Episode 386: Is Hong Kong Still Safe for Business? with Megan Khoo

In this episode, we explore how Hong Kong’s changing political and legal landscape is reshaping the business environment, what international companies should understand before investing or expanding in the region, and how geopolitical risk is becoming a board-level issue.

We discuss:

• Is Hong Kong still a safe place for international business?
• How the National Security Law has changed Hong Kong’s legal and political environment
• The impact of US-China strategic competition on international companies
• Business confidence, sanctions, and reputational risk
• Human rights concerns and their implications for multinational organisations
• The future of Hong Kong as an international financial centre
• How organisations can better prepare for geopolitical uncertainty in Asia
• The international risks that concern Megan Khoo most

About the guest:
Megan Khoo is Policy Director at Hong Kong Watch, where she leads the organisation’s policy and advocacy work on Hong Kong, China, human rights, and international affairs. Before joining Hong Kong Watch, she worked in communications and policy roles across the UK and United States, including at the US Department of Defense and the US House of Representatives in Washington, DC. Megan holds an MSc in Contemporary Chinese Studies from the University of Oxford and degrees in International Studies and Modern Languages (Mandarin Chinese and Spanish) from Georgia Southern University.

About the host:
Dominic Bowen is Head of Strategic Advisory and Partner at one of Europe’s leading risk management consulting firms. He advises CEOs, boards, and senior executives on crisis management, geopolitical risk, operational resilience, and strategy, drawing on decades of experience across government, humanitarian operations, and corporate leadership.

Episode Transcript

Dominic Bowen: Twenty-nine years after the handover, six years after the imposition of the National Security Law, and after more than 10,000 pro-democracy citizens have been arrested, the question isn’t what’s happened in Hong Kong. The question is: what does Hong Kong tell us about China?

Today, we’re joined by Megan Khoo, Policy Director at Hong Kong Watch. We’re going to have a conversation about Hong Kong, but also about China and the geopolitical risks that most business leaders and politicians still don’t fully understand.

I’m Dominic Bowen, host of The International Risk Podcast, where we unpack the topics that really matter.

Now, this isn’t just a story about one city, or even about broken promises made under the Sino-British Joint Declaration. Hong Kong represents something much larger. It’s about whether authoritarian states can use law, finance, trade, migration, overseas offices, and even the diaspora to intimidate and, in some cases, reshape the international order without a single shot being fired.

I’m really looking forward to today’s conversation. Megan, welcome to The International Risk Podcast.

Megan Khoo: Thank you, Dominic. I’m glad to be here with you.

Dominic Bowen: Megan, I’m really looking forward to our conversation. Could you start by telling us a little about Hong Kong Watch? Who are you, and what do you do?

Megan Khoo: Hong Kong Watch is a human rights advocacy organisation focused specifically on Hong Kong. We also conduct a significant amount of research, so we have something of a think tank dimension as well.

Hong Kong Watch was founded in 2017 in response to everything that was happening in Hong Kong at the time. My colleagues, who co-founded the organisation and remain involved today in both London and Canada, recognised a gap that quite literally needed to be monitored by the international community.

The organisation became especially pivotal during the 2019 protests and into 2020. We led the largest international response, with more than 900 parliamentarians condemning what was happening in Hong Kong.

Since then, Hong Kong Watch has continued to monitor developments closely. We have strong networks across the UK, the EU, Canada and the United States among the Hong Kong diaspora, while also maintaining close contact with developments inside Hong Kong itself.

We continue to monitor the situation, work with governments internationally to understand what’s happening, and call for accountability.

Dominic Bowen: Megan, in 2022, before Russia launched its full-scale invasion of Ukraine, I was speaking with a lot of boards and executive teams, encouraging them to have conversations about their Russian operations.

It was remarkable. Very few large European companies didn’t have a presence in Russia, and many of those operations were highly profitable. I kept encouraging executives to ask whether they could continue operating there, but almost nobody wanted to have that conversation until the invasion happened. Then they had no choice.

Hong Kong is a little different because promises were made, and I think many executives have avoided discussing what’s really happening there for much the same reason they didn’t want to contemplate that Russia might invade Ukraine.

Today, Hong Kong is not a democracy in any meaningful sense. Civil rights and political freedoms are significantly narrower than they were before 2019. The city still retains elements of the rule of law and open markets, but politics, protests, the media and freedom of speech are all much more tightly controlled.

