After the 9/11 incidents, global counter-terrorism efforts have focused increasingly on community policing as a proactive and preventive approach to thwarting terrorism. This article explores the developments, tensions, and prospects of counter-terrorism community policing (“CTCP”) in China. By applying the concepts of police legitimacy and social capital to the normative and operational framework of CTCP, I argue that this vital counter-terrorism endeavour is fraught with problems, for both Chinese police to procure effective civic co-operation and the local community to develop its capacity as a self-reliant player in preventing terrorism. More specifically, community co-operation in China’s CTCP is largely an obligatory process in the form of forced mobilization by local bureaucracies that does not necessarily entail trust and support from citizens based on their legitimacy judgement. My analysis on social capital building in Chinese communities further suggests that both police and citizens are unable to form deep and meaningful partnerships for counter-terrorism. While an authoritarian regime like China is reluctant to cede substantial power and authority to people in most of all aspects of policing, the public has become apathetic towards and alienated from voluntary collaboration with police in formal community affairs—a dichotomy lies between reality and ideal in China’s CTCP.

The Hong Kong statute criminalizing disrespect of the Chinese national anthem, passed in 2020, is one of many recent moves to suppress political dissent in the former British colony. The law restricts freedom of political expression, but its constitutionality is practically assured courtesy of earlier decisions upholding laws against flag desecration. This article draws on sociological and political literature to argue that symbolic nationalism, particularly when given the force of law, is a tool of the authoritarian state. Against this backdrop, it critically and comparatively analyses Hong Kong judicial decisions upholding the suppression of symbolic dissent, assessing their doctrinal coherence, normative defensibility, and consequences. It concludes with observations on the efficacy of attempts to enforce patriotic orthodoxy and on how deference to authoritarianism affects the rule of law.