Why Hong Kong's National Security Law Actually Boosted Development (Despite What Critics Said)

Most people think in black and white – you can either have goal A or goal B, but not both. But sophisticated policymakers operate in multiple dimensions, pulling off what seems impossible by achieving seemingly contradictory objectives simultaneously.

When Hong Kong's National Security Law kicked in on June 30, 2020, the usual suspects were quick to cry doom and gloom. We heard all the predictable lines: "too much One Country means goodbye Two Systems," "all this security talk will kill Hong Kong's development," and my personal favourite – "national security destroys creativity, so how can Hong Kong do proper science or arts anymore?"

The Creativity Myth Gets Demolished

Let's tackle that last point first. It's actually the easiest to debunk with some proper real-world examples. Remember when Hong Kong's celebrated director Johnnie To moaned that "the National Security Law stifles film creativity"? Well, that aged like milk. While he was having his whinge, the mainland went and produced "Chang An," a brilliant animated film about Li Bai's life that was bursting with creativity. Then came "Ne Zha 2," which smashed into fifth place for global cinema box office history. Talk about a slap in the face for Director To – surely Hong Kong's National Security Law isn't more restrictive than the mainland's version?

The same nonsense gets peddled about scientific research. Some local scholars keep banging on about how strict mainland controls supposedly crush scientific creativity. Yet early this year, mainland China dropped DeepSeek, an AI large language model that rivals America's top-tier ChatGPT – and they did it at a fraction of the cost. Here's the kicker: apart from the US itself, none of those countries constantly waving the flag for American-style democracy and freedom have managed to produce anything close to DeepSeek's calibre. You've got people in Japan, Israel, and elsewhere scratching their heads wondering why they can't pull off what China just did.

These "National Security Law ruins everything" arguments are pure Western political bias dressed up as analysis – they're textbook examples of "democratic determinism" that completely miss how different phenomena actually work.

Understanding the Real Relationship

When Xia Baolong, Director of the Hong Kong and Macao Affairs Office, spoke at the seminar marking the National Security Law's fifth anniversary, he didn't get bogged down in supposed contradictions between security and development. Instead, he emphasised President Xi Jinping's insight that "security is the prerequisite for development, development is the guarantee of security, and we must remain unwavering in both safeguarding security and promoting development." The focus wasn't on contradiction – it was on unity within apparent opposition.

This reflects mainland China's dialectical approach to problem-solving. Sure, plenty of things in this world seem contradictory and pulling in opposite directions. Sometimes two goals appear to be fighting each other, but when you dig deeper into their relationship, you discover they're actually complementary. When we swallow the Western line and approach everything from the angle of opposing national security laws, we end up thinking any National Security Law means the apocalypse – that Hong Kong becomes utterly useless with such legislation in place.

The Foreign Capital Red Herring

Take the foreign capital withdrawal narrative that got so much airtime after Hong Kong implemented the National Security Law. Yes, foreign capital – particularly American money – temporarily pulled back from Hong Kong stocks. But here's what the critics conveniently forgot to mention: the US government actively instructed American funds not to buy mainland and Hong Kong stocks. This was a deliberate political operation to suppress China, with American global allocation recommendations slashing Hong Kong stocks from 7% to a measly 1.5%.

About a year ago, someone asked me: "How do we get American capital back into Hong Kong's stock market?" My answer was simple: "When the market rises, they'll come running back." You've got to take the long view here. Economics work in cycles, stock markets go up and down – that's just how it works.

The Numbers Don't Lie

As Director Xia pointed out in his Hong Kong speech, "the implementation of the Hong Kong National Security Law has injected strong stability, certainty, and predictability into the market." The results speak for themselves: Hong Kong's been rated the world's freest economy again, its international financial centre status holds firm at third globally, world competitiveness has jumped to third place globally, and talent competitiveness is back up to tenth worldwide. You've got over 2,700 single family offices operating in Hong Kong now, with more than half managing assets exceeding US$50 million.

Since the start of this year, the Hang Seng Index has been leading global gains, Hong Kong IPO fundraising hit HK$80 billion – that's over 700% up year-on-year and tops worldwide. Not exactly the economic wasteland the critics predicted, is it?

All the evidence points to one conclusion: the Hong Kong National Security Law hasn't hindered investment one bit. What it did was create environmental stability and lay solid foundations. When the cycle turned and market sentiment improved, investment naturally followed.

Just imagine if we still had the 2019 chaos – petrol bombs flying everywhere, roads completely blocked, people plotting to detonate explosives in busy districts for terrorist attacks. Do you seriously think Hong Kong's stock market could thrive in that environment? Beijing certainly wouldn't feel comfortable letting mainland companies list in Hong Kong if they'd just become sitting ducks for attacks.

