As the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region heads to another Legislative Council election, a quiet changing of the guard is taking place. A number of long-serving lawmakers — many well into their 70s — have announced they will not seek reelection. For a city that often prides itself on stability, this kind of political turnover is rare, and perhaps overdue.

Hong Kong has entered what officials like to call the “new stage” of development, one that demands not only steady governance but also creative thinking. In that context, the gradual retirement of veteran legislators may be less about departure and more about renewal — a necessary infusion of new ideas, energy and, hopefully, relevance.

Of course, age itself isn’t the problem. Experience brings perspective, and many of these outgoing members have guided Hong Kong through crises and transitions few newcomers could imagine. But politics, like business or culture, cannot thrive on experience alone. Without new participants, ideas stop evolving. And without a bit of healthy competition, even the most dedicated professionals can lose touch with the public mood.

In the Macao Special Administrative Region, younger lawmakers have steadily entered the chamber, reshaping its character. Hong Kong’s legislature, by contrast, has often leaned on the same familiar figures — some having occupied their seats for two decades or more. Their departure opens the door to a more dynamic generation: professionals, entrepreneurs, and community leaders with practical knowledge but perhaps less political training. Whether they can master the subtleties of policymaking, negotiation, and public accountability remains to be seen.

The real issue, though, isn’t age — it’s attitude. Can the next legislature remain cooperative without losing its checks-and-balances function? The city’s executive-led political structure requires lawmakers to perform a delicate balancing act: scrutinizing policies while maintaining harmony with the executive branch. Too many checks and balances risk gridlock; too few risk becoming irrelevant.

To its credit, the current-term SAR government has been marked by an efficient working relationship between the executive and the legislature. Bills have passed smoothly, and exchanges between the chief executive and legislators have taken on a more open, conversational tone. Officials cite this as proof of “positive interaction” and “rational governance”. And indeed, Hong Kong has been spared the theatrics that once paralyzed the chamber.

But efficiency is not the same as vitality. A legislature that agrees on everything risks mistaking consensus for wisdom. Constructive disagreement — voiced respectfully but firmly — is not a sign of dysfunction. It’s the sign of a living, thinking institution. This is why the potential departure of several of the most outspoken members has attracted public notice. They have been vocal in challenging official proposals or demanding greater accountability.

At the same time, there is something admirable about those stepping down. Many frame their decision as “passing the baton” to the next generation — a phrase too easily dismissed as cliche, yet meaningful in a system where few ever seem ready to let go. In politics, as in life, knowing when to leave is as important as knowing when to speak.

For newcomers, the real test will be one of balance: to engage the executive without merely echoing it. Hong Kong is rethinking its economic future, diversifying industries, and positioning itself within the broader national strategy. These are complex tasks that demand not only patriotism but pragmatism, not only loyalty but also critical judgment and constructive suggestions.

Recent changes to legislative procedures — tightening conduct codes and strengthening accountability — show that reform is possible. But discipline must not become deference. Professionalism means being able to disagree intelligently, not staying silent.

Ultimately, what Hong Kong needs is not just a younger legislature, but a wiser one: confident enough to question authority without undermining it, imaginative enough to contribute ideas rather than slogans, and grounded enough to understand the everyday concerns of its residents.

Political maturity is not measured by how quietly one cooperates, but by how responsibly one argues. A healthy legislature should not be a rubber stamp, nor a perpetual protest stage. It should be a forum where competing visions for Hong Kong’s future can coexist and, through debate, find common ground.

For decades, Hong Kong’s greatest strength has been its pragmatism — the ability to adapt without losing direction. As the city looks ahead, its lawmakers must rediscover that same instinct: to govern not by reflex, but by reason.

The retirement of long-serving legislators, then, should not be seen as an end, but as an opportunity — a reminder that no institution can stay relevant without renewal. If the next generation of lawmakers can combine conviction with competence, and independence with insight, the legislature may yet become what it was always meant to be: not a theater, nor an echo chamber, but a place where the city’s best minds work for the public good.

Politics, like Hong Kong itself, must evolve — or risk becoming a museum of its own past.

The author is chairman of the Asia MarTech Society and sits on the advisory boards of several professional organizations, including two universities. 

The views do not necessarily reflect those of China Daily.