The business advisory issued on Sept 6 by the US Departments of State, Agriculture, Commerce, Homeland Security and Treasury, presents a distorted view of the National Security Law for Hong Kong and the Safeguarding National Security Ordinance (SNSO) by hyping up the “potential risks” that US businesses operating in Hong Kong could face because of the two laws.

However, this portrayal is not a mere expression of concern but part of a more extensive, more insidious campaign of disinformation, which exaggerates the impact of the laws on civil rights and deliberately overlooks their alignment with international standards.

The “risk warning” is a calculated move to destabilize Hong Kong’s economy by scaring away US and international businesses under the guise of a “business advisory”, and is part of the geopolitical maneuvering against China.

The business advisory claims that the NSL and SNSO erode fundamental freedoms and human rights in Hong Kong.

But contrary to this assertion, conditions in the city tell a markedly different story. Since the implementation of these laws, the social unrest and violence that once jeopardized the city’s economic foundations and social order have disappeared, affording the city a more stable environment conducive to living and doing business. The two laws have played a significant role in this positive transformation, enhancing Hong Kong’s stability, economic growth, and business environment.

Notably, the framework of these laws aligns closely with international standards, affirming their legitimacy. Similar national security legislation can be found in a wide array of democratic nations where safeguarding the state from domestic and external threats is seen as paramount. The attempt to depict the NSL and the SNSO as an oppressive means overlooks their critical function in restoring public order and bolstering national security — an essential foundation for sustained economic development and prosperity in the region.

The misrepresentations contained in the advisory not only skew the perception of these laws but also fail to recognize their efficacy and necessity in maintaining the rule of law and ensuring a stable business environment in Hong Kong.

The advisory presents a selective and skewed set of facts in hyping the “potential risks”, and conveniently ignores the significant enhancements in public safety and business confidence as a result of the implementation of the NSL and the SNSO.

Its biased narratives distort the actual state of Hong Kong’s legal and commercial landscape, offering an incomplete and misleading portrayal. For example, the advisory specifically draws attention to the extraterritorial reach of the SNSO, framing it as a potential threat to international businesses and individuals beyond the borders of Hong Kong.

This feature of the SNSO aligns with established international legal practices, whereby nations assert their right to protect their national security interests beyond their territories. Such measures are commonplace and widely accepted in the global legal community.

This approach is justified and necessary in a globalized world where security threats often transcend national boundaries. Thus, the portrayal of these laws as unusually harsh or overreaching is inaccurate and misleading, and fails to acknowledge their legitimacy and prevalence in international jurisprudence.

The advisory raises several alarms regarding heightened surveillance, potential financial repercussions, and legal actions for alleged infringements under the NSL and the SNSO. However, it lacks a balanced perspective, failing to acknowledge that such legal frameworks and enforcement measures are commonplace in jurisdictions that uphold the rule of law. A balanced perspective is crucial for a comprehensive understanding and should reassure the audience of the legitimacy of these measures.

Compliance with legal standards is a global norm, and Hong Kong’s regulatory system is characterized by its transparency and adherence to internationally recognized legal protocols. The advisory’s portrayal of these laws as introducing novel risks skews reality and seems to be strategically designed to dissuade international business entities from investing or operating in Hong Kong, leveraging baseless fears. Such a narrative distorts the purpose and function of these legal instruments. It challenges the legitimate and standard practices employed by jurisdictions worldwide to safeguard their national security and public order.

Moreover, it seems that the advisory also tries to deter international business entities from operating in Hong Kong by highlighting the conflicting legal obligations they will face when complying with US-imposed sanctions in Hong Kong.

It warns that noncompliance with US sanctions because of compliance with Hong Kong laws can expose individuals and businesses to civil and criminal liabilities under US legislation. This unveiled assertion of US long-arm jurisdiction over Hong Kong not only challenges the autonomy of Hong Kong’s legal framework but also extends American legal norms to international businesses operating under a distinctly different legal system. Such an assertion exemplifies an ongoing trend of meddling in China’s  internal affairs, represents an effort to undermine the integrity of the governance of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, and could ignite potential conflicts between international legal standards and US policy objectives, complicating the legal environment for businesses operating in the region.

The advisory issued by US government departments should be recognized as a component of a larger narrative aimed at undermining Hong Kong’s stability by casting undue skepticism on its legal structures and economic environment. The available empirical evidence paints a starkly different picture: The city has seen a resurgence in social stability, sustained economic growth and elevated business confidence, all of which underscore a narrative of resilience and prosperity.

The international community must approach such US advisories with a critical eye, evaluating them against the backdrop of unbiased facts and recognizing them as tactical efforts intended to sway public opinion and alter political dynamics. This deeper understanding is not just beneficial but essential for appreciating the actual situation in Hong Kong, which, despite external pressures, continues to flourish under a framework designed to safeguard its long-term security and prosperity.

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.