The logic is crystal clear: political stability comes first, then financial activity follows. Only then do Beijing and sensible foreign capital regain confidence in Hong Kong. We can't just focus on American capital outflows following US political directives after the National Security Law – we've also got to acknowledge the massive benefits of Hong Kong regaining stability and attracting huge mainland capital inflows.

Security and development have both contradictory and complementary aspects – it all comes down to how you handle it. Director Xia highlighted the concept of holistic national security, noting that Hong Kong's national security work is shifting from simply shoring up bottom lines to actively promoting growth. The approach has evolved, but the commitment to safeguarding security remains rock solid.

When you look around the world, the lesson is obvious: without security and stability, nothing else matters. Hong Kong learned this the hard way, but it's come out stronger.

 Lo Wing-hung

Bastille Commentary

** 博客文章文責自負,不代表本公司立場 **

For decades, just mentioning Article 23 or the National Security Law (NSL) would send Hong Kong people into a panic. The US and Western political propaganda machine had been remarkably successful at that fear-mongering. But now? The law is doing exactly what it was supposed to do – and that's precisely why the West is so upset about it.

When British Diplomats Showed Their True Colors

Let me share with you a personal experience that perfectly encapsulates Western hypocrisy. Back in 1985, as a junior reporter covering the Joint Liaison Group meetings between China and Britain, I had some eye-opening tea chats with British representatives in London. These guys were working overtime to convince everyone that Article 23 of the Basic Law – you know, the bit about prohibiting subversion, sedition, and liaising with foreign political organizations – would be an absolute disaster for Hong Kong's freedoms.

When I asked one British rep whether the UK had similar laws, he just shrugged it off with "we rarely use these laws." Classic deflection. Britain has had national security legislation for ages, but somehow Hong Kong wasn't allowed the same protection. The Brits couldn't stop Article 23 from making it into the Basic Law, but they did manage to slip in that "Hong Kong shall enact laws on its own" clause – essentially planting a legislative landmine for later.

And boy, did that strategy work. After 1997, the fear-mongering went into overdrive. Every mention of Article 23 sent people into panic mode, thanks to relentless Western propaganda painting it as some sort of totalitarian nightmare.

The Chaos That "Freedom" Actually Brought

Here's what really happened when Hong Kong had no national security framework: it became a playground for foreign operatives and local troublemakers. The 2019 riots weren't some organic pro-democracy movement – they were a carefully orchestrated mess with foreign fingerprints all over it.

Take the "Dragon Slaying Squad" – these weren't freedom fighters, they were wannabe terrorists planning to plant bombs in busy areas. And guess what? One of their confessed accomplices, Pang Kwun-ho, testified that he was shipped off to Taiwan in 2019 for military training, including firearms use. Does anyone seriously believe Taiwan's Military Intelligence Bureau was just casually unaware of people from Hong Kong getting firearms and military training on their soil?

Then there's Jimmy Lai and his merry band of foreign collaborators. Through his assistant Mark Simon – a former US naval intelligence agent, no less – they were running the "Stand with Hong Kong" operation, cosying up to Western politicians and actively promoting sanctions against mainland China and Hong Kong. This wasn't journalism or activism; it was straight-up foreign interference.

 The saddest part: many of the young people throwing petrol bombs genuinely thought they were fighting tyranny. They'd been fed a steady diet of fake news about police beating people to death at Prince Edward Station and other fabricated "police brutality" stories. These kids weren't exercising freedom – they were being manipulated by forces that couldn't care less about their futures.

Both the US and Britain have robust national security laws of their own, yet they spent decades trying to convince Hong Kong people that having similar protections would be catastrophic. In fact, without proper national security legislation, Hong Kong's so-called freedom was just freedom for espionage activities, foreign manipulation, malicious rumours and political chaos. That's not the kind of freedom any society should want.

Why the Law Works, And Why That Terrifies the West

Xia Baolong, Director of the Hong Kong and Macao Affairs Office, nailed it at the recent symposium that marks the 5th anniversary of the NSL implementation. The National Security Law didn't destroy "One Country, Two Systems" – it saved it. The implementation of the law became the watershed moment that brought Hong Kong from chaos to stability, fending off foreign attacks or intervention, enabling everything good from electoral system reforms to the current "patriots governing Hong Kong" aspiration.

That's what really keeps Western policymakers up at night: the inconvenient reality that Hong Kong is actually better off with proper national security protections. No wonder they're so keen to convince everyone otherwise.

It’s high time we recognised the importance of the National Security Law. The truth is, Hong Kong's National Security Law isn't restricting genuine freedom – it's protecting us from those who would abuse that freedom for their own political ends. No doubt that fewer foreign agents like Mark Simon operating in Hong Kong means less manipulation, less chaos, and more genuine stability.

Lo Wing-hung