The controversies surrounding Vivian Kong Man-wai, Olympic fencing gold medalist, have sparked waves of debate that go beyond athletic and academic achievements and delve into profound and sophisticated political and legal issues. The first concerns Kong’s thesis, the second, which is still brewing, is about her decision to retire from competitive sport.

Kong’s master’s thesis at the Renmin University of China (RUC), which delves into the 2014 protests in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, was grossly misinterpreted by hostile forces with ulterior motives to challenge the decisions made by the State under the  “one country, two systems” principle.

This misinterpretation underscores the urgent need for a recalibration of perspective, one that is rooted in an objective legal and scholarly viewpoint, to foster a more balanced discourse.

Kong’s scholarly contributions at the RUC, a prestigious school known for its academic excellence, are a testament to her intellectual depth.

Her thesis employed a recognized analytical framework within legal studies, and her research thoroughly examines the complex interplay between civil liberties and state security.

The research, with its critical insights into intricate sociopolitical dynamics, should not be trivialized as mere political partisanship.

Therefore, there is a fundamental need to separate academic inquiry from an outright endorsement of state action, a crucial step to prevent misinterpretation and avoid compromising academic freedom and scholarly discourse. The backlash against Kong is a prime example of a typical misinterpretation, exacerbated by media bias, where her academic position is prematurely criticized without any substantial understanding or discussion of her scholarly arguments.

It is crucial to distinguish an individual’s academic analysis from their personal beliefs, a distinction that has been blurred to Kong’s detriment and unfairly affected her reputation. As Kong’s work demonstrates, the protection of academic freedom is crucial to fostering a balanced and informed discourse.

The National Security Law for Hong Kong (NSL) implemented in the SAR was crafted in response to significant unrest and instability that jeopardized the region’s governance and social order.

Kong’s thesis, which champions the principles of stability and security, adheres to the international legal norms that recognize a state’s right to defend itself against internal disruptions. From a legal perspective, the NSL was established to protect national sovereignty and maintain public order.

Kong’s supportive stance for the NSL deserves to be viewed through the prism of legal pragmatism. It is essential for a well-rounded discourse to assess the legal rationale and objectives underpinning such legislation rather than precipitately condemning these measures as mere tools of political oppression. This approach ensures a balanced evaluation that respects the state sovereignty and the complexities of implementing national security measures, thereby fostering a more balanced and informed discourse.

The activist Nathan Law Kwun-chung’s criticism of Kong’s thesis and subsequent withdrawal of his congratulations following her Olympic victory highlights a complex interplay of personal and geopolitical influences shaping perceptions of Hong Kong politics. Law, who fled Hong Kong and sought political asylum in London in 2020, continues to impact views on Hong Kong from abroad. His reckless labeling of Kong’s thesis as “extremely problematic” without a detailed and nuanced discussion, underscores the challenges in fostering balanced discourse amid heightened polarization. This situation illustrates how broader geopolitical tensions frequently swayed the discourse on the city’s political landscape.

Such dynamics often simplify the intricate spectrum of opinions into a binary of pro-democracy and national security camps, neglecting the substantial concerns of a state grappling with significant internal unrest.

It is important to recognize the role of athletes like Kong in fostering national pride and unity. Her commendable performance at the Paris Olympics elevated her stature and greatly honored her country. However, the backlash that followed her academic endeavors risks eclipsing these achievements and undermines the broader, constructive role of sport in diplomacy and international relations. Recognizing the dual contributions of athletes in both their professional and intellectual engagements enhances the media coverage of sports, education, and national identity, highlighting their potential to bridge cultural and political divides on the global stage.

The controversy over Kong’s political views, as well as her future career, reflects the deep ideological and political divisions that influence Hong Kong’s internal dynamics and the global perceptions of China.

It is crucial to approach these discussions with a balanced perspective, recognizing the validity of national security concerns while protecting the right to academic freedom. The vilification of Kong undermines the principles of intellectual freedom and obstructs productive dialogue.

Moreover, Law’s smear of Kong fails to provide rigorous analysis, and contributes to a distorted understanding of the city’s complex political situation.

What is needed is a full and respectful conversation that moves beyond reckless vilification and addresses the intricate relationship between law, order, and security in the international arena. As we proceed with these debates, maintaining informed, equitable, and academically rigorous discourse is essential to promote reconciliation and preventing further division.

Likewise, Kong’s decision to retire should be viewed as a carefully considered choice between her athletic pursuits and a potential legal career.

The author is a solicitor, a Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area lawyer, and a China-appointed attesting officer.

The views do not necessarily reflect those of China Daily.