Panel: Five years on, what has Hong Kong gained from its national security law?
53:40 Share

Hello and welcome to the panel discussion of World Today. I'm Ding Hen in Beijing. It's been five years since the enactment of a national security law in Hong Kong following the unrest in the city in 2019.

The law defines four categories of offenses: secession, subversion, terrorist activities, and collusion with external forces to endanger national security. In a recent signed article, Hong Kong Chief Executive John Lee said the Hong Kong society has remained stable and prosperous since the law's implementation.

How has the Lao safeguarded the practice of one country, two systems in Hong Kong? And how has the restoration of stability revitalized the city's development dynamics? These questions and much more in this edition of the program. To listen to this episode again or to catch up on our previous episodes, you can download our podcast by searching World Today.

So joining us now on the line are Professor Yao Shujie, Deputy Director of the Department of Social Sciences, Chongqing University, Dr. Edward Lehman, Managing Director of Lehman Lee and Xu Laofirm, and Ina Tengen, Senior Fellow with Taihe Institute and Chairman of Asian Narratives Substack.

So thank you very much for joining us today, gentlemen. Ina, to start with you, do you think the enactment of the national security law represented a turning point in Hong Kong's transition from chaos to order? Why or why not?

Well, definitely from my perspective, the national security law restored order effectively curbing this large scale unrest that was seen in 2019. It was street violence, riots, economic disruption. The city was brought to a standstill most of the week. Destruction of property, I don't think people remember, but destruction.

There was a rumor that the Starbucks was owned by somebody who was sympathetic to the mainland, so they trashed them all. It was clearly organized outside interference, it was involved, organizations were paying demonstrators 100 bucks US to come out per day. You could see it in the coordinated signage.

College students don't have the kind of money to coordinate all their signage and get it freshly printed and very slick. And of course, the event organizing. They seem to be able to appear and disappear at will. They're using advanced walkie talkies. They had riot gear. And this is all when a time when, you know, these students were complaining that they had no money and no economic opportunity.

So, Professor Yao, before we delve into other issues, for example, the 2019 turbulence in Hong Kong, before that, in the context of Hong Kong, the city, what do you think is national security exactly?

At the time, national security, people in Hong Kong and also people from some outside forces, they regarded the so-called national security as regional security.

they didn't actually pay sufficient attention to the fact that Hong Kong is completely returned to China by the time it's more than 20 years, 22 years. And people still think that Hong Kong can act whatever it wishes to be. But they also forget the general public interest, the general public in Hong Kong, the residents,

They are lovers of doing business. They like peaceful business and living environment. Some of the elements, they just try to use the so-called law and also the regional law, which was considered as the national law, in a sense to create trouble and problem to the central government.

And this was a direct challenge. It actually violated even the regional law, or by the time it was called the Hong Kong law. And some forces, outside forces, they agitated and encouraged a small fraction of extremist people in Hong Kong

to create this chaos and instability. Bearing in mind, they certainly wish to make Hong Kong as an ungovernable region. This is contradictory, certainly not the national security, but actually contradictory to the national security as such. So people are confused. They don't know what will be the clear direction to go.

This gives some window and opportunity for the troublemakers, some small group of people working with, as Asian or with foreign forces,

to create a miserable business and living environment for the local residents, the vast majority of local residents. And this is the principal problem. The other problem is the legislation, the composition of the councils. There was some legacy from the British colony which may not be

utterly fair and to some extent it was twisted by some legislature to support and encourage the violent activity which sent a very undesirable signal to the general public.

So Dr. Edward Lehman, turning to you, looking back, how would you comment on Hong Kong's 2019 social unrest on the streets? Do you think it is fair to say that the riots at the time were manipulated by some hostile external forces behind the scenes? And also,

Some people described Hong Kong before the enactment of the national security law as an anti-China hub within Chinese territory. What is your take on this?

