Many things are said about Hong Kong in the West, some right, such as those praising Hong Kong’s prowess in finance; some — in my opinion — wrong, such as media outlets branding the city’s economy “over” when it is just transforming and adapting to current times.
One of the things that I have heard lately is that some critics have labeled the recently held Legislative Council (LegCo) election as a “sham”. I think this requires an objective analysis.
Let me start by saying that LegCo elections are legitimate under Hong Kong’s constitutional order; they are recognized within the framework of the Basic Law, the constitutional document that provides the foundation for the city’s governance; and they reflect a model that aims to balance representation, stability and long-term development. At a time when the city is still coping with the sorrow caused by the devastating Tai Po fire, this election also served a deeper purpose. It reminded Hong Kong that unity, confidence and constructive participation matter more than ever.
While it is acceptable to debate what happens in other countries, I have always noticed that, in some people’s perception, Hong Kong as an international city is some sort of foreign concession. Apparently, to them, it does not belong exclusively to China, even though its sovereignty is indisputable; therefore, they assume that Hong Kong’s future should be a matter of discussion among several countries, even if it pertains to the city’s internal affairs.
To draw a parallel, from 1923 to 1956, the city of Tangier in Morocco was jointly administered by several foreign powers as an “international city”. China also suffered such colonial interference in the 19th and 20th centuries. Foreign concessions existed during the late stages of Imperial China. Needless to say, these concessions were acquired under duress through unequal treaties.
When the British landed in 1841, they did not take control of the whole of Hong Kong in perpetuity. Hong Kong Island was ceded by the Qing Dynasty (1644-1911) to Great Britain in 1842 under the Treaty of Nanking; the Kowloon Peninsula was ceded to Britain in 1860 under the Convention of Peking; and the New Territories were leased to Britain for 99 years in 1898.
To sum up, the LegCo election demonstrates that civic life continues even amid grief. It reflects a society that values order, stability, and progress. It affirms the city’s confidence in its own path of democratic development, rooted in its constitutional order and national context. Most importantly, it reaffirmed the shared belief that Hong Kong’s future can be shaped through participation, unity, and collective determination
In 1839, the Qing emperor instructed Lin Zexu, an incorruptible senior Chinese official, to end the opium trade of British merchants. Lin ordered a large amount of opium to be seized and publicly destroyed and sent a letter to Queen Victoria about the problems caused by opium, stating: “We have heard that in your own country opium is prohibited with the utmost strictness and severity — this is a strong proof that you know full well how hurtful it is to mankind. Since then you do not permit it to injure your own country, you ought not to have the injurious drug transferred to another country.”
The continuation of British administration after 1997 would not have been acceptable to China in any form, since Hong Kong was taken away by the United Kingdom by means of unequal treaties. Following the signing of the Sino-British Joint Declaration, China resumed the exercise of sovereignty over Hong Kong in 1997 under the “one country, two systems” framework, as it also did over Macao in 1999.
The “one country, two systems” framework has been the cornerstone of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region’s progress these last 27 years and will remain the bedrock of the city’s advancement for many decades to come.
Under this principle, the HKSAR continues to enjoy its distinct political, socioeconomic and legal arrangements under a unified China for at least 50 years without change. Note “at least”, which means that 2047 need not be the end of the “one country, two systems” framework.
The Constitution of China and Hong Kong’s Basic Law are not only crucial to the steady progress of the “one country, two systems” principle, but are also vital to the socioeconomic development of the HKSAR, as well as the public’s livelihood and daily life. And it is thanks to the Basic Law that legislative elections are held every four years (as per Article 69 of the Basic Law).
Back to the question about the legitimacy of the LegCo election: Hong Kong’s political setup has never been a mirror image of Western systems and was never designed to replicate them. Its evolution has always followed the Basic Law and the “one country, two systems” principle. Within this arrangement, the design of the electoral system is legal, codified and transparent. The idea was to create a structure that keeps the city stable, reduces polarization and ensures that elected representatives focus on governance rather than confrontation.
Democracy is not a single formula. Around the world, the mechanisms through which citizens participate in political life vary widely. Some democracies use proportional representation. Others use majority systems. Some features appointed officeholders. Others rely on hybrid models. What gives a system value is whether it provides a channel for the public to express expectations, whether it enables institutions to govern effectively, and whether it supports long-term social and economic development. Hong Kong’s system aims to achieve these goals. The structure of LegCo brings together geographical seats, functional representation, an Election Committee constituency, and a clear set of nomination and qualification procedures. These elements reflect the city’s history, its economic makeup and the requirement for stable governance under the Basic Law.
The deeper question is whether the election served the needs of Hong Kong. It did. A city does not recover from a disaster by drifting into division. It heals by reaffirming its sense of shared purpose. The Tai Po fire left a scar on the community, not only because of the scale of the disaster in which 161 died but also because of the profound questions it raised about safety regulation, oversight, and emergency readiness. Residents needed reassurance that the governance system remains functional, that public institutions remain accountable, and that lawmakers will support the reforms required to prevent such disasters from ever happening again. The election served as a reminder that civic life continues, that institutions are stable and that democratic participation remains meaningful.
Western democracies often emphasize adversarial competition. Hong Kong’s system encourages collaboration and stability. Both can function well in their respective environments. The key question is whether the chosen model supports the community’s aspirations. Hong Kong has reached a stage where stability and constructive governance carry enormous value. The world economy remains unpredictable. Global politics has become increasingly polarized. Social fractures in many Western societies have widened. In such an environment, Hong Kong benefits from a political framework that allows government institutions to focus on long-term planning. Different democratic approaches can coexist globally as long as they deliver public confidence, good governance, and steady development. The diversity of democratic practices should be recognized as a reflection of history and culture, not as a hierarchy.
In the coming weeks, the new LegCo will begin its work. Lawmakers will face the dual task of supporting recovery from the Tai Po fire and advancing Hong Kong’s development agenda. The public will expect compassion, diligence and foresight. The government will expect collaboration. The business community will expect clarity. These are reasonable expectations, and the political system is equipped to meet them.
To sum up, the LegCo election demonstrates that civic life continues even amid grief. It reflects a society that values order, stability, and progress. It affirms the city’s confidence in its own path of democratic development, rooted in its constitutional order and national context. Most importantly, it reaffirmed the shared belief that Hong Kong’s future can be shaped through participation, unity, and collective determination.
In this sense, Hong Kong is constantly showing that it has the potential not only to maintain its role as one of the world’s most important financial centers but also to enhance it, thanks to the city’s international role, expertise in the financial and related industries, and its tapping into newer industries like artificial intelligence.
On top of all these are Hong Kong’s involvement in the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area and other relevant projects. All of which are a result of its constitutional framework.
The author is a fintech adviser, a researcher and a former business analyst for a Hong Kong publicly listed company.
The views do not necessarily reflect those of China Daily.
