Ken Ip says that thanks to the NSL, the city now bears little resemblance to the time when it was frozen by confrontation and uncertainty

For years, debates about the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region have been framed as a binary choice: security or freedom, order or openness, restriction or prosperity. This framing may be rhetorically convenient, but it is intellectually lazy. It assumes that safety constrains liberty, rather than enables it. The white paper just released by China’s State Council Information Office on safeguarding national security in Hong Kong offers a timely opportunity to challenge that assumption.

The document is not merely an exercise in retrospective defense. It advances a broader argument that deserves serious consideration, particularly outside China. Its central logic is straightforward: Without security, political rights, economic freedom, and social stability become fragile and unsustainable. In Hong Kong’s case, the experience of the past decade illustrates this point with unusual clarity.

The white paper traces Hong Kong’s national security challenges well before the unrest that dominated international headlines. Under the Basic Law, the city has always borne the constitutional responsibility to enact national security legislation according to Article 23. Yet for more than two decades, this obligation remained unfulfilled. The result was not benign ambiguity but a structural gap in Hong Kong’s legal framework, one that left the city exposed to political radicalization and external interference.

READ MORE: White paper on HK’s national security a 'new starting point' for future

This vulnerability became painfully visible when large-scale unrest erupted in 2019-20, paralyzing transport, disrupting daily life, and undermining confidence in the city’s capacity to govern itself. At that moment, the debate was no longer theoretical. It was about whether a global financial center could continue to function amid sustained instability and chaos.

The response, as described in the white paper, was a reassertion of first principles rather than a departure from them. National sovereignty, security, and development interests, it argues, are not optional features of the “one country, two systems” framework. They are its highest principles. Any autonomy detached from these foundations is not durable autonomy, but a temporary illusion.

Seen through this lens, the enactment of the Hong Kong SAR National Security Law in June 2020 represented a constitutional correction. The central government intervened not to replace Hong Kong’s institutions, but to close a gap that the city itself had been unable to resolve. The law made clearer the responsibilities at both central and local levels, reinforcing the overall governance structure rather than dismantling it.

The outcomes since then are difficult to ignore. Political violence has disappeared from the streets. Legislative paralysis has given way to policy execution. Long-stalled initiatives in housing, infrastructure, and economic development have resumed. Hong Kong today bears little resemblance to the city frozen by confrontation and uncertainty only a few years ago.

The white paper goes further, challenging the widespread assumption that security and rights exist in tension. It asserts that safeguarding national security is, in practice, a means of protecting the rights, dignity, and well-being of Hong Kong’s 7.5 million residents. This is not framed as an abstract theory, but exists as a lived reality. A stable legal environment has restored predictability for businesses, strengthened judicial efficiency, and renewed investor confidence.

Economic indicators cited in the document are intended to support this case. Hong Kong remains among the world’s leading international financial centers. Its reputation for economic freedom has endured. Global competitiveness and talent rankings show recovery rather than retreat. These figures do not suggest perfection, but they do rebut the narrative that national security necessarily suffocates openness.

A particularly significant development highlighted in the white paper is Hong Kong’s completion of Article 23 legislation in 2024. This marked the first time the city fully discharged its constitutional duty to safeguard national security through local law. In doing so, Hong Kong embedded security governance more firmly within the local legal system, reducing reliance on exceptional arrangements and reinforcing the rule of law.

The white paper also addresses the principle of “patriots administering Hong Kong”, a phrase often caricatured abroad. In essence, it reflects a standard expectation found in most political systems: Those entrusted with public power accept the constitutional order of the state they serve. In Hong Kong’s context, this principle seeks to ensure that governance is conducted within, rather than against, the framework of “one country, two systems”.

Crucially, the white paper is not backward-looking. Its emphasis is on integration rather than closure, on security as a platform for development rather than an end in itself. It asserts that in an era of geopolitical tension, economic fragmentation, and technological disruption, Hong Kong’s resilience depends on aligning security with openness, not treating them as competing values.

ALSO READ: White paper on national security serves as 'spring thunder'

This notion may unsettle audiences accustomed to viewing “liberalization” as irreversible and linear. Yet recent global experience suggests otherwise. Markets cannot function amid chronic instability. Rights cannot be meaningfully exercised when public order collapses. Autonomy cannot survive if governance becomes unworkable.

This does not mean debate about Hong Kong’s future should cease. On the contrary, serious debate requires moving beyond slogans and binaries. The real question is not whether security matters, but how it is institutionalized and framed by law, and aligned with long-term development. The white paper represents an attempt — imperfect but substantive — to articulate that balance.

In a world increasingly defined by uncertainty, Hong Kong’s experience offers a valuable lesson. Stability is not the enemy of freedom. More often, it is the condition that allows freedom to endure. The challenge ahead is not choosing between security and openness, but ensuring that one continues to sustain the other.

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.