Nepalese Students Visit Hong Kong to Discuss Impact of Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) - LegCo Members and Nepalese Consul-General Share Insights

Author: Member of the Legislative Council, Dr. Lee Hoey Simon

Under the joint initiative of Legislative Council Members Hon Maggie Chan Man-ki, Dr Hon Thomas So Shiu-tsung, Hon Wu Yingpeng, Dr Hon Hoey Simon Lee, law students from Kathmandu University and Tribhuvan University in Nepal recently came to Hong Kong to participate in the annual International Commercial Arbitration Moot Court Competition, and jointly organized the "A Young Chat of the Rule of Law and Social Development of Nepel since the BRI". Dr Bindeswar Prasad Lekhak, Consul-General of Nepal to HKSAR, attended the seminar. The event was supported by Regal Hotels Group, China Resources Group, Tseng Hin Pei Charity Fund Limited, and Basic Law Foundation, among other organizations.

This marks the fourth consecutive year that Legislative Council Member Dr Hon Hoey Simon Lee has gathered with young law students from BRI country in Hong Kong. This year, for the first time, the exchange was jointly organized with multiple Legislative Council Members, and for the first time, the Nepalese Consul-General in Hong Kong attended.

In his opening remarks, Dr Lekhak, Consul-General of Nepal to HKSAR, emphasized the long-standing and robust friendship between Nepal and China, reaffirming Nepal's steadfast commitment in upholding the one-China principle. Dr Lekhak pointed out that China is Nepal's second-largest trading partner, with close ties spanning trade, foreign direct investment, and tourism. Since Nepal participated in the BRI in 2017, collaborative projects have expanded across various sectors—including urban development, infrastructure, education, health, sports, and energy—providing significant opportunities for Nepal’s development. Nepal has a favorable investment environment and welcomes all sectors in Hong Kong to further strengthen economic and trade cooperation with Nepal.

During the seminar, the Nepalese law students shared profound insights into the positive changes the BRI has brought to their region, specifically discussing its tangible impact on improving local livelihoods and advancing the rule of law. They pointed out that during the pandemic, the BRI framework facilitated vaccine and medical assistance to Nepal, playing a significant role in humanitarian relief. In the long term, they have a positive vision for the BRI’s promotion of cross-border connectivity, bringing medical services, economic opportunities, trade efficiency, and cultural preservation to benefit local communities.

Local Hong Kong young leaders also participated in the exchange, engaging in in-depth discussions on how the BRI promotes the rule of law in Nepal, with particular focus on the critical role of alternative dispute resolution mechanisms, such as mediation and arbitration, in promoting regional legal cooperation. This exchange fostered mutual learning and deepened understanding and recognition, served as a vital communication bridge for young leaders from different cultural backgrounds.

To showcase their heritage, the Nepalese students presented traditional souvenirs, including Dhaka topi, handmade yak milk soaps, and traditional instruments singing bowls. The venue was also decorated with BRI-themed exhibition installations, enable attendees to experience the cultural charm of Nepal firsthand and further strengthening their friendship.

Legislative Councillor Dr Simon Lee and Consul-General Dr Lekhak (left) exchanged views at the Hong Kong Legislative Council

Legislative Councillor Dr Simon Lee and Consul-General Dr Lekhak (front row right) exchanged views with law students from two Nepalese universities at the Hong Kong Legislative Council

Councillor Dr Simon Lee presents Legislative Council souvenirs prepared for Consul-General Dr Lekhak (second from right)

China Resources Group Senior Group Legal Counsel Johnny Ip Chun-yuen (fifth from left), Tseng Hin Pei Charity Fund Limited Representative Riley Tseng Fanwei (sixth from left), Legislative Council Member Dr Hon Hoey Simon Lee, Consul-General of Nepal to HKSAR Dr Bindeswar Prasad Lekhak (eight from left), Legislative Council Member Hon Maggie Chan Man-ki, Member of the Guangzhou Municipal Committee of the CPPCC and Chairman of the Supervisory Board of the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area International Maritime and Commercial Mediation Center Tan Guojian (tenth from left), pose for a group photo with law students from two Nepalese universities at the Hong Kong LegCo

Tseng Hin Pei Charity Fund Limited Representative Riley Tseng Fanwei (first from left), Legislative Council Member Hon Maggie Chan Man-ki, Consul-General of Nepal to HKSAR Dr Bindeswar Prasad Lekhak (third from left), Legislative Council Member Dr Hon Hoey Simon Lee, China Resources Group Senior Group Legal Counsel Johnny Ip Chun-yuen (fifth from left) pose for a group photo wearing traditional Nepalese Dhaka topi

Kathmandu University law student representatives deliver presentation

Tribhuvan University law student representatives deliver presentation

Tribhuvan University law student representative assists Legislative Council Member Dr Hon Hoey Simon Lee to wear the traditional Nepalese Dhaka topi

Tribhuvan University law student representatives present souvenirs to Legislative Council Member Dr Hon Hoey Simon Lee

Legislative Council Members Dr Hon Thomas So Shiu-tsung, Dr Hon Hoey Simon Lee, Hon Wu Yingpeng pose for a group photo wearing traditional Nepalese Dhaka topi

Legislative Council Members Dr Hon Hoey Simon Lee, Hon Wu Yingpeng, Dr Hon Thomas So Shiu-tsung pose for a group photo with law students from two Nepalese universities wearing traditional Nepalese Dhaka topi

InsightSpeak

** 博客文章文責自負,不代表本公司立場 **

Liang Yaqi,  Chinese Association of Hong Kong & Macao Studies

Since the release of Hong Kong’s first five-year plan, one line of interpretation has grouped together its provisions on cooperation with the mainland and security governance, and from there concluded that a substantial part of the plan is not really about Hong Kong’s own development. With the latest Policy Address continuing to place strong emphasis on national security, the argument goes a step further: Hong Kong’s development agenda, it is said, is increasingly being crowded out by other priorities.

