From 1923 to 1956, the city of Tangier in Morocco was jointly administered by several foreign powers as an “international city”. To some extent, China had (or should I say, suffered) this colonialist experience too through the foreign concessions. Concessions existed during the late Imperial China. Needless to say, these concessions were acquired under duress through unequal treaties.

In the perception of some people, Hong Kong is also some sort of international city or foreign concession. Apparently, to them, it does not belong exclusively to China, even though China has undisputed sovereignty over it. Therefore, Hong Kong’s future should be a matter of discussion among several countries, including the US and the UK, even if it pertains to Hong Kong’s internal affairs.

But the immutable fact is that Hong Kong is and will remain part of China, even though it’s presently caught in the crossfire of this meaningless US-China trade war started by Washington. If this is not handled wisely, some analysts have warned that this could lead to a “new Cold War”.

When the Brits arrived in Hong Kong in 1841, they did not acquire the whole of Hong Kong in perpetuity. Hong Kong Island itself was ceded by the Qing Dynasty to Great Britain in 1842 under the Treaty of Nanking; the Kowloon Peninsula was ceded to Britain in 1860 under the Convention of Peking; but the New Territories were leased to Britain for 99 years in 1898.

The continuation of British administration after 1997 (not only in the New Territories) would not have been acceptable to China in any form, since Hong Kong was acquired by the UK through unequal treaties.

Following the 1984 Sino-British Joint Declaration, in 1997 Hong Kong returned to China, under the “one country, two systems” principle (in the same way that Macao returned to China in 1999).

Is Hong Kong that bad 23 years later?

As I mentioned in “Ending violence vital for SAR to remain a land of opportunity”, in 2017 I did some research comparing, from a socioeconomic perspective, Hong Kong in 1997 with Hong Kong in 2017. The result disproved the perception that things were better while the city was under British colonial rule. The data showed that overall, Hong Kong was in better shape in 2017 than it was in 1997. There was no statutory minimum wage in 1997. While Hong Kong people’s life expectancy increased by eight years for both men and women to 82 and 88 years respectively in the last 20 years, the public rental housing stock increased from 704,300 flats in 1997 to more than 760,000 flats in 2017.

Almost every nation on Earth has laws to protect its national security. That is a fact in the same way that most countries have proper extradition laws that also govern the treatment of fugitives.

Despite that, some businessmen and investors have been very worried for the past couple of weeks over the national security law initiated by the National People’s Congress. This is understandable because of the unknown factor. But I do not think this period of uncertainty will last very long. In fact, I feel certain they would welcome the new law before long because this new legislation will effectively tackle the disruptive social unrest that plagued Hong Kong for the greater part of last year. For sure, attempts will be made to reignite it once the current pandemic is brought under control.

The Hang Seng Index closed down 5.6 percent on May 22, the biggest single-day percentage drop in five years. However, even though many Western media outlets predicted “the death of Hong Kong”, this is false. In the long run, once the initial storm is spent, this new legislation will prove to be very beneficial because it will bring back stability and security, the essential factors to lure back investors and to put the hearts of all foreign businesses already in Hong Kong at ease. In fact, the Hang Seng Index has recouped its lost ground.

According to some investors, it will eventually help return Hong Kong to a favored destination for investment as investors need stability and security, although in the short term, some skittish investors and high-net-worth individuals might transfer their assets to Singapore or other Western financial centers.

Hong Kong will weather the inevitable near-term turmoil, but Hong Kong will fare much better in the longer term because both the central and Hong Kong governments have made unequivocal commitments to its future. And the new security law is self-evident of this commitment.

The way I see it, China has only two options: To tolerate the destructive anarchy, or adopt this national security law. Neither of the two is a good option in the short term.  Senior Chinese officials tasked with the Hong Kong portfolio have publicly asserted that 99.9 percent of Hong Kongers will not be affected by this new law since it is targeting only separatist activities, subversion of state power, terrorism and foreign interference. But we cannot prevent the fearmongering being stirred up by the political opposition and their woefully misinformed young extremist supporters because our inviolate freedom of speech ensures that they can have their say, even against the central and Hong Kong SAR governments!

Finally, we can take assurance from the fact that Hong Kong went through the Asian financial crisis, SARS, the global financial crisis and also the COVID-19 pandemic without any significant outflow of capital. Hong Kongers should not be overly concerned over short-term normal market fluctuations but should instead redouble their efforts to build a new and stronger Hong Kong that can not only withstand occasional uncertainties but achieve greater successes.

The author holds a doctorate in Hong Kong real estate law and economics, and has worked as a business analyst for a Hong Kong publicly listed company.

The views do not necessarily reflect those of China Daily.