the MPF issue, Brunelle-Duceppe asked the representatives:
“Do you realize that your company is involuntarily being used for transnational repression purposes, because the government in Hong Kong has decided not to recognize BNO?… What is happening is that you are being used, through legislation from an authoritarian regime and government, to crack down on opponents of the government in Hong Kong who have left and are now in Canada or the UK… I am telling you that you need to look into the situation and be aware that you are being used by a government to engage in transnational repression because Hong Kong no longer recognizes the BNO. I am not blaming you, but I am simply asking you to recognize that fact.”
This exchange underscores how Beijing uses Canadian companies as unwitting instruments of its repression. It also raises a critical question: What responsibility do companies like Manulife and Sun Life bear in ensuring they are not complicit in enforcing the directives of an authoritarian regime? Brunelle-Duceppe’s comments reflect a broader need for Canadian institutions to be vigilant against being co-opted into systems of foreign interference.
This strategy goes beyond individual coercion; it targets entire communities. Diaspora members who speak out risk both financial instability and potential backlash that could affect family members still in Hong Kong or China. As a result, some may feel compelled to avoid political involvement or refrain from speaking out against the very government they fled.
While the Hogue Inquiry’s final report makes mention of transnational repression, the sole recommendation on transnational repression is to urge “the government to investigate and develop a comprehensive strategy to address transnational repression.”
The time for investigating and strategizing was yesterday. Canada cannot afford to remain passive in the face of such tactics. Legislators, financial institutions, and civil society must work together to safeguard Hong Kongers’ rights and ensure that foreign interference does not erode Canada’s capacity to offer haven and freedom to those fleeing persecution. This ought to include protecting the financial autonomy of Hong Kongers and holding companies accountable for their role in administering repressive policies.
The fight against Beijing’s coercive tactics is not just about defending the rights of Hong Kongers – it is about upholding the principles of freedom and democracy that define Canada itself.
Katherine Leung is a policy advisor at Hong Kong Watch Canada.
