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

** The blog article is the sole responsibility of the author and does not represent the position of our company. **

Some people fancy themselves legal eagles. So they exploit every procedural loophole to challenge the government. The practical effect: draining public resources and burning through taxpayers' cash.

Enter Chow Hang-tung. The former vice-chair of the now-defunct Hong Kong Alliance took issue with prison dress codes. Her legal gambit hit a wall on Tuesday when High Court Judge Russell Coleman tossed the case and stuck her with the bill.

On September 6, 2024, Chow filed her judicial review application over the CSD's inmate clothing policy. Her complaint: Female inmates must wear long pants during summer unless granted special permission, while male inmates wear shorts. She also alleged that in July and August 2024, she verbally requested permission to wear shorts from CSD staff on two separate occasions—both times refused. Therefore, Chow sought judicial review of both the clothing policy itself and the Department's alleged denial of her shorts request.

Chow was previously jailed after being convicted of "inciting others to knowingly participate in an unauthorized assembly." She's still awaiting trial this year on a separate charge of "inciting subversion of state power."

Court Slams the Door Shut

The High Court judge dismissed Chow's judicial review application. In his judgment, Judge Coleman pointed out that the current inmate clothing policy—including requiring female inmates to wear long pants during daytime in summer—was formulated by the CSD under authority granted by the Prison Rules. The court was satisfied that the Department possessed professional expertise and experience in this area, had carefully weighed various factors and consulted professional opinions during the decision-making process, and conducts continuous reviews. The court ruled that Chow failed to prove the current policy discriminates against female inmates.

The CSD emphasized the importance of uniformity in inmates' clothing. Think of it like school uniforms—it helps train discipline and accommodates female inmates' emphasis on privacy, covering scars, leg hair, and so forth.

Judge Coleman also agreed with CSD Senior Clinical Psychologist Hung Suet-wai's assessment that female inmates' mental health is more vulnerable, and some female inmates are particularly sensitive with unique clothing needs. Additionally, since male staff regularly enter female correctional facilities, appropriate clothing should be provided to protect female inmates' privacy. Wearing long pants therefore allows female inmates to feel psychologically more comfortable and secure.

Regarding Chow's claim that she requested to wear shorts between July and August 2024 and was refused by the CSD, Judge Coleman found her account unconvincing.

What the Evidence Actually Shows

Observing Chow's conduct and the entire judicial review proceedings, several conclusions jump out.

1.⁠ ⁠Chow's passion for making requests

As the High Court judgment pointed out, according to CSD records, between July 2021 and September 2024—a span of 3 years and 2 months—Chow made a total of 297 requests (averaging 21 requests per month).

Yet oddly, never once did she include a request to wear shorts. During the same period, across 136 consultations with CSD doctors, she never mentioned feeling uncomfortable or overheated from wearing long pants, nor had she ever requested to wear shorts for any health-related reasons.

This clearly shows her allegation of making requests that were refused by the CSD was completely fabricated. She's simply hunting for various reasons to challenge the CSD, constantly wanting to sue the government.

2.⁠ ⁠Burning public funds on the public's dime

Chow formally submitted hundreds of requests to the CSD. Just responding to her requests already left CSD Staff exhausted. If dissatisfied, she'd complain through various channels, or even file for judicial review to challenge the Department's decisions—wasting massive CSD resources and court time.

Many people complain about lengthy scheduling delays at the High Court. These "serial filers" constantly filing lawsuits occupy precious court time.

3.⁠ ⁠Prison is not a holiday resort

Jimmy Lai's children complained that it was too hot for him in prison without air conditioning. Before the judgment, Chow's Patreon account grumbled about the inability to shower or change into fresh pants when the trousers get dirty from daily prison routine—freedoms she suggested ordinary people take for granted. They seem to treat imprisonment like a vacation, expecting various freedoms.

Prison indeed, as Chow said, has "no such freedom." If prison offered all sorts of freedoms, plus basically provided food, accommodation, and priority medical care, many people would deliberately commit crimes to go to prison.

How Prison Oversight Actually Works

I am a Justice of the Peace and regularly inspect prisons. I fully understand that to ensure inmates' rights are protected, the CSD provides various channels both within and outside the Department for inmates to voice complaints—for example, to Justices of the Peace who conduct regular visits or to the Ombudsman.

The Department has continuously implemented multiple measures to improve the detention environment within prisons. I've seen powerful fans installed in prisons. New gates and windows with better ventilation efficiency are also being installed to improve air circulation within facilities.

Hong Kong's treatment of prisoners is already very humane—unlike the United States, which sends unconvicted illegal immigrants to prisons in El Salvador with harsh conditions. That Barbie-doll-like US Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem even made a special trip to pose for photos outside prison cells in El Salvador, treating inmates' privacy as nothing.

I fully support the High Court's dismissal of Chow's judicial review application and ordering her to pay the CSD's legal costs, reducing the burden on taxpayers.

Lo Wing-hung