You know, I mean, looking back on the 2019 unrest, I concur with the other panelists that it apparently was, you know, was like it or not. I mean, there were outside forces and sources that were contributing to this. I also think it was a

confluence of events that many of the people that were so-called protesting during that time were kind of misinformed people. And I don't know how to say that politely, but a lot of them were people who were born in 1997. I mean, this is what I've, I was there during this period.

I think a lot of it was a mix of naivete with people who participated who didn't grow up necessarily in the colonial times that were born at the date of the handover. And I think that those people were easily influenced by these outside forces and sources to participate in whatever the heck went on there. But even during the 2019 protests, outlets like National Public Radio, This American Life, for example,

were broadcasting with some of the so-called protesters

And so, I mean, that's obviously proof in and of itself that they were somehow participating, I don't know, or trying to monitor this, but it wasn't helpful. I mean, but my point on this whole thing is having followed it since before the handover, a lot of this was self-inflicted. You know, Macau, you know, special administrative region, which is next door, they were able to vote and have their own local elections.

security law enacted and the Hong Kong LegCo, and this was alluded to earlier, I mean, couldn't get their legislation to function and to make that determination. And I mean, it was asked earlier about in what context of Hong Kong is national security. It would be like Puerto Rico or Guam or American Virgin Islands deciding that they're not going to enact their own national security law as territories of the United States.

And they do some things differently. They don't have to follow the Constitution in those areas because they're not full members.

as states, but if they're not able to have their own national security or their own security law, I should say, then I would imagine that the national security law would cover them, which it probably does with places like Guam that have a huge American military influence and presence.

So I'm just trying to put it into the context where maybe listeners can understand that what was done by, you know, Mainland was that, you know, certainly something that seems reasonable and something that would happen in another country like the United States, I would imagine.

Yeah, so actually adding one clarification to Dr. Liman's elaboration, one thing to note here is that under Hong Kong's basic law, namely the city's mini-constitution, which was part of the series of arrangements and agreements between China and the UK governing Hong Kong's return at the time, Hong Kong's

had to enact its own national security law, and back in the year 2003, the Hong Kong authorities proposed a national security legislation that would have prohibited treason, secession, sedition, and subversion, but that effort in 2003 didn't succeed.

So I guess that's partly why in 2020 China's national legislature stepped in and passed a law for the city. Now, Ina, why do you think from Hong Kong's return to China to 2020, Hong Kong failed to pass a national security law on its own?

Well, I want to be a little bit blunt. I mean, what was Hong Kong? I mean, under the British, you had basically five million people serving two million people. These were the expats and the elites, the very, very wealthy families who did very well and then went on to do very well helping out in China. They got a lot of policies. They brought a lot of knowledge and things like that. So you have an unequal society.

And you know the people who of the five million you have three generations living in a matchbox Whereas you have very wealthy families living up on the peak in luxury so you had a basic unfairness and a lot of that a lot of the unrest was tied to this feeling that people had that something wasn't right, but they were blaming wrong entity and

They were blaming Beijing when, in fact, it was their own issues. And as Professor Yao pointed out,

Hong Kong was allowed to inherit much of the British system. And the British system was all about, you know, no dogs or Chinamen in the parks. It was just slightly modified prior to them leaving to say, oh, now that we're leaving, we're going to give you democracy. And they spun a big tale about how they were freeing Hong Kong. And they were, in fact, giving it back after taking it in a series of drug wars.

where they're insisting that they had the right to sell drugs to China, whether China liked it or not.

So when during this handover, you have Article 23 of the basic laws, the basic laws are the laws that said, OK, this is how we're going to have one country, two systems. And the basic laws is kind of like a mini constitution. And they were supposed to pass this, as you as you pointed out, this security legislation. So why didn't? Well, quite frankly, it was a confluence of things.

There were structural faults, as I was talking about, in terms of the government itself. It was still very, very strongly run by the elites. And the elites, they didn't really make a move to get this done. My sense of it was they were using this partly as leverage. And then, as Ed was pointing out, there was a lot of miscommunication. When Hong Kong returned to China, the educators did not leave.