So, Megan, why do you think Western companies continue operating in Hong Kong? Is it because they genuinely believe it remains safe and open for business, or because acknowledging the risks would simply be too uncomfortable—and ultimately too expensive?

Megan Khoo: Unfortunately, many international companies are still operating in Hong Kong. In fact, it’s one of the examples the Hong Kong government and Chinese authorities point to when arguing that everything is normal in Hong Kong.

However, research carried out by Hong Kong Watch, along with many other Hong Kong-focused research and advocacy organisations, shows that there are significant risks facing businesses that continue operating there.

We’re also finding evidence that some companies are using Hong Kong to circumvent Western sanctions, something that historically also occurred with Russia.

As you mentioned, companies only began asking difficult questions once Russia invaded Ukraine. That moment hasn’t yet arrived for Hong Kong. However, I think within the next five to ten years, businesses will need to scrutinise their investments there much more carefully.

The international community also needs to look more closely at investments, securities and financial flows passing through Hong Kong, particularly where they may be facilitating the circumvention of Western sanctions. This is an area we’re continuing to research, and we’ll be publishing a report on it later this year.

Dominic Bowen: That’s fascinating. For business leaders whose companies have staff, data, legal exposure, banking relationships or even regional headquarters in Hong Kong, is it an exaggeration to say that Beijing has leverage over those companies? How would you describe the influence or control that Beijing can exercise?

Megan Khoo: It’s not hyperbolic at all to say that Beijing has influence over international companies based in Hong Kong. The clearest evidence of that is the National Security Law, which was imposed in 2020.

Under that law, civil society and many of the freedoms Hong Kong was once known for have been fundamentally eroded. More recently, additional provisions have been introduced requiring anyone—whether a foreign national, a Hong Kong resident, or even someone simply transiting through Hong Kong—to hand over their phone or electronic devices if requested by the Hong Kong National Security Police. Refusing to provide access to that data can result in arrest and prosecution.

These developments have emerged over the past year, and we expect Hong Kong to move increasingly towards the levels of surveillance, data access and state oversight that already exist in mainland China, if it hasn’t already.

This is an area that Hong Kong Watch, along with many international organisations, continues to monitor closely so that businesses understand the potential risks to their assets, investments and sensitive information.

Dominic Bowen: Most companies—and certainly most European companies that I work with—receive security briefings before their staff travel to Hong Kong. We discuss the security environment, information security, intellectual property risks and the implications of operating there.

Companies looking to sell products in China are often required to share elements of their intellectual property with state-linked entities, only to find that similar products later emerge from Chinese companies, undermining their competitive advantage.

Yet I still meet legal advisers who insist that Hong Kong is different—that it’s a separate jurisdiction with its own legal framework and that companies don’t need the same security controls for intellectual property, information security or travelling staff as they would in mainland China.

Is Hong Kong still genuinely a separate jurisdiction from mainland China, or has that become a dangerous—or even fictional—distinction?

Megan Khoo: On 1 July, we marked the twenty-ninth anniversary of the handover of Hong Kong to China. At Hong Kong Watch, we work closely with Lord Patten, the last Governor of Hong Kong.

When the handover took place, the “One Country, Two Systems” framework was guaranteed through the Sino-British Joint Declaration. In practice, however, that framework is now effectively dead.

The Joint Declaration promised Hong Kong a high degree of autonomy, an independent judiciary and protected rights and freedoms until 2047. Those guarantees were also reflected in Hong Kong’s Basic Law.

However, particularly since the mass protests of 2019, the rule of law and the fundamental freedoms promised under both the Joint Declaration and the Basic Law have been systematically dismantled, especially following the introduction of the National Security Law.

Today, “One Country, Two Systems” may still exist on paper, and some people—including those legal advisers you mentioned—may argue that it still exists in practice. But Beijing has done everything possible to erode it and continues to do so.

In addition to the National Security Law, mainland China also passed the Ethnic Unity and Progress Law on 1 July. The name may sound harmless to international observers, but in practice it targets China’s fifty-six recognised ethnic groups, and its implications extend to Hong Kong as well.

The gradual erosion of freedoms we’ve witnessed in Hong Kong is set to continue, while similar pressures are being applied in Tibet, Xinjiang and against other minority communities across China.

So while the situation may appear stable on paper, both mainland China and Hong Kong are experiencing an increasingly aggressive crackdown on rights and freedoms.

Dominic Bowen: What, then, is your message to business leaders?

