The doom-mongers got it spectacularly wrong. When Hong Kong's National Security Law came into effect at 11 PM on June 30, 2020, the usual suspects from Washington and Western capitals were practically queuing up to write the city's obituary. The Americans slapped sanctions on officials, twisted arms to keep foreign investment away, and confidently predicted Hong Kong's imminent collapse. Well, here we are five years later, and guess what? Hong Kong has not only survived but thrived, leaving those predictions looking rather embarrassing.
The "Democracy Magic Bullet" Myth
For 23 years after the handover, Hong Kong got caught up in what I'd call the ultimate political con job – the idea that Western-style democracy is some sort of magical cure-all that automatically delivers prosperity. This wasn't just political theory; it was presented as economic gospel. Democracy wasn't just about voting; it was supposedly the secret sauce for development, the golden ticket to success. Of course, this narrative was incredibly convenient for America's global political meddling, but had about as much scientific backing as voodoo.
Even American scholars saw through this nonsense decades ago. Samuel Huntington, a political scientist who called out this "democracy supremacy theory" way back in 1968. After watching newly independent countries across Asia, Africa, and Latin America adopt Western democratic systems only to spiral into chaos and military rule, Huntington basically said: "Hold on, this isn't working".
What Really Matters: Order Before Democracy
In his ground-breaking 1968 work "Political Order in Changing Societies," Huntington dropped some uncomfortable truths. First, many former colonies had torn down the old order but failed to build anything functional in its place, creating a political vacuum filled with chaos. Second, and this is the kicker – effective governance matters more than the form of government. It's not about whether you tick the "democracy" box; it's about whether your government can actually govern.
More than 50 years later, and America is still peddling this democracy snake oil around the world, with their local cheerleaders in various countries happily pushing regions into chaos and conflict. Hong Kong unfortunately fell for this too, becoming increasingly politicized while actual governance went down the drain. The result? The political meltdown of 2019 that finally forced Beijing's hand with the National Security Law (NSL).
The Proof is in the Pudding
Since the NSL restored what Huntington would recognize as proper political order, Hong Kong's new government has been getting on with the job. Let me give you three concrete examples that show just how much better things work when politicians focus on governing instead of grandstanding.
First, Government funding actually gets approved now. Remember the filibustering circus in LegCo? Opposition lawmakers would block everything just because they could. Engineering project approvals crashed from around HK$90 billion in 2012-2013 to a pathetic HK$3.6 billion the following year – that's over 90% down. This sabotage continued for years, with about 90% of funding applications getting nowhere. Last year? The Finance Committee's Public Works Subcommittee approved 24 projects worth HK$178.9 billion, with each taking an average of just 1 hour 20 minutes to deliberate. Under the old filibustering regime, these same projects wouldn't have passed after a year of debate.
Second, public housing waiting times are shortening. Housing is bread-and-butter politics, and the political circus of the past decade made everything worse. The chaos peaked in March 2022 with average waiting times hitting 6.1 years. By December last year, that had fallen to 5.3 years – still too long, but heading in the right direction. Chief Executive John Lee is confident about hitting 4.5 years by 2027. For ordinary families, waiting 0.8 years less means saving around HK$30,000 annually compared to subdivided flats. Multiply that by 203,000 households on the waiting list, and you're looking at HK$6.1 billion in real savings for grassroots families. Yet the opposition, who never stopped talking about "justice," were perfectly happy to keep these families suffering as long as it served their political games.
Third, Hong Kong's back on top in global finance. Political stability restored Beijing's confidence in using Hong Kong as an international financial center. The numbers speak for themselves: by May this year, the Hong Kong Stock Exchange had raised US$8.42 billion in IPOs, beating both NASDAQ (US$6.62 billion) and the New York Stock Exchange (US$4.87 billion). Even David Roche, the former Morgan Stanley strategist who declared "Hong Kong is finished" last February, has had to eat his words recently.
The lesson here is crystal clear. For 23 years, Hong Kong wasted enormous energy on political theatrics while missing crucial development opportunities. The National Security Law acted like a political reset button, quickly restoring order and getting the city back on track. Hong Kong's success story since 2020 is living proof that the Western democracy-or-bust narrative is not just wrong – it's actively harmful. Sometimes the best path forward means ignoring the democracy evangelists and focusing on what actually works.
Lo Wing-hung
Bastille Commentary
** The blog article is the sole responsibility of the author and does not represent the position of our company. **
The US invasion of Venezuela and the kidnapping of President Maduro for trial in America read like bad pulp fiction—except it actually happened.