So you have this large body of British foreign teachers who are preaching this thing about, oh, you can determine whatever you want. This is you have a right to democracy as defined not by China, but as defined as we tell you. You know, remember those early demonstrations, the yellow umbrellas? You had kids who are still doing their homework in middle school out there. Why? Because their teachers told them.

that they had these rights. And of course, this was nothing further from the truth.

So, you have this confluence of greed, the wealthy, outside influences, obviously the United States was very, very interested in using Hong Kong as an issue. This containment policy that the US has had towards China has been in effect for a long time. It's not part of this trade war. It's been all around, and there was always this desire to use political levers

to try to contain China's rise. Why? Because if China is paying attention to Hong Kong, Xinjiang, Taiwan and Tibet, they have to put resources towards that. And that means less resources for economic development, which is really what the United States is concerned about.

So, Hong Kong became a card that the US wanted to play and they were happy to fund whatever kind of mischief and nonsense. Does the US care about Hong Kong? Well, apparently not. They took them off the most favored nations list. I think if you talk to most Americans, they couldn't even tell you what Hong Kong is.

And there's no big strategic interest, despite what they say. I mean, it's part of China. It's kind of like saying China has a strategic interest in Puerto Rico. It doesn't. So you have this confluence of things. It didn't happen. It was required to happen, you know, in 20 years go by.

And it just gets worse and worse. And then finally, these kids start causing a ruckus because they're ill-informed. And the government, remember, after a year of trying patiently to allow Hong Kong to solve its own problems, it got to the point where the government had to act. Because the first rule of government is that you have to provide information.

safety, safety in your home, your business, schools, and on the public thoroughfares. And so they had no other recourse but to act for the benefit of the people. Professor Yao Shijie, how would you describe the Hong Kong before the enactment of the National Security Law in 2020? And do you think the story of Hong Kong over the past five years was so

can somehow serve as an international role model in terms of how the spirit of rule of law, for example, can help a society tackle chaos and restore order and restore prosperity, for example.

The situation in Hong Kong before 2020, I think the Chinese mainland government under Deng Xiaoping and then later some other national leaders, they believed that because Hong Kong was a very dynamic and prosperous economy region, and people there were highly educated, and they were happy with their local life,

So the Chinese mainland government actually tried to give maximum freedom and also autonomy for the Hong Kong people to solve the Hong Kong problem. And the Hong Kong people will be led by the Hong Kong people. This principle was fundamentally right even now.

But the problem is that the legislation system was inherited from the colonized period, particularly under the British law.

And the British governing in Hong Kong was actually highly double standard. On the one hand, it does allow the maximum freedom for the people, particularly the British and the other white people's society, and they have enjoyed the maximum autonomy.

But the local Hong Kong residents may not have enjoyed it so much, especially if they don't have the electoral right. They don't have the right to suggest who would be the council member. They don't have the right to affect the legal enforcement and the regulation establishment.

So in a sense, I mean, it keeps the order, which is basically very colonized in nature, in the hope that the people can solve the problem gradually. And also hope that the Legislation Council could act on the general interest of the Hong Kong people and the general and national interests of the whole country, greater than China.

But it turned out to be as we desire. But what happened after 2019, the following three years, especially even during the COVID-19 pandemic, a group of people,

I don't know how they were agitated, but in retrospect, I think there's lots of anti-China elements, particularly some element who does not like China to become a major economy and political power.

So the only issue I think Hong Kong have been used a car to play, to play that if Hong Kong is proved to be chaotic, Hong Kong is to be a total failure under the party leadership of Chinese mainland, then it can indirectly prove that the Chinese system doesn't work.

This is a very fundamental issue. It's not just a security issue, but also the political system issue. And the concept, the degree of violence as we saw it, the people in Hong Kong are, as an example, they were suffering. Actually, many ordinary Hong Kong people, they were highly unhappy about the riot and the violence against the local peaceful life and also the business.

Even at the time, I think the party leadership on the mainland used very firm attitudes. I mean, they also hoped that the situation there could be cleared out by itself.

