China’s Freedom Score Plummets to 9 out of 100 in 2025 Global Report

March 3, 2025 TruthUSA

NGOs like Freedom House are crucial in supporting U.S. government agencies in advocating for human rights internationally, an expert emphasized.

According to the Freedom in the World 2025 report by Freedom House, based in Washington, China received a score of 9 out of 100 and was classified as “not free.” This report ranks 195 countries and 13 territories based on their political rights and civil liberties for the year 2024.

The scoring system allocates 40 points to political rights and 60 points to civil liberties. China received a minus 2 for political rights and 11 for civil liberties, resulting in a total score of 9. This score has remained constant since 2021.

The report summary by Freedom House stated that “China’s authoritarian regime has increasingly tightened its control over various aspects of life and governance, including state bureaucracy, media, online speech, religious activities, universities, businesses, and civil society groups.”

In a report on transnational repression released in mid-February, China was identified as a major perpetrator in 2024, remaining one of the most active perpetrators over the past decade, as reported by the NGO.

Hong Kong, controlled by the Chinese communist regime, scored 40 points and was classified as “partly free.” On the other hand, Taiwan (Republic of China) retained its “free” status with 94 points.

Hong Kong received 9 points for political rights and 31 for civil liberties, resulting in an overall score of 40. This marks a decrease from its 2017 score of 61.

The summary of the report for Hong Kong highlighted a rapid decline in freedom in the territory following the implementation of the CCP’s national security law in 2020.

According to the summary, prominent pro-democracy figures in Hong Kong have been arrested, leading to the closure of political parties, independent news outlets, NGOs, and unions due to charges or the threat of charges under the national security law.

Tibet scored 0 points under CCP rule, maintaining its classification as a “not free” territory. Specifically, Tibet received minus 2 points for political rights and 2 points for civil liberties.

Freedom House noted that Tibet is governed by the CCP government from Beijing, with decision-making power concentrated in the hands of Chinese party officials, denying fundamental rights to residents of both Han Chinese and Tibetan ethnicity.

The report did not assess freedom in Xinjiang separately, the Uyghur region ruled by the CCP.

Discussing mainland China’s freedom score in the context of transnational repression and Tibet, Lai Jianping highlighted a potential further decrease in the country’s freedom score.

Sun Kuo-hsiang, a professor at Nanhua University in Taiwan, emphasized the credibility of Freedom House’s report, stating that it accurately reflects China’s current political, legal, and social system.

Sun warned of a worsening situation in China, particularly in terms of its global influence, transnational repression, and overseas surveillance activities targeting dissidents.

Sun urged Western countries to strengthen measures against the CCP’s totalitarian practices, such as limiting CCP institutions, providing political asylum to Chinese dissidents, and enacting legislation to protect dissidents.

Reflecting on China’s historical freedom rankings, Lai referenced a survey that assigned scores to various periods in modern Chinese history, indicating a continuous decline in freedom since the Communist Party took power in 1949.

Chinese paramilitary police (in green uniforms) secure an exit as Tibetan monks (C) walk out from a stadium at the end of a local government-sponsored festival in Yushu, in China's northwestern Qinghai Province, on July 25, 2016. (Nicolas Asfouri/AFP via Getty Images) — Chinese paramilitary police (in green uniforms) secure an exit as Tibetan monks (C) walk out from a stadium at the end of a local government-sponsored festival in Yushu, in China’s northwestern Qinghai Province, on July 25, 2016. Nicolas Asfouri/AFP via Getty Images

Following a reduction in foreign aid funding U.S.-based NGOs, including Freedom House, the organization had to halt projects and let go of staff.

The NGO highlighted the importance of its work, such as the China Dissent Monitor project, which was forced to pause due to the funding freeze.

Lai emphasized the significance of funding NGOs like Freedom House in exposing authoritarian regimes and human rights abuses globally.

He noted the objectivity and independence of Freedom House’s reports, making it difficult for authoritarian rulers to dismiss or deny their findings of abuse.

Lai stressed the crucial role NGOs play in supplementing government agencies and filling gaps in research, evaluation, and public opinion.

He concluded by underscoring the moral imperative of supporting such organizations financially to ensure the dissemination of critical information to the international community.

Luo Ya and Reuters contributed to this report.

Source link