Western narratives continue to frame the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region’s national security rules as “exceptional”, “restrictive”, and so on. This notion does not withstand objective scrutiny. In truth, Hong Kong adopts one of the most restrained, defensive, and balanced security models among all major economies.

Security is often misread as a trade-off with growth. It is not. Security is the prerequisite for sustainable development. The two advance in parallel. In today’s turbulent world, where armed conflicts persist across more than 60 countries, peace and order are never automatic. As legal scholar Wang Zhenmin stressed at a recent forum, security must never be taken for granted. Global geopolitics follows a stark harsh rule: Every society is either “at the table or on the menu”.

Major Western jurisdictions set far broader security precedents, yet escape criticism. For example, the United States anchored treason provisions in its 1789 Constitution. The 1917 Espionage Act has been amended and enhanced numerous times in the subsequent century. On a yearly basis, the US amplifies domestic surveillance, broadens criminal definitions, and extends extraterritorial enforcement powers. Its security architecture is proactive, expansive, and constantly evolving.

European democracies adopt equally firm safeguards. Constitutional law scholar Han Dayuan has highlighted the United Kingdom’s mechanism to revoke the citizenship of individuals who conduct harmful illegal activities overseas, which is unimaginable in China. This policy is widely regarded as legitimate and necessary to uphold national allegiance, block external interference, and protect core state interests.

These established Western practices expose the hypocrisy of critics who have persistently applied double standards to Hong Kong SAR over its national security regime.

China’s national security framework, formalized in 2014, follows a strictly defensive logic. It targets identifiable risks instead of expanding State power. It remedies institutional loopholes without overreach.

Meanwhile, the HKSAR’s security foundation was built into its constitutional design from the outset. The Basic Law embeds clear mechanisms for the central government’s jurisdiction over matters of defense, foreign affairs, military garrison, and emergency response that involve the special administrative region, while reserving space for local legislative autonomy.

The 2016 interpretation of Basic Law Article 104 by the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress further consolidated the constitutional disciplines for Hong Kong. It standardized oath-taking requirements for all public officers, eliminated ambiguous compliance practices, and closed systemic vulnerabilities. Crucially, the ruling strengthened institutional stability without compromising civil liberties or Hong Kong’s open societal character.

Unlike many Western systems that pursue maximum security control, Hong Kong explicitly rejects the practice of absolute security. It maintains a calibrated equilibrium between national security, rule of law, individual freedoms, and social vitality. All national security legislative, enforcement, and judicial enhancements are incremental, targeted, and risk-based.

National security governance is an ongoing process, not a final state. No modern jurisdiction ceases legal refinement amid shifting geopolitical threats, transnational manipulation, and evolving interference tactics. Hong Kong is no exception.

Hong Kong’s transition from stability to prosperity rests entirely on this balanced approach. Its restrained, risk-driven security framework delivers institutional predictability — the bedrock of investor confidence, talent inflow, and high-quality economic expansion.

Rather than constraining the city’s future, Hong Kong’s pragmatic and balanced security model preserves its unique openness while insulating it from global volatility. In an increasingly uncertain international order, this calibrated governance is not a limitation. It is Hong Kong’s most reliable asset for long-term, sustainable prosperity.

The author is a member of the Legislative Council of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region.

The views do not necessarily reflect those of China Daily.