But it doesn't, so the central government has to step in. I mean, the minimum requirement for the intervention is to guarantee that the local business, the local people, their safety, daily life should be protected. And the only way to protect it is to strengthen the recognition that Hong Kong is a special administrative area.

It cannot go away from the general interest of the Hong Kong people, cannot go away from the general interest of all the Chinese people. So, Dr. Edward Lehman, talking about the enforcement of the national security law, up till now, we understand the trials under the law have had a conviction rate of over 95%.

Some people say this rate means that the national security law has been applied with great restraint and great care, meaning prosecutions only occur when there is absolute necessity. Would you agree with this point? Why or why not?

Well, I mean, I think if you look just by way of comparison in the United States, and I think that the conviction rates for prosecutors in the United States is in the 90s somewhere. It's certainly a very high figure, right? So the idea of 95% conviction rate, if that's what the claim is that under the national security law,

It doesn't surprise me. Like you said, I think it would come at it in a thoughtful way. I think that the government, I mean, you have pretty much a large

resource to be able to investigate folks and to go through with it. So I can see where that statistic doesn't surprise me. But you have a conviction rate, for example, in Japan, well, most of them are actually confessions. But I mean, the rate is in the 90 percentile as well.

So just a couple of things I wanted to clarify. Once the handover happens, and this is where I think there's some confusion, is that there's a so-called, I don't know, treaty or handover. I mean, a gift is a gift. And so what one is, if it's just you giving it to another person,

It is you have to have the mental ability to do it. You have to have the ownership. You have to have the intent. You have to have the delivery and the acceptance. That's an individual to an individual or an institution to an institution. In the international setting, you know, the UK had so-called given it back to China, whatever you want to call it.

it on July 1st, 1997. It doesn't come with these attachments where you can call that back. You give it back under the law that would be common law or international treaty, and one cannot retrieve it in any way, shape, or form once that handover is completed. So the basic law, even though it's a mini constitution, has to do with what the Brits said. This is what we meant.

That doesn't mean anything. It's all very interesting, but it doesn't mean anything under international treaty or international law. So it ends there. Now, what happens afterwards is that you have folks that have been giving, you know, the UK has allowed Hong Kong residents to come to the United Kingdom and get some sort of visa, nationality, whatever. But that seems to be interfering. You've also got...

like we've talked about, is that Hong Kong had a special treatment with the U.S. that has been since revoked, since the national security law went into place. And so you've got people and nations that are changing their rules, their regulations, their laws to be able to facilitate what the heck's going on there.

Is that fair? Probably not. Now, with regards to the statistics on the convictions, yeah, that number seems accurate to me. And I do, also before 1997, there wasn't necessarily freedom of speech. You know, they follow the UK system and there are serious implications for freedom

certain kinds of speech in the United Kingdom. And if you're going to adapt the Hong Kong law, which they did to the UK law, then that's acceptable. Another thing I just want to pass on is that before 1997, anyone who was admitted as a solicitor or barrister in any of the Commonwealth countries could come to Hong Kong, not take any examination and be admitted into Hong Kong. As a result, and many of them became judges and magistrates and all of the kinds of things,

A lot of them are still around. Not a lot, but quite a number of them. And I don't think it helps with the system. And I think it should be local folks. Thank you very much. Let's take a very short break here. And coming back, our discussion will continue. Stay tuned. Thank you.

You are back with World Today, I am Ding Hen in Beijing. Today we are talking about how a national security law has helped restore stability and prosperity in Hong Kong.

Joining our discussion, Professor Yao Shujie, Deputy Director of the Department of Social Sciences, Chongqing University, Dr. Edward Lehman, Managing Director of Lehman Lee and Xu Lao Firm, and Ina Tengen, Senior Fellow of Taihe Institute and Chairman of Asian Narratives Substack.

Ina, your observation is there respect for the rights of criminal suspects, including the guarantee of fair trial or the guarantee of presumption of innocence in Hong Kong court's legal interpretation of the city's national security law?