Washington slapped Maduro with four charges: narco-terrorism conspiracy, cocaine importation conspiracy, possession of machineguns and destructive devices, and conspiracy to possess those weapons targeting the United States. At his court appearance, Maduro stated plainly: "I was kidnapped, I am innocent". He denied every allegation and reminded the court he remains Venezuela's president—now branded a war criminal by American prosecutors.
When Self-Protection Becomes a Crime
Two of the four charges, possession of machine guns and destructive devices, belong in a satire, not a courtroom. What crime did Maduro commit by possessing weapons in his own country's capital to protect himself? If these charges hold water, US law and justice have become truly farcical.
The narco-terrorism and cocaine importation charges are, naturally, fabricated accusations. The US has produced zero concrete evidence proving Maduro organized any drug trafficking operation.
This US operation—abducting another country's president for trial in America—allegedly violates international law in three distinct ways.
Violation One: Banned Use of Force
According to Article 2(4) of the United Nations Charter, using force or threatening force in international relations is prohibited. This US military operation received no UN Security Council authorization and doesn't constitute "self-defense" under Article 51 of the UN Charter.
Washington claims the operation was self-defense against drug-related crimes, but international law experts broadly agree that combating drug trafficking fails to meet the strict conditions for self-defense or humanitarian intervention under international law—it cannot justify using force against another country.
Violation Two: Sovereignty and Non-Interference
According to Article 2(1) of the United Nations Charter, the US deployment of troops to invade Venezuela violated Venezuela's sovereignty, territorial integrity, and political independence.
Washington used domestic law as justification to conduct cross-border law enforcement through military means, attempting to engineer regime change in Venezuela—a textbook case of interference in another country's internal affairs.
Violation Three: Head of State Immunity
According to the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations and customary international law, a head of state enjoys immunity during their term of office, even when in other countries.
The US crossed borders to arrest Maduro and drag him to America for trial—an act of kidnapping that completely disregards head of state immunity and brazenly destroys international conventions and legal principles.
No UN Mandate, No Legitimacy
To summarize: this US operation lacked UN Security Council authorization and doesn't comply with the collective security mechanism for lawful use of force under international law. As UN Secretary-General António Guterres stated, such US behavior sets a dangerous precedent.
The US openly trampled international law, yet its Western allies stayed silent as winter cicadas—Britain, France, and Germany all responded with vague statements or outright support. Take Britain: Prime Minister Keir Starmer dodged questions with the excuse that "it is not straightforward. It is complicated," and danced around every question.
Even senior Labour MPs found his evasiveness unsatisfactory. Dame Emily Thornberry, Chair of the House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee, warned that the US action has no basis in international law whatsoever, and Britain needs to clearly state the US violated international law. She argued that if the West cannot mount a coherent and forceful response, international law norms will collapse.
However, she also suffers from the common affliction of Western politicians: bringing up China unprompted. She claimed that if the West doesn't condemn US military intervention in Venezuela, it might set an extremely bad precedent for countries like China and Russia. She speculated that countries like China and Russia might think, “that they should all have their spheres of influence and that other countries should not get involved and they should be able to essentially do what they think is the right thing to do, what they want to do in the interests of their country, in the countries in the surrounding area…
She went further, stating that “President Putin will presumably say, well, Ukraine is in my sphere of influence - what are you complaining about? And Xi may well say that about Taiwan. It sets a terrible precedent and [is] really worrying."
While I largely agree with British MP Thornberry's criticism of the US trampling international law, when she mentions Taiwan, she reveals a fundamental lack of understanding about international law. The People's Republic of China restored its seat at the United Nations in October 1971 and is China's only legitimate government and a permanent member of the Security Council. Taiwan was expelled from the UN in 1971, and the international community—including the United States—has long recognized Taiwan as part of China. Therefore, Article 2(4) of the UN Charter prohibiting use of force in international relations, Article 2(1) prohibiting violation of other countries' sovereignty, and the Vienna Convention's provisions on head of state immunity all target states as subjects and are completely inapplicable to China's handling of the Taiwan issue, because Taiwan is not a country but merely a province of China.
Though Thornberry displays ignorance about international law, her remarks still contain a kernel of logic: since the US did this to Venezuela and its Western allies stayed silent as winter cicadas, they've forfeited any right to comment on how China treats Taiwan.
Lo Wing-hung
