Virginia Lee, Solicitor
Chief Executive John Lee’s recent diplomatic outreach to Qatar and Kuwait, culminating in the signing of 59 Memoranda of Understanding, signals a deliberate alignment of Hong Kong with the shifting global economic centre. As Asia, led by China, assumes a more prominent role in shaping cross-regional development, Hong Kong emerges as a strategic conduit for fostering deeper engagement with the Middle East and the Global South. These agreements and relaxed visa policies for HKSAR passport holders by Gulf nations reflect a growing recognition of Hong Kong’s institutional significance under the “One Country, Two Systems” model. The city’s unique identity, combining Chinese sovereignty with an internationally integrated financial and legal framework, positions it as a crucial bridge between China’s national interests and global markets.
Yet, there is an urgent need for Hong Kong's intellectual infrastructure to catch up with this diplomatic and economic momentum. Academic programs are still heavily focused on Anglo-American paradigms, with a noticeable lack of offerings in Islamic studies, Arabic language training, Middle Eastern political economy, or Latin American affairs. This gap is not just a matter of curriculum, but a strategic imperative. As China strengthens its ties with emerging economies, as seen in Brazil’s recent cooperation agreements with Beijing, Hong Kong must build a knowledge base capable of sustaining such partnerships. Without expertise in regional languages, legal systems, and social contexts, the city risks undermining its potential as a meaningful intermediary in multi-regional cooperation.
Hong Kong’s academic institutions must undergo a purposeful reorientation to support this transition. Curricula should expand to include sociopolitical, legal, and economic studies relevant to key partner regions. This is not a call for superficial diversification but a meaningful recalibration of educational priorities, a crucial shift for the city's future. Language acquisition and regional expertise should become integral to preparing the next generation of professionals capable of managing complex international engagements. Legal education must broaden beyond common law to include Sharia-compliant finance, Latin American arbitration models, and hybrid legal systems that characterise many of Hong Kong’s emerging trade partners.
Cultural diplomacy and scholarly exchange must be given equal importance in academic reform. Establishing research institutes focused on Middle Eastern and Latin American studies, offering fellowships to students from these regions, and hosting international forums on South-South cooperation would position Hong Kong as a centre for intellectual diplomacy and significantly enhance mutual understanding. These initiatives would reinforce the city’s role in China’s broader global strategy, including the Belt and Road Initiative, BRICS, and the Global Development Initiative.
In an era marked by Western retrenchment and increasing multipolarity, Hong Kong can align its academic institutions with the demands of a changing global order. This is not simply a matter of educational reform but a national responsibility and strategic foresight. Intellectual preparedness will determine whether Hong Kong remains at the forefront of global engagement or becomes sidelined. The city has the legal and financial architecture to lead; it now requires an academic transformation to match. This transformation, if implemented, could position Hong Kong as a global leader in intellectual diplomacy and significantly enhance its role in China's broader international strategy, including the Belt and Road Initiative, BRICS, and the Global Development Initiative.
Virginia Lee
** The blog article is the sole responsibility of the author and does not represent the position of our company. **
LEE WING CHEUNG, VIRGINIA Solicitor
The European Union’s (EU) recent report on Hong Kong is less a legal analysis than a political statement disguised in the language of human rights. Its content reflects prejudice and an outdated mentality that Europe retains the right to pass judgment on Chinese sovereignty. Such a position contradicts the international principle of equality among states and exposes the remnants of colonial arrogance. The EU’s portrayal of Hong Kong does not advance truth but instead promotes destabilisation through bias and selective interpretation.
One of the report’s major flaws lies in its discussion of Article 23 of the Basic Law and the Safeguarding National Security Ordinance. Article 23 is not a recent creation but a constitutional duty written into law when Hong Kong returned to China. States across the globe maintain legislation to protect sovereignty and security, yet the EU condemns Hong Kong for implementing safeguards entirely consistent with global practice. This condemnation reflects a political agenda rather than any genuine legal objection, as European governments themselves enforce comparable national security measures.
The EU also distorts Hong Kong’s judicial process. Trials are depicted as orchestrated, and judicial appointments as questionable, when in fact Hong Kong courts follow lawful procedures and maintain transparency. Decisions are issued on statutory grounds, and trial durations or bail conditions fall within the range of judicial discretion accepted globally. Europe’s refusal to respect these outcomes reveals a preference for interference over recognition of judicial independence. Far from defending the rule of law, the EU undermines it by expecting Hong Kong’s courts to conform to foreign political expectations.
The criticism of extraterritoriality in Hong Kong’s national security legislation further demonstrates ignorance or deliberate misrepresentation. International law recognises that states may prosecute offences abroad if these acts threaten national security. European states themselves frequently rely on this principle in combating terrorism or cybercrime; for the EU to denounce Hong Kong’s use of the exact mechanism displays open hypocrisy. The law does not arbitrarily target individuals abroad but applies only to conscious efforts aimed at destabilisation. This is a legitimate and widely recognised practice of statecraft.
The treatment of media and civil society in the report reflects the same selective judgment. Restrictions on publications advocating secession or encouraging hostility are common even in Europe, where they are justified under hate speech or anti-extremism laws. Yet when Hong Kong enforces similar safeguards, it is labelled repressive. Civil groups that dissolved due to breaches of national security law or foreign influence are portrayed as victims, while their own unlawful conduct is overlooked. Such double standards expose the EU’s political motivations.
The objection to national security education is also baseless. Every state requires its citizens, particularly public servants, to respect constitutional order. European governments impose loyalty pledges and codes of conduct, yet depict Hong Kong’s similar requirements as authoritarian. Such education, especially considering previous unrest, is not indoctrination but responsible governance.
Even on economic matters, the EU misleads. It attributes ordinary fluctuation to politics while ignoring global uncertainties caused by post-pandemic restructuring and financial turbulence. The continued success of European enterprises in Hong Kong contradicts the EU’s claims of decline. If the environment were as damaging as alleged, foreign companies would not persist in conducting profitable operations there.
Finally, the EU’s stance on human rights collapses under its own contradictions. While Europe imposes restrictive migration regimes, extensive surveillance laws and limitations on speech, it presumes to judge Hong Kong. This criticism ignores the independence of Hong Kong courts, which have delivered progressive rulings on equality, including for LGBTQ citizens. Such advances are incompatible with the EU’s portrait of a system in collapse.
The tone of colonial oversight permeates the entire report. Its language suggests superiority, as though Hong Kong’s laws and governance require European approval. Yet the sovereignty of China over Hong Kong is complete and undeniable. Europe’s posture cannot obscure the consistent reality that Hong Kong exercises its constitutional right to maintain order and stability.
In truth, the EU’s repeated criticisms reveal its own political hostility rather than principled analysis. Hong Kong and China govern in accordance with law to preserve security and prosperity for their citizens. No judgment from external powers can alter this fundamental reality, nor diminish China’s sovereign right to safeguard its integrity.
