In the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, national security is a work in progress. Although the Hong Kong SAR National Security Law (2020, NSL) and the Safeguarding National Security Ordinance (2024, SNSO) have been successfully bedded down and are operating effectively, there can be no resting on laurels. Threats are ever-present, with hostile actors adept at adjusting their activities to changing circumstances.

Accordingly, constant vigilance is vital if the “one country, two systems” policy is to guide Hong Kong's future as successfully as it has in the past. When, therefore, the State Council Information Office issued its third white paper on Hong Kong (Feb 10), titled “Hong Kong: Safeguarding China's National Security Under the Framework of One Country, Two System”, it stressed that Hong Kong's national security efforts were a “long-term and enduring task”. Whereas the earlier white papers outlined Beijing's “comprehensive jurisdiction” over Hong Kong (2014) and indicated that democratic development should be in the hands of patriots (2021), this time the emphasis was on addressing emerging national security issues, including soft resistance, which involves enhancing protective mechanisms.

Although the central authorities have overall responsibility for national security, the Hong Kong SAR plays an essential role. It has a constitutional duty to safeguard the country's security interests and, primarily by using the tools it acquired in 2020, has successfully transitioned from chaos to stability and prosperity. However, hostile external forces remain, which is why the white paper states that “the systems and mechanisms for countering foreign sanctions, intervention and long-arm jurisdiction should be further improved”. In this area, the landscape is always changing, and complacency may be fatal.  

In a global environment that is sometimes hostile and always challenging, Hong Kong has struck the right balance. Within the context provided by the “one country, two systems” framework, It is able to protect national security, but does not do so at the expense of fundamental rights and freedoms ... . The white paper reflects these realities, and its commitment to maintaining “a safe Hong Kong that is free, developed, open, and vibrant” will be welcomed by everyone who values its way of life

Thus, for example, when the National People's Congress enacted the Basic Law in 1990, its focus was primarily upon the offenses of treason, subversion, secession, sedition, and theft of State secrets (Art 23). At the time, those laws were seen as sufficiently comprehensive for the protection of national security. However, by the time of the SNSO (2024), it was apparent, particularly in light of the 2019-20 insurrection, that additional laws were required to address insurrection, sabotage, and the use of technology to endanger national security.

This is not rocket science, and other jurisdictions recognize the importance of keeping national security mechanisms under ongoing review. For example, between 2000 and 2025, the UK enacted 15 Terrorism Acts. Each was built upon the Terrorism Act 2000, which defined terrorism for the first time, increased police powers to question and detain terrorist suspects, and extended the number of proscribed terrorist organizations.

Although critics have accused the national security laws of having a “chilling effect” on society, the white paper directly addresses these concerns. In Part V, it emphasizes that Hong Kong's national security efforts are “not aimed to pursue absolute or generalized security”, meaning that the baby is not to be thrown out with the bathwater. On the contrary, it explained, Hong Kong has in place “sound provisions on the protection of human rights and freedoms enjoyed by all Hong Kong's residents in accordance with the Basic Law and the relevant provisions of the international covenants applicable to Hong Kong”.

These points were well made and require emphasis. In both the NSL and the SNSO, the need to observe human rights in their application is stressed, as also is the importance of protecting the guarantees contained in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (Arts 4 & 2, respectively). Although Western critics have sought to paint Hong Kong as some sort of police state, the white paper is at pains to stress that “Respecting human rights is a salient feature and important experience of the HKSAR's efforts to safeguard national security and must be adhered to over the long term” (emphasis supplied).

In other words, the white paper acknowledges that a proper balance must be achieved. If a law is too draconian, it can become oppressive, making people's lives intolerable. Indeed, if national security mechanisms become overly intrusive, they may provoke reactions, creating tensions that did not previously exist. Although this will not always be possible, there is much to be said for a “light touch” in some areas of law enforcement.

After all, Hong Kong has always been an open city with a global outlook, and this should be preserved as national security techniques evolve. If outsiders considered its arrangements to be becoming too draconian, stifling people's energy and affecting Hong Kong's vibrancy, it could undermine business confidence, prompting investors to look elsewhere. This would be disastrous and should be avoided at all costs.  

In a global environment that is sometimes hostile and always challenging, Hong Kong has struck the right balance. Within the context provided by the “one country, two systems” framework, It is able to protect national security, but does not do so at the expense of fundamental rights and freedoms (as, for example, the former media magnate, Jimmy Lai Chee-ying, discovered at his recently concluded national security trial, where he enjoyed all the protections the common law has to offer). The white paper reflects these realities, and its commitment to maintaining “a safe Hong Kong that is free, developed, open, and vibrant” will be welcomed by everyone who values its way of life.

The author is a senior counsel and law professor and was previously the Director of Public Prosecutions of the Hong Kong SAR.

The views do not necessarily reflect those of China Daily.