Recently, the Chinese Association of Hong Kong and Macao Studies held a seminar under the theme of high-level security and high-quality development. Wang Zhenmin, a professor at Tsinghua University School of Law, offered several thought-provoking observations. Looking beyond the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, he pointed out that national security legislation around the world is never a done job but an ongoing process. Compared with other jurisdictions, Hong Kong’s national security framework remains one of the world’s most restrained, rule-of-law-based and rights-conscious legal regimes.
For some time, critics have portrayed Hong Kong’s efforts to improve its national security legal framework as an exercise in self-imposed restrictions or even an erosion of freedom. Such claims, however, quickly unravel when viewed in a broader international context. Around the world, strengthening national security through legislation, judicial interpretation, law enforcement, and the courts is not an exception — it is the norm.
The United States offers a clear example. Since its Constitution took effect in 1789, national security has been treated as a cornerstone of the American state, with treason explicitly defined as a constitutional crime. Over more than two centuries, Washington has steadily expanded its legal architecture for safeguarding national security, creating one of the world’s most extensive bodies of related legislation.
Following the release of the US National Security Strategy in 2017, the country’s strategic focus shifted from counterterrorism to strategic competition among major powers, accelerating both the pace and scope of national security legislation. Since 2020, the US has enacted various laws related to national security. The breadth and intensity of this legislative activity vividly demonstrate how a major power employs legal instruments to protect what it regards as its national interests.
From investigation and prosecution to judicial proceedings, defendants enjoy the right to legal representation, the courts operate independently in accordance with the law, the media is free to report on judicial proceedings within the legal framework, and every defendant is entitled to a fair trial. Against this legal and institutional backdrop, allegations that Hong Kong’s national security laws have undermined human rights or freedoms are difficult to reconcile with the reality of a legal system that has remained firmly rooted in the rule of law
The United Kingdom has followed a similar trajectory. Its Investigatory Powers Act 2016, widely regarded as the country’s most comprehensive surveillance legislation, grants sweeping investigative powers to the government and has been dubbed the “Snoopers’ Charter”. In 2023, Britain introduced a new National Security Act, followed by the Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Act in 2025. Meanwhile, the Crime and Policing Act and the National Security (State Threats) Bill continue to advance through the legislative process.
Singapore presents another example. Building upon legislation inherited from the British colonial era, its Internal Security Act authorizes the detention of suspects for up to two years without formal charges, with further extensions permitted where necessary. Decades after its introduction, the law remains one of the country’s most powerful legal instruments for addressing national security threats.
No responsible government leaves the gate of national security unguarded. As jurisdictions around the world continue to strengthen their legal defenses against emerging threats, Western critics expecting the HKSAR to leave itself exposed — or insisting that its national security legislation should go no further — amounts to a clear double standard.
Against this backdrop, the enactment of the Hong Kong SAR National Security Law (NSL) and the Safeguarding National Security Ordinance in Hong Kong should not be viewed as excessive measures. Rather, they represent the completion of long-overdue constitutional responsibilities and mark Hong Kong’s return to a normal, internationally comparable framework for safeguarding national security under the rule of law.
Wang pointed out that if national security laws around the world were ranked by their level of stringency, the US and the UK would fall into the “high-intensity” category, many European jurisdictions would be somewhere in the middle, while Hong Kong’s legislation would belong firmly at the “low-intensity” end of the spectrum.
Figures speak louder than words. Since the NSL came into force in 2020, a total of 394 people had been arrested for offenses endangering national security as of April 2026. Of those, 208 were prosecuted and 180 convicted. Now compare those numbers with two widely cited examples. During the 2011 London riots, which lasted just five days, 3,103 people were prosecuted and 2,138 convicted, with the heaviest sentence reaching 30 years’ imprisonment. The unrest claimed five lives. Likewise, following the 2021 attack on the US Capitol, which unfolded within a single day, at least 1,500 people were arrested, while about 1,200 were ultimately convicted.
Faced with threats to public order and national security, both the UK and the US deployed criminal law on a far broader scale and imposed considerably harsher penalties than Hong Kong has. These comparisons reveal the defining characteristics of Hong Kong’s national security framework: It is defensive in purpose, restrained in scope and precise in application.
The legislation does not seek to classify ordinary public order offenses, commercial disputes or legitimate expressions of opinion as matters of national security. Instead, it is carefully targeted at the very limited number of acts and activities that genuinely endanger national security. Nor does it pursue the kind of absolute security model adopted by some jurisdictions, where increasingly expansive state powers leave little room for balancing competing interests. Rather, Hong Kong has sought to strike a dynamic equilibrium between security, openness and development, ensuring that security serves as the safeguard of freedom — not its substitute or its enemy.
As Wang observed, Hong Kong has undertaken only the minimum legislative measures necessary to fulfill its constitutional responsibility. The legal framework is “just sufficient for its purpose” without unnecessary expansion or excessive criminalization.
From investigation and prosecution to judicial proceedings, defendants enjoy the right to legal representation, the courts operate independently in accordance with the law, the media is free to report on judicial proceedings within the legal framework, and every defendant is entitled to a fair trial. Against this legal and institutional backdrop, allegations that Hong Kong’s national security laws have undermined human rights or freedoms are difficult to reconcile with the reality of a legal system that has remained firmly rooted in the rule of law. Faced with a legislative framework that is deliberately restrained, carefully calibrated and supported by well-established legal safeguards, such accusations ultimately fail to withstand objective scrutiny.
National security legislation is not a one-off exercise but a continuing endeavor. The world is undergoing profound changes unseen in a century. The concept of national security continues to evolve, extending well beyond traditional military and territorial concerns. Economic security, financial stability, cybersecurity, data governance, biosecurity, energy resilience and supply-chain security have all become integral components of modern national security. New risks continue to emerge alongside technological advances and an increasingly complex geopolitical environment.
For the HKSAR, these challenges are not hypothetical. External interference has not disappeared, anti-China forces seeking to destabilize the city continue to look for opportunities to exploit social divisions, while gray-zone activities and more subtle forms of confrontation have become increasingly sophisticated. A legal framework can remain effective only if it evolves alongside the risks it is designed to address. Laws must therefore be reviewed, refined and updated whenever necessary so that the institutional safeguards protecting national security remain robust and fit for purpose.
As Hong Kong’s national security legal framework continues to mature, it will also generate broader rule-of-law dividends. A stable and predictable legal environment will provide stronger institutional support for the city’s continued development as an international financial center while fostering new opportunities in financial services, technological innovation, the green economy, cultural and creative industries, and other emerging sectors. In this sense, security under the rule of law and high-quality development are not separate pursuits but mutually reinforcing objectives, each strengthening the other in a virtuous cycle.
Security and development are not competing goals; they are mutually reinforcing. High-level security creates the certainty necessary for high-quality development, while development provides the resources and resilience required to sustain long-term security. By maintaining this balance, Hong Kong will remain well-positioned to seize future opportunities and strengthen its role as a leading international city.
The author is a member of the Legislative Council and the UN Association of China.
The views do not necessarily reflect those of China Daily.