Hong Kong Watch is an advocacy and human rights organisation. You produce policy papers, research and recommendations, so naturally you’re encouraging governments and businesses to pay attention.

But CEOs also have responsibilities to shareholders and a wide range of stakeholders, many of whom may have little connection to Hong Kong. Sometimes it seems that Western companies censor themselves much more quickly than the Chinese Communist Party would ever need to regulate or pressure them.

If you were sitting down over lunch with the CEOs of some of Europe’s or North America’s largest companies, what would you want them to understand? What would you be asking them to do? What would you be expecting them to do? Those people that are listening to this podcast now, what’s your message to them?

Megan Khoo: My advice to international business leaders is to recognise the risks of continuing to operate in Hong Kong.

At the moment, Hong Kong doesn’t have a “Great Firewall” like mainland China, but it’s clearly moving in that direction. Under the National Security Law and the additional legislation introduced since then, any employee—whether they’re a foreign national or a Hong Kong resident—can be legally required to hand over access to their devices, including their mobile phone or laptop, whether they’re for work or personal use.

Material that we would ordinarily regard as completely lawful and protected under freedom of expression could be treated as criminal under Hong Kong’s legal framework. The fact that this can apply to foreign nationals, not just Hong Kong residents, is something businesses need to understand.

Companies should ensure their employees are fully informed of these risks. I would also strongly recommend that organisations establish confidential internal reporting systems so that employees—particularly foreign employees—can safely report any incidents or concerns. That enables companies to conduct a thorough assessment of the risks and benefits of continuing to operate in Hong Kong.

In my view, Hong Kong is already no longer a safe place to do business. Over time, the risks of operating there will increasingly resemble those of operating in mainland China, particularly when it comes to data security, privacy and state access to information.

Dominic Bowen: You touched on some of these issues earlier, but Hong Kong really has become a painful test case.

Beijing broke its promises, crushed political opposition, intimidated critics overseas, yet it managed to retain its position as a global financial centre and maintain access to Western markets. That has proved enormously profitable.

I’m left wondering whether Beijing has drawn an important lesson from all of this: that the West has a very low appetite for confrontation but a very high appetite for profitability.

That naturally raises another question. Could this become the model Beijing uses in Taiwan and across the South China Sea?

Megan Khoo: I do think Hong Kong has become the playbook for how China views Taiwan and how it may approach Taiwan in the future.

Since the National Security Law was imposed in 2020, we’ve also seen the introduction of the Safeguarding National Security Ordinance in 2024, which further strengthened those restrictions. This year we’ve also seen the continued entrenchment of patriotic education in Hong Kong.

Children are being taught that they must love the motherland, meaning mainland China, and demonstrate loyalty to the Chinese Communist Party. Practices that have long existed on the mainland are now not only being exported to Hong Kong but actively imposed there.

We’ve also seen increasingly vague speech-related offences, alongside legislation such as China’s Ethnic Unity and Progress Law.

Another major concern is the extraterritorial reach of these laws. The National Security Law doesn’t stop at Hong Kong’s borders. If you’re living in Britain, for example, and you’re originally from Hong Kong and openly criticise the Hong Kong government, you can still become a target.

In some high-profile cases, the authorities have issued bounties for individuals’ arrest. Others have experienced intimidation and threats.

Earlier this year, Hong Kong Watch surveyed members of the Hong Kong diaspora in the UK. Sixty-six per cent said they felt at risk of transnational repression while living here in Britain.

These laws may originate in Hong Kong, but their reach extends far beyond it. We expect similar approaches to continue affecting China’s ethnic minority communities, border regions and, ultimately, Taiwan.

If China sees how limited the international response has been to developments in Hong Kong—including the arrest and effective life imprisonment of British citizen Jimmy Lai—it may conclude that there are few meaningful consequences. If the UK and the United States are unwilling to respond more robustly to developments in Hong Kong, what’s to stop Beijing pursuing similar objectives in Taiwan?

That’s why I believe Hong Kong is both the playbook for Taiwan and a warning to the international community. How governments respond to what’s happening in Hong Kong today will have significant implications for Taiwan tomorrow.

Dominic Bowen: As we’ve discussed, Hong Kong remains a major financial and legal hub. However, the balance of evidence increasingly suggests that it also functions as a conduit for sanctions evasion, capital routing, political leverage and strategic access into Western systems.

Hong Kong was once valued as a trusted bridge into China because of its separate legal system, freely convertible currency and open financial infrastructure. But we’re now seeing growing evidence that Beijing is hollowing out that autonomy while retaining the commercial benefits of separation.