The central problem with this interpretation is that it artificially separates policy objectives that are, in reality, deeply intertwined.

For Hong Kong today, can “integration with the mainland,” “security” and “economic development” really be treated as three distinct agendas?

The answer is more complicated than it may appear.

On the one hand, the five-year plan explicitly calls for Hong Kong to align itself proactively with national development strategies. On the other, it also defines Hong Kong as a “super connector” between the mainland and global markets.

The provisions concerning the Closer Economic Partnership Arrangement, or CEPA, go further still, calling for wider access to the mainland market for Hong Kong service providers. In finance, the plan proposes deeper links with both mainland and overseas markets, enabling international capital to participate through Hong Kong in the growth of China and Asia while helping mainland companies and capital expand globally.

To classify all of this simply as “supporting mainland policy” is already to assume something that should instead be examined: that anything connected with national development is, by definition, separate from Hong Kong’s own development.

Yet Hong Kong’s economic structure makes that distinction increasingly difficult to sustain.

Hong Kong’s most distinctive economic value lies in its ability to connect two economic spheres vastly larger than itself. On one side is mainland China; on the other are global capital, trade, professional services and institutional networks. Much of Hong Kong’s competitive advantage has long rested on precisely this intermediary role.

That is why, in many cases, there is no clear line separating policies that “serve the country” from policies that “develop Hong Kong.”

Rather than asking how much of the plan is devoted to the mainland, the more meaningful question is whether those connections ultimately make Hong Kong more difficult to replace.

If closer access to China’s vast market generates greater demand for international financing, asset management, legal and arbitration services, RMB business and corporate globalization in Hong Kong, then deeper integration with the mainland and a stronger international role can advance at the same time.

Security should be understood within the same framework.

A common intuition is that policy attention is finite: the more emphasis placed on security, the less attention remains for economic growth and social welfare. But for a highly open international financial centre such as Hong Kong, security and development do not exist in a simple zero-sum relationship.

Capital does not merely chase the highest nominal return. It seeks the best risk-adjusted return.

For a highly open international financial centre, security is not separate from development. It is part of the economic environment that businesses and investors assess when deciding where to place capital, establish regional headquarters or manage wealth. They look not only at taxes and growth prospects, but also at financial stability, reliable infrastructure, cybersecurity and regulatory predictability.

In other words, companies choosing Hong Kong are not simply choosing lower taxes or office space. They are choosing an institutional environment that reduces uncertainty.

The International Monetary Fund’s 2026 assessment of Hong Kong illustrates this relationship well. On the one hand, the IMF recognised the financial system’s strong capital and liquidity buffers and its sound regulatory foundations. On the other, it noted that Hong Kong’s highly open and interconnected economy leaves it exposed to geopolitical and trade tensions, volatility in global financial markets, and disruptions to trade and capital flows. It also highlighted risks associated with commercial real estate, cybersecurity and operational resilience.[1]

The more open Hong Kong is, the more important strong risk management becomes.

This is also why the five-year plan’s emphasis on “coordinating development and security” should not be understood solely through a narrow conception of security. The plan also calls for stronger economic and urban resilience, better risk-warning mechanisms, closer cross-departmental coordination, improved cybersecurity and emergency governance, and greater use of technology to enhance the efficiency of public administration.

These priorities reflect a broader shift in global economic governance in recent years: economic competition is moving away from a singular pursuit of maximum efficiency towards a balance between efficiency and resilience.

The earlier phase of globalisation prized the lowest possible costs, minimal inventories and ever-longer cross-border supply chains. After the pandemic, geopolitical conflict, financial volatility and repeated supply-chain disruptions, however, governments and companies have become increasingly concerned with a different question: when a system is hit by a shock, can it continue to function?

For Hong Kong, that resilience is itself part of what an international financial centre offers. Clear rules, predictable enforcement and reliable institutions allow businesses to price risk with greater confidence; uncertainty, by contrast, raises risk premiums and discourages long-term investment.

The proper measure of Hong Kong’s future security governance, therefore, is not how often security appears in the five-year plan or the Policy Address. The more important question is whether that governance ultimately makes Hong Kong more predictable.

Over the next five years, several developments will be worth watching.

As Hong Kong deepens its links with the mainland, will demand increase for international capital to use the city as a platform for allocating assets in China and across Asia? As mainland companies expand globally, will they rely more heavily on Hong Kong’s financial, legal and professional services? Will Hong Kong’s ties with Europe, the United States, ASEAN and the Middle East deepen at the same time? And will security governance reduce the uncertainty costs inherent in operating an open economy?

If these functions become stronger, then “integrating into national development,” “safeguarding security” and “remaining international” are not competing objectives.

They may, in fact, be three dimensions of the same question:

In an increasingly fragmented and uncertain world, how can Hong Kong remain an interface that both China and the rest of the world want to use—and one that neither can easily replace?

[1]https://www.elibrary.imf.org/view/journals/002/2026/114/002.2026.issue-114-en.xml?cid=576398-com-dsp-crossref