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. **
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