That shift matters. Hong Kong still provides access to dollar clearing, banking, capital markets and international finance, but what concerns me most is its growing role in sanctions evasion and export control circumvention. This is something I regularly discuss with clients. We’re seeing financial flows linked to Russia, Iran and North Korea passing through Hong Kong.

Law-abiding businesses in Europe and North America that maintain links with Hong Kong need to understand these risks. Is this something business leaders and politicians should be paying much closer attention to?

Megan Khoo: Absolutely. Over the past few years there has been much greater scrutiny and research into sanctions evasion taking place through Hong Kong. It’s an issue Hong Kong Watch is examining closely.

Companies need to understand that this creates a real risk of inadvertently violating Western sanctions, whether through their parent company or subsidiaries. Hong Kong is increasingly being used as a front, allowing mainland China to present the image that everything remains financially stable and business continues as usual.

In reality, that’s not what’s happening. If companies become involved in sanctions evasion, knowingly or unknowingly, there will eventually be consequences, particularly from jurisdictions such as the United States.

International businesses need to recognise that Hong Kong is increasingly being used as a front by China, and I believe that trend will only continue as Beijing turns more of its attention towards Taiwan.

Dominic Bowen: I also wonder whether this is ultimately a story about Chinese authoritarianism or about Western dependence.

Most people listening today would say they care about democracy and what has happened in Hong Kong. At the same time, many also want access to Chinese investment, supply chains, students, manufacturing and consumer markets.

So is this fundamentally a story about the Chinese Communist Party, or is it equally a story about the West’s dependence on China?

Megan Khoo: I think it’s both.

On one hand, it’s clearly about the Chinese government’s desire for greater control. The Chinese Communist Party continues tightening its grip on Hong Kong, and the reality on the ground is very different from the image presented internationally.

As I mentioned earlier, a British citizen is currently imprisoned simply for publishing a pro-democracy newspaper that was once Hong Kong’s largest. Activities that would be entirely legal in Western democracies are now criminalised.

Last year, for example, the father of US-based activist Anna Kwok was sentenced to eight months in prison simply for attempting to cancel his daughter’s insurance policy after she had been living overseas for years. The laws now extend into ordinary family life and punish people merely for their associations with those living abroad.

Hong Kong is no longer what it appears to be from the outside. In just the past month, journalists, commentators and two independent bookshops have been targeted. The crackdown is no longer limited to high-profile activists; it’s expanding into ordinary civil society and small businesses.

At the same time, businesses understandably remain attracted by the commercial opportunities. Many assume they can keep their heads down, continue operating and ignore what’s happening in the background.

China benefits from that perception, presenting Hong Kong as though business remains exactly as it was five years ago. But eventually what’s happening on the streets will spill over into the business environment.

Hong Kong is becoming far more like mainland China in terms of the risks businesses face, particularly around data security, privacy and state surveillance.

The fact that many companies now brief employees before they travel to Hong Kong, or require them to use burner phones, demonstrates how much the environment has already changed. It reflects not only the increasing similarities with mainland China but also the erosion of freedoms and rights that people in democratic societies often take for granted.

Those developments inevitably affect the way companies operate.

Ultimately, I think it’s both Beijing’s desire for greater control and the commercial incentives that continue drawing businesses to Hong Kong. Some organisations are reluctant to leave because of the financial consequences.

However, we’ve already seen a significant number of companies relocate to Singapore. I think awareness of these risks is growing, and I expect that trend to continue over the next five years.

Dominic Bowen: You mentioned some of the arrests and the wider pro-democracy movement. My understanding is that the movement has been severely weakened and largely suppressed by the Chinese Communist Party, although it hasn’t disappeared entirely.

Many of its most prominent activists are now either imprisoned, facing National Security Law prosecutions or living in exile. Meanwhile, the Hong Kong authorities continue expanding the legal framework around national security.

There were enormous public demonstrations in 2019 and 2020, but after more than 10,000 arrests, with activists imprisoned or attempting to flee Hong Kong, what does the movement look like today?

Megan Khoo: The pro-democracy movement that emerged so powerfully in 2019 and 2020 absolutely still exists.

Unfortunately, morale across the wider movement—much of which is now based in exile—is understandably lower after so many years. But there is still resistance inside Hong Kong, even if it is now expressed in much more subtle ways.

