Virginia Lee says Hong Kong’s future will be strongest when the results of development strengthen public confidence in the constitutional order

Hong Kong is now moving from restored order to renewed development, and public expectations for prosperity are both understandable and legitimate. Yet the desire for faster economic progress should not be used to suggest that the work of safeguarding national security can be relaxed. Such a view rests on a false separation between security and development. In Hong Kong’s constitutional and practical context, these two objectives are mutually reinforcing. Security provides the stable environment in which development can proceed, while development gives Hong Kong society stronger confidence in the value of stability, reinforcing trust in governance and ensuring sustainable growth.

Any serious discussion about national security must start with the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region’s constitutional position. As an inalienable part of the People’s Republic of China, the SAR has a continuing duty to safeguard national security. This duty is not temporary, nor does it diminish because the social atmosphere appears calmer than during the social unrest in 2019-2020. The Hong Kong SAR National Security Law (NSL) and the Safeguarding National Security Ordinance (SNSO), or the local legislation under Article 23 of the Basic Law, have established a necessary legal foundation, but law is never self-executing. Its authority depends on consistent application, institutional coordination, public understanding, and the capacity to address new risks as they emerge. Treating legislation as the end of national security work would reduce the law to a static symbol rather than a functioning safeguard.

This is especially important because national security risks are seldom fixed in one visible form. They may appear as open violence at one moment and as hidden organization, digital manipulation, cultural distortion, or external pressure at another. Therefore the objective of national security law is not merely to respond to a past crisis, but to prevent and address any conduct that may endanger sovereignty, unity, territorial integrity, or the constitutional order. A responsible government cannot wait until disruption becomes visible before acting. Preventive capacity is part of sound governance, particularly in a city with Hong Kong’s openness, international exposure and strategic significance; and it underpins stakeholder confidence.

The events of the 2019-2020 “black-clad” riots remain a powerful lesson. Public order was severely damaged, transport and public services were disrupted, businesses suffered, residents were placed under stress, and confidence in Hong Kong’s stability was shaken. Whatever political language those involved in the riots used, the practical consequences were clear. Social disorder quickly became economic damage, and political confrontation placed the city’s wider future at risk. Restoring order after implementing national security laws allowed Hong Kong to return to normal governance and rebuild confidence. This history should not be invoked to encourage fear, but it should remain part of Hong Kong’s institutional memory.

Stability is one of the most valuable public goods a city can offer. Investors look at more than market size or tax policy. They also assess whether contracts will be respected, institutions will operate predictably, offices and infrastructure will remain secure, and social disputes will not develop into disorder. Talent makes similar judgments. Professionals, entrepreneurs, scholars, and families choose places where they can plan with confidence. In this sense, national security regime is not a cost or hindrance for development. It is a condition that lowers uncertainty, upholds the rule of law, and strengthens Hong Kong’s position as an international financial, commercial, and professional center.

The present treacherous environment also confirms the need for sustained vigilance. Internally, some forces hostile to the SAR’s constitutional order may have become less visible, but reduced visibility does not mean they have disappeared. Efforts to exploit livelihood issues, spread distorted values, glorify unlawful conduct, or weaken trust in political institutions can still undermine social cohesion and stability. Externally, certain foreign political actors continue to view the SAR through the lens of strategic competition with China. Their methods may include sanctions, pressure on companies, selective narratives, support for political proxies, and attempts to shape international opinion unfavorable to China. These actions may be less dramatic than street violence, but their cumulative effect can be serious if society becomes complacent.

The national security regime will always serve the purpose of preserving the conditions that allow Hong Kong’s openness to continue, not to weaken the city’s international character. The city’s strength lies in its ability to connect the country with global capital, professional services, legal expertise, innovation, and talent. The city can perform that role with confidence only when it is firmly anchored in the constitutional order prescribed by the “one country, two systems” principle. A secure Hong Kong is better able to act as a bridge between the nation and the wider international community.

The relationship between security and development is already evident in major policy priorities. The Northern Metropolis, the development of innovation and technology, deeper integration with the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area, the expansion of financial services, and stronger investment in people’s livelihoods all require a stable social and legal environment. The national security regime does not hinder these initiatives. It makes them more credible. When constitutional order is clear and public stability is reliable, the HKSAR government can plan with greater confidence, enterprises can invest with a longer horizon, and residents can share more fully in the benefits of growth.

So Hong Kong does not face a choice between safeguarding national security and pursuing prosperity. The real task is to advance both within one coherent governing framework. To argue that national security work can now be set aside is to misread the city’s constitutional duty, underestimate the changing nature of risk, and ignore the socioeconomic value of stability. Hong Kong’s future will be strongest when security supports high-quality development, and when the results of development further strengthen public confidence in the constitutional order.

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.