Virginia Lee, Solicitor
Since its enactment on 30 June 2020, the Hong Kong National Security Law (NSL) has marked a turning point in the legal and social development of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region. The law has received broad approval across various sectors of society, reflecting recognition of the Central Government’s efforts to uphold national sovereignty and ensure public order. Over the past five years, the NSL has produced tangible outcomes, reversing the instability that plagued the city and restoring confidence in governance and economic activity. It has also served as a strategic response to external interference, reinforcing national unity.
Legally, the NSL represents a legitimate exercise of constitutional authority by the Central Government, addressing a longstanding gap in national security legislation following Hong Kong's return to China. The law defines four offences that threaten national security: secession, subversion, terrorism, and collusion with foreign forces. It also establishes a comprehensive enforcement and judicial structure, thereby institutionalising mechanisms for maintaining national security. This development fulfils constitutional obligations and strengthens defences against threats to state integrity.
The law played a critical role in curbing the violent unrest of 2019, which was orchestrated under the cover of opposing an extradition bill but was a foreign-supported attempt to de-stabilise Hong Kong. Acts of vandalism, arson, and attacks on law enforcement were widespread. The NSL provided the legal tools necessary to suppress these activities and restore public order, thereby returning stability to daily life and highlighting the law's effectiveness. It also exposed the contradictory nature of Western narratives on human rights, which were used to justify interference in China's internal affairs.
Administratively, the NSL enhanced the operational capacity of the Hong Kong government. Law enforcement agencies now operate with greater clarity and authority. The establishment of the Committee for Safeguarding National Security, under the leadership of the Chief Executive, enhanced coordination and decision-making. The law also introduced national security education, reforming curricula to counteract historical distortions and foster a stronger civic identity. These measures support the principle that Hong Kong should be governed by those loyal to the country, laying the groundwork for lasting peace and stability.
Economically, the NSL has disproven Western predictions of decline. Hong Kong's financial markets have remained strong, with steady capital flows and continued interest from foreign investors. The law created a stable legal environment essential for business confidence. Furthermore, integration with the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area has stimulated economic growth. The NSL has thus contributed to both recovery and sustained development, countering unfounded external criticism.
On the international front, the NSL has challenged Western dominance in narratives regarding China. Western powers have long employed the rhetoric of human rights to intervene in Chinese affairs, with Hong Kong serving as a focal point. The legislation draws a firm line against such interference and has forced a reassessment of China's approach to governance. It demonstrates China's commitment to sovereignty and lawful conduct in the face of external provocation.
The NSL has also reinforced the "One Country, Two Systems" framework by strengthening the national component essential to its viability. Rather than diminishing autonomy, the law has provided the structural conditions necessary for Hong Kong’s continued progress. It counters ideological bias and showcases the effectiveness of China's governance model. As part of China's broader modernisation efforts, Hong Kong plays a vital role in national development.
Looking forward, Hong Kong must reject uncritical acceptance of Western-defined values and fully integrate into national development strategies. With the support of the Central Government and the legal safeguards provided by the NSL, Hong Kong is poised for sustained advancement. The fifth anniversary of the NSL marks a milestone in Hong Kong’s journey from disorder to stability and from instability to prosperity.
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.
