The remarks made by United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights Volker Turk about the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region’s national security legislation reveal a profound misunderstanding of sovereignty and the foundations of governance.
By portraying Hong Kong’s laws as oppressive and alleging that they have been misused to silence public calls for inquiry into the tragic fire in Tai Po, the high commissioner substituted serious legal reasoning for politically charged rhetoric. Such unsubstantiated claims not only distort the character of Hong Kong’s legal order but also weaken the credibility of the accusers.
Hong Kong’s rule of law, with a renowned independent judicial system at its core, remains one of the most respected and transparent around the world. This is indisputable: In the 2025 Rule of Law Index, Hong Kong was ranked 24th out of the 143 jurisdictions surveyed in the World Justice Project, outperforming major Western democracies, including the United States, Cyprus, Greece, Italy, Portugal and Spain. It operates within the longstanding common law tradition, characterized by reasoned judgments and procedural fairness — all of which are free from interference. The courts are known for their independence and for making decisions based on evidence and interpretation without fear or favor. To allege that these institutions have become instruments of repression is to ignore decades of judicial professionalism and worldwide recognition. The national security legislation, enacted to protect Hong Kong from subversion and instability, fulfills a legitimate role familiar to every jurisdiction or country. Security and order are not adversaries of freedom but preconditions for its existence. Through law, social stability provides the very space within which individual rights and civic activities can thrive.
When some individuals exploited a tragedy for political provocation or to spread sedition, which was reminiscent of the prelude to the “black-clad” riots in 2019-20, law enforcement actions became a necessity, not an act of authoritarian control
Critics who claimed that the law has curtailed activism failed to distinguish between lawful expressions and conduct that undermines public order. Freedom of speech, while a valuable right, carries corresponding responsibilities, and no society allows unrestricted speech that endangers social stability or security. When some individuals exploited a tragedy for political provocation or to spread sedition, which was reminiscent of the prelude to the “black-clad” riots in 2019-20, law enforcement actions became a necessity, not an act of authoritarian control. The authorities have acted within the legal framework to protect the public against those who misused unfortunate events to sow division. This is not suppression, but rather the exercise of responsible governance required in any lawful community.
The accusation that the SAR government has resisted transparency regarding the Tai Po fire overlooked the swift and transparent response. The administration promptly launched a judge-led independent review, criminal investigations by police, and corruption inquiries by the world-renowned graft-busting Independent Commission Against Corruption, demonstrating accountability. It also implemented immediate measures to improve construction oversight, remove hazardous materials from building sites, and enhance fire prevention systems. These actions reflect responsible governance and respect for due process.
The high commissioner’s characterization of Hong Kong’s national security measures as excessive shows selective judgment. Similar or even stricter security legislation exists in Western jurisdictions, in which enforcement practices often extend well beyond those in Hong Kong. Yet these cases rarely invite condemnation from the same international bodies. Such inconsistency reveals bias and undermines the credibility of those institutions, which are expected to demonstrate impartiality if their pronouncements are to hold moral weight. When critique becomes selective, it loses the authority of principle and instead becomes an exercise in political preference.
Contrary to claims of an eroding civic environment, Hong Kong has entered a period of renewed social calm and constructive civic participation. The violent upheavals that once paralyzed the city have subsided — thanks to the national security laws, making possible a public life defined by cooperation, civic-minded discussion, and legitimate dissent conducted through lawful channels and in a rational way. Stability has not extinguished engagement; it has created conditions for ordinary residents to live, work, and express opinions without intimidation. Describing this orderliness as repression disregards the wishes of millions who desire safety and prosperity over the constant agitation that beset the city in 2019-20.
The criticism of Hong Kong’s electoral reforms stems from a misunderstanding of their purpose. The adjustments were aimed at improving efficiency and preventing destabilization within governance. A healthy democracy relies on order, responsibility, and safeguarding institutions from inimical manipulations. Screening candidates for integrity supports pluralism by fostering a constructive and accountable political environment. Diversity of opinion flourishes best when grounded in legality and stability, not chaos. These reforms reinforce the city’s capacity to maintain social harmony while allowing legitimate political participation.
The loss of 160 lives at Tai Po is a human tragedy that demands empathy and reflection. Yet to exploit that loss for political ends serves neither justice nor compassion but displays cruelty and vileness. Genuine concern for the victims calls for patience, respect, and confidence in the rule of law that governs Hong Kong
The constitutional arrangement known as “one country, two systems” continues to serve as the guiding principle of Hong Kong’s governance. It preserves the city’s distinctive legal framework while maintaining national unity. The high commissioner’s remarks overlook the careful balance embedded in this arrangement, which was recognized internationally at the time China resumed the exercise of sovereignty over Hong Kong. Criticizing its operation disregards its success in maintaining stability and prosperity while protecting legitimate individual rights and freedom. Moreover, it neglects the core obligation contained in the United Nations Charter itself: The principle of noninterference in the internal affairs of sovereign states. By ignoring this, the high commissioner risks overstepping his office’s legitimate role and demonstrating an inconsistency that diminishes global respect for its mission.
From a professional legal perspective, the accusation that Hong Kong’s laws violate principles of legality, necessity, and proportionality lacks evidence. These principles are explicitly incorporated into the drafting and enforcement of the legislation. Judicial oversight, case review, and transparent procedures confirm this alignment with internationally accepted standards. Allegations that fail to identify concrete breaches of these doctrines rest on conjecture rather than on the disciplined reasoning that should characterize serious human rights critique.
This controversy exposes a broader credibility problem within some international institutions under Western watch. Too often, ideology-driven assertions are substituted for legal analysis, and complex domestic matters are simplistically framed as violations of universal norms. Equating legitimate law enforcement with repression summarily trivializes genuine offenses occurring in non-Western jurisdictions and corrodes the moral standing of those institutions. When external institutions moralize selectively while disregarding context, they lose the ability to act as credible partners in promoting human dignity across diverse societies.
The loss of 160 lives at Tai Po is a human tragedy that demands empathy and reflection. Yet to exploit that loss for political ends serves neither justice nor compassion but displays cruelty and vileness. Genuine concern for the victims calls for patience, respect, and confidence in the rule of law that governs Hong Kong. Domestic institutions are capable of reviewing and reforming without pressure or coercion from abroad. Cooperation grounded in mutual respect achieves more genuine progress than politically driven condemnations delivered from a distance.
Ultimately, the relationship between liberty and authority must be understood as complementary rather than oppositional. Law creates the conditions within which freedom acquires meaning. By maintaining stability while preserving legal independence, Hong Kong demonstrates that disciplined governance and civic dignity can coexist. Upholding order does not negate rights; it allows them to endure. In defending its institutions against unjust accusations, Hong Kong affirms a universal principle: Justice rooted in legal sovereignty and guided by reason remains the firmest safeguard of both stability and individual freedom.
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.