Okay, well in fact in the United States conviction rates according to Department of Justice are 93% I was an intern at the county level. I think it was probably higher because Even though we didn't get a conviction we would in many cases we would divert people in essence we were using the power state to Coerce them or make them do things that we thought they needed to do so it was actually much higher and

In terms of freedom, the fact is most of these people were convicted based on the actions and their writings or communications. As a lawyer, I can tell you that's the best evidence. I always like it when somebody in essence is confessing to their crimes. In terms of the process itself, nothing changed when the handover. The court systems remained the same and the people in them remained the same.

And these were the ones who were judging. They were making evidentiary rulings and they were going

going through it and they're the ones who are actually doing the sentencing. From China's point of view, from Beijing's point of view, they could say, well, we didn't agree with a couple of sentences which were very light, but they didn't interfere, right? They just said, okay, that's the process, let it go. So this thing about, oh, somehow it's unfair because it's in Hong Kong, that's basically racist.

These were jurists from all over the Commonwealth who would come and go to Hong Kong. Were they the best? I don't know. I sometimes wonder about that. I've done things in Hong Kong and I've had real questions about the bureaucracy there. I think the police do very well. I think the government, in terms of its operation, does very well.

But there's still this kind of noblesse oblige, or not oblige, just noblesse. These big families still control so much. I mean, to give you an example, why are people living in matchboxes? Because there's no land? No. Yes, there is limited land, but the fact is there's a meeting each year to determine how many new houses should be created.

And based on that, there's a lid on it. And that lid is placed there despite the fact that everybody knows that people need more housing. But these very, very wealthy families say, well, if we don't build, the value of my holdings go up. So this is what I mean by this cabal of wealth and bad things that happened in the past with these colonial structures and things like this.

And why Hong Kong was unhappy. I think that's a big issue here It wasn't they were lulled into this idea that they were unhappy because they didn't have democracy But if you had democracy in Hong Kong direct democracy You'd still have these major families backing candidates that they handpicked in order to push their agenda what you need is a government that is considering the needs of

the people. We're saying, no, we need to build new cities. We need to have places where people can afford to live so you don't have three generations living in basically a one-bedroom closet. So these are the types of things. So this idea that somehow the Hong Kong system is unfair is nonsense. Right now, today, you look at singers and other people who are being sanctioned

by the British government because they are protesting the genocide that's happening in Israel and Gaza. And it's happening in the United States as well. You look at all these students who are being deported, threatened,

harassed, picked up by masked ICE agents. The idea that these countries are out there running around preaching is nonsense. But the fact is, Hong Kong did deliver fair trials to these people. And the rest of it is just, as I said, these false narratives being ginned up because the U.S. just feels that China's too big a threat. Hmm.

Now, Professor Yao, we know a very high-profile case or a very high-profile trial under Hong Kong's national security law was that of Jimmy Lai, the founder of Apple Daily. His charges included using his tabloid, Apple Daily, to publish seditious articles and conspiring to commit foreign collusions by asking other countries to sanction Hong Kong.

And do you think Jimmy Lai deserves his current imprisonment, including a possible life in prison sentence? The activity by Lai is highly unacceptable by the Chinese traditional culture because Hong Kong and also the Hong Kong citizens, if they claim to be, they are part of the Chinese national populations.

Within China, I think nobody is allowed to collude with foreign forces, especially hostile forces, to invite those forces to topple the government. This is considered to be a treason and also a secession activity. Now, this activity is the highest level of criminal activity in the Chinese law.

So whatever lie is prosecuted in prison or no matter how long, I think it is a very serious case. And it does not want any white support from the general public, including the public in Hong Kong, because

the Hong Kong residents suffered a great deal during the chaos period. And while there was such a chaotic situation, even life-threatening environment, was partly agitated by some of the people such as Mr. Lai. So I think the imprisonment of Lai is a very frugal trial. Hmm.