For example, Hong Kong once held the world’s largest commemorations of the Tiananmen Square massacre at Victoria Park. This year, seven people aged between 17 and 79 were detained around Victoria Park for actions as simple as carrying paper flowers, praying, singing or holding a 6.4-metre red string to symbolise 4 June.

Those small acts demonstrate that the desire for democracy remains, even though public expression has been almost completely suppressed.

Today, much of the movement exists outside Hong Kong. The UK alone is home to more than 200,000 Hong Kongers, with large diaspora communities also established in Canada, the United States, Australia and across Europe.

Across these countries, Hong Kong activists are increasingly working together, forming alliances to speak with one voice and press governments for greater international accountability. They continue campaigning for the release of political prisoners such as Jimmy Lai, Chow Hang-tung and Lee Cheuk-yan while reassessing their priorities for the years ahead.

The movement is still alive. Inside Hong Kong it survives quietly. Outside Hong Kong, it continues through organisations like Hong Kong Watch and through diaspora communities around the world.

Those communities are the heartbeat of the movement. Many people have moved into ordinary careers outside the advocacy sector, but they remain deeply committed to Hong Kong. They’re willing to share their experiences with politicians and policymakers, particularly on issues such as transnational repression, and they remain determined to push for accountability from the Chinese Communist Party.

Dominic Bowen: I think that’s a really important point. You mentioned burner phones earlier, and some of our listeners may not be familiar with that concept.

When travelling to countries with high levels of surveillance, we generally advise people to use burner phones and burner laptops—devices that contain no personal information, no access to bank accounts or personal emails, and certainly no company data or connections back to corporate servers. That’s now standard practice for many businesses travelling to higher-risk countries.

It really illustrates the level of surveillance in Hong Kong. You mentioned the street performer in Causeway Bay who simply attempted to unveil a 6.4-metre red string on 4 June. Before he’d even fully unrolled it, police had stopped him, searched him and ended the performance.

That kind of surveillance happens across Hong Kong. If you set aside the obvious human rights concerns, the state’s ability to monitor society is remarkable. Its reach into everyday life is incredibly extensive.

Megan Khoo: Exactly. The authorities are also expanding surveillance through thousands of additional CCTV cameras, similar to those used across mainland China.

Last month, Hong Kong introduced new subsidiary legislation under the National Security Law that gives the Chief Executive—currently John Lee—the power to certify any case as a matter of national security. Once designated in that way, the decision is binding on the courts and cannot be challenged.

That means what would normally be considered an ordinary criminal matter can suddenly become a national security case, carrying far more severe consequences.

It’s another step towards dismantling what remained of Hong Kong’s independent judiciary while allowing many more people to be prosecuted under the broad banner of national security.

Dominic Bowen: I remember being a child before Britain handed Hong Kong back to China. My mother was determined to visit Hong Kong before the handover, and I remember hearing politicians, diplomats, universities and businesses all arguing that this was a positive step.

The prevailing belief was that greater engagement with China would make the country more open, more predictable and more respectful of international rules. Around the same period, China joined the World Trade Organization, and all of this was viewed as part of a positive trajectory.

Looking at Hong Kong today, it appears almost the opposite has happened.

Who got this wrong? How did so many people misjudge the situation? And perhaps more importantly, who is paying the price today?

Megan Khoo: That’s a very good question.

As we’ve just marked the twenty-ninth anniversary of the handover, it’s clear there was a major miscalculation. However, I don’t think anyone anticipated that the “One Country, Two Systems” framework would effectively collapse so long before 2047, which was the date until which the Sino-British Joint Declaration guaranteed Hong Kong’s autonomy.

So yes, I think there was a serious miscalculation, particularly by the UK Government.

That said, following the introduction of the National Security Law after the 2019 and 2020 protests, the UK responded by introducing the British National (Overseas) visa scheme, allowing more than 200,000 Hong Kongers to relocate to the United Kingdom.

Ultimately, though, those paying the greatest price are the people still living in Hong Kong—particularly those imprisoned simply for exercising freedoms that you and I take for granted every day.

Beyond that, it’s the wider Hong Kong diaspora around the world. Many still have family members in Hong Kong and carry with them the trauma of what has happened there. They continue living with the emotional burden of watching events unfold from abroad.

Dominic Bowen: This wasn’t part of our planned conversation, but since you’ve mentioned the UK’s miscalculation, I’d be interested in your thoughts on another issue involving security, espionage and China—the proposed Chinese mega-embassy at Royal Mint Court in London.

