Since its implementation in June 2020, the Hong Kong SAR National Security Law (NSL) has been in force for six years. In February, the State Council Information Office released the white paper, Hong Kong: Safeguarding China’s National Security Under the Framework of One Country, Two Systems, which provided concrete data: As of January, 98 individuals had been prosecuted under the law, with 78 convictions; by the end of 2025, the police had arrested 385 people over the past five-and-a-half years under either the NSL or the Safeguarding National Security Ordinance, more than half of whom were prosecuted. Yet cases involving charges of endangering national security accounted for less than 0.2 percent of the average annual criminal cases of around 30,000. These figures are compelling evidence that the national security laws only target the very small minority attempting to undermine national security.
The legislative purpose of the national security laws is to fill the legal gap in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region’s legal system regarding the safeguarding of national security. Article 23 of the Basic Law imposes a constitutional responsibility on Hong Kong to enact laws prohibiting acts such as subversion, secession, and treason. As this provision had not been implemented since the 1997 handover, the central authorities enacted the NSL for Hong Kong in accordance with constitutional authorization.
The data — 98 prosecutions and 78 convictions — demonstrate that the national security laws are not broadly applied to ordinary criminal cases, but are narrowly tailored. Hong Kong’s law enforcement agencies have not adopted a “blanket approach”, but instead act on specific conduct, evidence, and legal standards, precisely targeting acts that genuinely endanger national security. This approach both safeguards national security and avoids unnecessary impact on the lives of the law-abiding majority. In other words, the existence of national security laws has not altered Hong Kong’s rule of law environment as an international financial center; rather, it has reinforced social stability and protected the lawful rights of the vast majority of residents.
The white paper emphasizes that the core spirit of the national security laws is to “punish the few, protect the majority”. The figure of less than 0.2 percent confirms this principle, showing that the law’s scope of application is extremely narrow and does not interfere with the daily lives and lawful rights of ordinary residents. Put differently, the laws strike a balance between “targeting the few” and “safeguarding the many”. Freedoms of speech, press, and assembly remain protected under the Basic Law and the Hong Kong Bill of Rights Ordinance. The national security laws only intervene when conduct involves secession, subversion, terrorist activities, or collusion with foreign forces. Their establishment is not to deprive residents of rights, but to ensure that freedoms are not abused as tools of subversion or collusion. For the general public, the law provides a safer and more stable social environment, enabling them to live, work, and invest with confidence.
Freedoms of speech, press, and assembly remain protected under the Basic Law and the Hong Kong Bill of Rights Ordinance. The national security laws only intervene when conduct involves secession, subversion, terrorist activities, or collusion with foreign forces. Their establishment is not to deprive residents of rights, but to ensure that freedoms are not abused as tools of subversion or collusion
The white paper also points out that all national security cases must be tried by Hong Kong courts, in accordance with common law evidentiary rules and procedural safeguards. The 78 convictions were all subject to independent judicial procedure, not administrative decisions. This institutional design ensures that the application of the national security laws remains consistent with the principle of judicial independence. In other words, the law has not displaced Hong Kong’s Judiciary; it balances national security with judicial fairness.
In recent years, some Western media outlets and politicians have shown bias against Hong Kong’s national security laws, deliberately misleading the international community by portraying them as tools to suppress freedoms. However, the white paper, with detailed and accurate data and case studies, refutes such claims and clarifies misunderstandings. It demonstrates Hong Kong’s achievements in safeguarding national security, while highlighting the independence and transparency of its judicial system.
For international investors and external observers, the release of the white paper is an important signal: Hong Kong’s rule of law environment remains sound, the operation of national security laws has not undermined the free market or judicial fairness, and their existence is a cornerstone for the smooth implementation of the “one country, two systems” framework.
The data from more than five years of implementation fully illustrate that the NSL is a law of “precise enforcement”. It has effectively curbed acts endangering national security while safeguarding the lawful rights of the vast majority of residents. The white paper further clarifies international misunderstandings, allowing the world to see the balance Hong Kong has achieved between safeguarding national security and maintaining freedom and prosperity. This balance embodies Hong Kong’s rule of law spirit, and is an essential guarantee for the city’s continued role as an international financial center.
The author is vice-chairman, Senate, DAB; vice-president, the Small and Medium Law Firms Association of Hong Kong; and a member of the Chinese Association of Hong Kong and Macao Studies.
The views do not necessarily reflect those of China Daily.