So, Dr. Lehman, Chris Tanping-Kun, who is Hong Kong's Secretary for Security, says the city is still faced with four types of national security risks today. They are discrediting and sanctions from external forces, soft resistance carried out by local agents,

fugitives continuing to endanger national security from abroad and finally the threat from the local terrorism. What kind of new challenges does the situation here entail for the enforcement of the national security law today?

Well, I think that, I mean, I think those are all fair comments and that's certainly an objective. I think the challenge that the area that Hong Kong SAR has is, and going back to just the infrastructure to be able to deal with this. I mean, so you look at this place, which has got a population of about seven or eight million people, depending on who you ask, but

And then you've got an infrastructure where you've got 5,000 solicitors and 500 or so barristers, give or take, which is a very small number of folks. Some of them, again, are carryover, not all of them, but quite a number of them, especially older barristers are hangovers from pre-1997, which is hard to believe.

So there's a problem with the infrastructure with regards, I mean, not necessarily with trying to prosecute them. And as has been pointed out, I think that the police do a pretty good job on policing these areas. But the challenge, I think, is with the infrastructure itself. I think that the dockets of the court system are clogged.

um as they are many parts of the world but i mean i think particularly uh in in hong kong there's some paralysis with regards to the to fighting these things and getting them through on the docket which which might come quicker and so those kind of challenges of getting the law and order instituted i mean with any jurisdiction whether that be hong kong united states or whatever jurisdiction you want to talk about

is there's gotta be law and order. And just to go back with what the professor had said,

is that the feeling for those of us involved in business in Hong Kong is not favorable to the people who have been disrupting it. It's not even political, it's just a practical thing. I think Hong Kong people, I think Guangdong people, typically, by way of an example, with those across the border of this jurisdiction, is very practical and business-minded. And I think that this has disrupted the business

I mean, Hong Kong is a wonderful place in which to transact business. And there's so many reasons to transact business here. It's tax-free for income that's not derived within Hong Kong. There's no tax on capital gains. There's an ease in which one can set up a corporation, which is many times faster than in mainland. There's trust and wills and estates, and there's all kinds of equity actions that are not available in mainland or civil law.

And so I think it adds a lot, which is also different, which Macau is civil law, not common law. So the bourse is active and was extremely active and has, I think, been affected by this.

Whereas a lot of that business has now been transferred down to Singapore, which is not connected, at least by border, with China. And I think that Hong Kong has become the net loser with regards to that which was transacted.

in Hong Kong with regards to company organizations. So the same kind of laws, policies and regulations that are in the Bahamas or British Virgin Islands or Bermuda is present in Hong Kong as of today. And, you know, the banking and the financial services sector is very strong.

So I think that it's unfortunate because that all gets harmed as a result of what happened in 2019. And this all could have been, it's all self-inflicted. It was done by folks who don't know what they're doing within the jurisdiction. And it was certainly stoked by outside forces. And I just think that that's undeniable under anyone's standards that it was not instigated and stoked.

and aim towards Beijing, not necessarily with the folks there. Okay. So, Ina, what do you think is the essential spirit when we talk about one country, two systems for Hong Kong? And why do you think the national security law of the city has ensured the faithful implementation of this principle in Hong Kong rather than undermining it?

The idea that restoring law and order is somehow undermining society, that doesn't even make sense. And the one country, two systems principle fundamentally relies on Hong Kong's distinct systems operating within the framework of China's sovereignty.

Hong Kong is there, but it's still it's part of China. And the national security law ensures this by eliminating threats to national security that can undermine the one country foundation, thus preserving the two systems. So if you follow that, I mean, it's it's just simply logical. You know, no country has the right to go traipsing into another country and trying to destabilize it. But that's exactly what happened.

during these riots. Yes, there are educational issues, there are structural issues, but without somebody banging on the doors of dorms and saying, I'll give you $100 US to go out and get on the line and carry a sign. And they were doing this every day. And I know this because I know kids who were there who were traumatized because they're from mainland and they literally had to stay in their dorms because they're afraid of getting beaten up by the students.