There’s been enormous public debate about the proposal. Concerns have been raised about its proximity to critical fibre-optic infrastructure, the surveillance risks for nearby residents and Hong Kong activists, as well as wider national security implications.

MPs, local residents and diaspora communities have all expressed concerns, and questions have also been raised about transparency during the planning process.

Is this something you’ve looked at, and are you able to comment?

Megan Khoo: Yes, absolutely.

Hong Kong Watch has participated in numerous protests against the proposed Chinese mega-embassy, alongside many members of the Hong Kong community. Local residents have also strongly opposed the plans, and at the moment we’re waiting to see how the legal process develops.

Without commenting on the ongoing court proceedings themselves, I can say very clearly that we believe the mega-embassy should not go ahead in any form.

The UK Government should have rejected the proposal long ago.

We’ve recently seen the convictions and sentencing of Peter Wai and Bill Yuen under the UK’s National Security Act. They received prison sentences of ten and eight years respectively for assisting Hong Kong intelligence operations, which were conducted from the Hong Kong Economic and Trade Office in London.

If that kind of activity was taking place from a relatively small Hong Kong office, it’s deeply concerning to imagine the risks associated with a much larger Chinese embassy employing significantly more staff.

The surveillance risks alone are substantial, but the implications for monitoring pro-democracy activists, members of the Hong Kong diaspora and Chinese dissidents living in Britain are even more worrying.

In my view, this represents a significant national security threat to the United Kingdom.

This issue has persisted under successive governments, and I hope the incoming government reviews it as a matter of urgency. Given the evidence now available—including research into transnational repression and surveillance targeting the Hong Kong diaspora—I don’t believe there is any justification for allowing the project to proceed.

Dominic Bowen: Thank you for explaining that.

For listeners interested in that subject, we covered transnational repression, Chinese overseas policing and related issues in Episode 368 with Sam Goodman, Senior Policy Director at the China Strategic Risks Institute.

Before we finish, I’d like to ask the question we ask every guest on The International Risk Podcast.

You’ve worked in the United States Congress, the US Department of Defense, and now in London with Hong Kong Watch. You have a fascinating international perspective.

When you look around the world today, what international risks concern you most?

Megan Khoo: We’ve already touched on it during this conversation, but without question my biggest concern is Taiwan.

Hong Kong’s rights and freedoms have already been almost completely dismantled. What’s left exists largely to allow the Hong Kong Government to claim that everything is still normal.

I believe mainland China is using Hong Kong as a roadmap for how it may approach Taiwan.

At the same time, I’m encouraged that the international community is paying much closer attention to Taiwan. Developments in the Taiwan Strait are monitored closely, and just this week members of the Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China—including British MPs Alicia Kearns and Tom Tugendhat—joined Taiwan’s Coast Guard on a monitoring mission in the Taiwan Strait.

It’s encouraging to see parliamentarians and governments engaging directly with the issue.

However, the international community must continue paying close attention to Taiwan while also learning the lessons of Hong Kong—not only in relation to the erosion of freedoms, but also the experiences of those now living in exile and facing transnational repression.

The international response to developments in Hong Kong has often been too weak. We shouldn’t repeat those mistakes.

Hong Kong should serve both as a warning and as a roadmap for how the international community responds in the future.

Dominic Bowen: That’s an excellent point.

Over the years we’ve had some fascinating discussions on this podcast about Taiwan. Many people imagine that any conflict would begin with bombers flying overhead or a conventional military invasion.

But there’s perhaps an even greater risk that control is asserted much more gradually through economic pressure, trade restrictions, artificial islands, influence over foreign businesses and other forms of coercion.

Take companies like TSMC. If Beijing sought greater influence over Taiwan, would international businesses simply walk away, or would they gradually accept new rules imposed by the Chinese Communist Party?

Those are incredibly difficult questions for governments and businesses alike.

Megan, thank you very much for joining us today. I really appreciate your insights.

Megan Khoo: Thank you so much for having me, Dominic. I really appreciate the opportunity to highlight what’s happening in Hong Kong and the experiences of Hong Kongers around the world.

Dominic Bowen: That was a fascinating conversation with Megan Khoo, Policy Director at Hong Kong Watch.

I really appreciated her insights into developments in Hong Kong, China’s broader strategic ambitions, and the implications for geopolitics, international business and risk management.

I’m Dominic Bowen, host of The International Risk Podcast.

Thank you very much for listening, and we’ll see you next time.