Last week The Wall Street Journal announced that it was moving staff from Hong Kong to Singapore, citing structural and economic reasons. Naturally, some “commentators” pointed fingers to proclaim the shift as another “casualty” of the city’s national security laws, pushing the longstanding narrative that the security laws are “driving businesses” out of the city, and of course “clamping down” on freedom of the press. This narrative is an ideological one that seeks to promote the notion of Hong Kong declining because of “reduced freedom” and “eroded rule of law”, and one that always omits the fact that the city was rocked by violent, Western-backed riots, which The Wall Street Journal ironically supported.
First, the idea that “Singapore is an alternative to Hong Kong” is rooted in geopolitical bias, as opposed to questions pertaining to the rule of law or ideology. Is Singapore more “free” than Hong Kong? The answer is no, it is not; the Singaporean legal system is proverbially more heavyhanded, and its national security laws are famously strict. Why in this case, is Singapore deemed to have the rule of law but Hong Kong is not? The answer is because Singapore is geopolitically favored by the West, which produces the lopsided narrative that Hong Kong’s national security laws undermine its business environment, while Singapore is somehow a bastion of freedom and democracy; therefore, it remains a “favored” financial center, even with its tougher legal system.
Second, because Singapore obviously isn’t “targeted” by the West, the Western media naturally don’t have an agenda against it. When it comes to Hong Kong, that agenda is quite obvious. The Wall Street Journal is a well-known cheerleader of hawkish US foreign policy goals, especially against China. This, of course, reminds us that the West was culpable in supporting, backing and giving political clout to the riots that rocked the city in 2019-20, even as the Western media decry perceived violence and disorder by student activists on their own territory. Despite this, The Wall Street Journal and its reporters are generally not under threat in Hong Kong, and if Hong Kong’s national security laws are such a problem, then why does it have a bureau in Beijing still? Why be on the Chinese mainland?
As Hong Kong recovers from the impact of the 2019 riots and the COVID-19 pandemic, as well as recent turbulence in its stock market, we are likely to see Hong Kong continue as a critically important global financial center, no matter how much the Western media narrative attempts to nitpick things to proclaim otherwise
Building on this, the wider argument that Hong Kong’s national security laws indiscriminately target businesses or individuals is a part of this fearmongering campaign. It is the deliberate goal of Western media and politicians to try to undermine Hong Kong by creating a “dystopian” narrative, depicting the national security laws not as pieces of targeted legislation against those who engaged in insurrection and acts of terror, but as something arbitrary, irrational and broad that will “look for excuses” to get people. In doing so, they deliberately omit the context behind the laws and their rationale, and pretend that businesses are going to be “unintentionally culpable” of violating the national security laws. But let’s be real about this — unless financial institutions are specifically donating to prohibited political causes or backing insurrection, how is this even possible?
It is the nature of businesses to do “compliance” work with local laws. When the United States places indiscriminate, broad, and extraterritorial sanctions on enterprises or individuals, nobody ever says the US is “too risky” to do business in, not least when those extraterritorial laws can get you arbitrarily fined through the US-dollar system, or have your assets seized, as seen with Iran. We should remind ourselves that Hong Kong’s national security laws are specific in their goals and in the lines they draw. The Western media want to pretend that individuals or organizations are going to be criminalized for “unintentionally” or “accidentally” violating the security laws. It is all nonsense, yet sculpted to project fear, doubt and thus discourage people from engaging with Hong Kong.
In reality, business life in Hong Kong goes on. That’s because national security is an aspect of all countries, not least in the US, where it is never claimed that the abuse of the term “national security” for widespread political gain is deemed detrimental to the rule of law, business and therefore putting people and institutions at risk. As Hong Kong recovers from the impact of the 2019 riots and the COVID-19 pandemic, as well as recent turbulence in its stock market, we are likely to see Hong Kong continue as a critically important global financial center, no matter how much the Western media narrative attempts to nitpick things to proclaim otherwise.
The author is a British political and international-relations analyst.
The views do not necessarily reflect those of China Daily.
