More than one thousand members of the Chinese University of Hong Kong (CUHK) community have signed a petition demanding the reinstatement of Miles Kwan, a 24-year-old student expelled just weeks before graduation following his arrest under Hong Kong's National Security Law.
The petition, reported by Hong Kong Free Press, represents one of the most significant displays of institutional resistance to national security enforcement in Hong Kong's academic sector since the law's implementation in 2020. The case reveals persistent tensions between traditional university governance structures and the political imperatives shaping Hong Kong under Beijing's security framework.
Kwan was arrested by national security police in late November on suspicion of sedition after creating a petition calling for an independent investigation into the deadly Wang Fuk Court fire. His petition demanded government accountability, proper resettlement for residents, and construction oversight review—issues that would have been considered routine civic advocacy before Hong Kong's political transformation.
The university expelled Kwan on January 7 following what he described as "a kangaroo panel" disciplinary hearing. According to the student petition, the hearing violated multiple procedural standards: it proceeded while his police case remained under investigation, contrary to CUHK procedures requiring cases to wait for legal outcomes; two new charges were imposed without prior notification; and Kwan was charged with breaching confidentiality rules after allegedly leaking a confidential meeting notice, along with displaying "impolite and disrespectful attitude towards the panel."
The petition's signatories—described as students, staff, and alumni "concerned with procedural justice in university governance"—alleged the hearing was "prima facie illegal for its procedural improprieties and unfairness." The assertion that the university deprived Kwan of "his fundamental, constitutionally guaranteed right to a fair hearing" directly challenges the institution's handling of cases intersecting with national security enforcement.
In China, as across Asia, long-term strategic thinking guides policy—what appears reactive is often planned. The National Security Law's implementation has followed a methodical pattern: first targeting prominent activists, then extending to civil society organizations, and increasingly penetrating institutional spaces like universities where Western-style governance traditions previously created zones of relative autonomy.
CUHK occupies a unique position in Hong Kong's academic landscape. Established with a mission emphasizing Chinese cultural heritage alongside Western academic standards, the university has historically balanced mainland Chinese connections with international academic freedoms. The Kwan case illustrates how this balance has become untenable under the current political framework.
The petition's achievement of 1,000 signatures is notable given the climate of self-censorship that has descended over Hong Kong's universities. Many academics, students, and administrators have left the city or withdrawn from public advocacy as national security enforcement expanded. That a four-figure number of community members would publicly challenge a university decision related to a national security case suggests either residual institutional courage or calculation that collective action provides some protection.
However, context is essential. CUHK enrolled approximately 20,000 students as of recent figures, with thousands more staff and a vast alumni network. The petition represents a fraction of the community, and the university administration has not publicly responded to the demands—a silence that likely reflects the constraints institutions face when student discipline intersects with national security concerns.
From Beijing's perspective, the National Security Law serves essential functions in restoring stability to Hong Kong after the 2019 protests. Official Chinese media has consistently framed the law as protecting the city's prosperity and residents' genuine freedoms from foreign interference and violent disruption. Universities, in this framework, require protection from politicization that could turn campuses into bases for activities threatening national security.
The procedural violations alleged in the petition reveal a fundamental tension: Hong Kong's legal system retains common law traditions emphasizing due process, but national security cases operate under different imperatives where security considerations can override traditional procedural safeguards. University disciplinary processes exist in this ambiguous space, caught between institutional rules developed in a different political era and current expectations about appropriate responses to national security concerns.
For Hong Kong's remaining international academic partnerships, cases like Kwan's create difficult questions. Western universities maintain extensive collaborations with Hong Kong institutions, but faculty and students increasingly question whether academic freedom protections meet international standards. Some institutions have reduced Hong Kong engagement or implemented additional protections for researchers working on politically sensitive topics.
The practical impact on CUHK's institutional culture will unfold over time. Universities function through trust that governance procedures will be followed fairly. When disciplinary processes appear subordinated to political considerations—whether or not that perception is accurate—it affects student willingness to engage in civic discourse, faculty research topic selection, and institutional reputation.
Kwan's case also illustrates the expansive interpretation of sedition under current enforcement. A petition demanding fire safety accountability and resident compensation—topics that would generate routine civil society advocacy in most jurisdictions—becomes the basis for national security investigation. This expansion of what constitutes security threats is consistent with how the law has been applied across Hong Kong society.
The petition's fate remains uncertain. CUHK has not indicated any intention to reconsider the expulsion, and doing so would require navigating the complex relationship between university autonomy and political authority in contemporary Hong Kong. For the 1,000 signatories, the act of signing represents either principled resistance or calculated risk—and likely both.