That's not society. That's thuggery. That's the exact opposite. This is mob rule. The same kids who are running around smashing up businesses that they thought, not that they knew, that they thought were owned by somebody who might be sympathetic to China.

And I know people there. I'm not going to mention their names, but they've been involved in the trying to bring thousands. They brought more than 100,000 students from Hong Kong to Beijing so that they start to understand that they're part of a bigger nation. Language is a little bit different, but they need to understand that it's one China. And yet their businesses were targeted. And this is an old Hong Kong family.

So, you know, when you have that kind of breakdown, yeah, the government has to. It would be a failure for the government not to step forward and, you know, guard the safety of its people. I take your point. Now, Professor Yao Shujie, according to an Economic Freedom of the World report released by this Canada-based research organization called Fraser Institute last year, in October last year, actually,

Hong Kong is the world's freest economy, followed by Singapore at the second spot globally. And then in a separate World Talent Ranking published last year by the International Institute for Management Development, Hong Kong's ranking rose to 9 globally, returning to the global top 10 for the first time since the year 2016. So with that in mind,

How would you look at this idea or such comment as the national security law of Hong Kong has taken away the city's freedom?

In contrast, I think the national security law provided a solid guarantee that Hong Kong can continue the dynamism and prosperity as it used to be. When Hong Kong was handed over to China, it was indeed a very prosperous city. And at the time, China's economy was still at a very early stage of opening up and development. So Hong Kong was a very good example

for the Chinese mainland to follow in terms of economic development and also the free trade system. Now, Hong Kong plays a very important role as a gateway for China to get into the outside world. So there is no understating of Hong Kong's role in this process.

But as the Chinese mainland economy expanded and created probably one of the biggest economic miracles in the world, it actually provided challenges, of course, for some people it's great opportunities. But for the traditional economy and political power, like the Western power, including the British Empire, China is considered to be a threat to them.

And they look back at Hong Kong, you know, why China has become so successful? It could be due to Hong Kong. So they targeted Hong Kong, they aim to, you know, subdued Hong Kong to a miserable place. We saw this kind of chaos and kinds of violence, which basically take Hong Kong back to the old days, to the colonial days, rather than put it forward.

Now, people's mind was highly disrupted. There's lots of young people, especially the university students, they knew little about the history, especially they knew little about the British colonial history. There was a very unfair and unequal society in Hong Kong, despite all the service is very successful and it's very free trade.

and the development there was very amicable. But they forgot that Hong Kong was part of China, and Hong Kong's success also depends on the success of Mainland China.

And this kind of national security is basically after over three years of chaos. And even going back in 2016, even six years back, there were also these people demonstrating in the middle part of Hong Kong Island.

These are very painful memories. If the central government didn't do anything to stop this confusion and chaos,

I think Hong Kong would not withstand this kind of powerful shock by the violence. It means that Hong Kong could not maintain the position that you just described as one of the most attractive locations for foreign direct investment, for higher education, particularly in higher education.

People believed that after the British colony, Hong Kong's higher education could decline because many people in 1907, they moved to Canada, United States and Britain.

But later on, actually, they come back. Even now, more and more are coming back. The latest figures show that in the last five years, there were 210,000 talents coming back into Hong Kong. Now, without the national security law, Hong Kong would not provide a peaceful, stable, and secure environment for people to live, let alone for people to do good business.

So I think, you know, after the national security law, Hong Kong go back to normality, go back to the glorious past. And with the national security, with the clearance of

or people's idea of how Hong Kong should be more effectively and efficiently integrated with Chinese mainland to create an integrated, successful economy circle within South China, Hong Kong would not have a good future.

Now, luckily, this national security provided this possibility. I think this gives a long-term solution and foundation for Hong Kong to continue to become the financial center of the world, become the educational center for not only China, but also be part of the higher education system of excellence in the national community. Hmm.

And actually, when we talk about the higher education sector in the city, a key piece of information I can share here is that I don't think many people know about this, but globally, Hong Kong is now the city with the highest number of global top 100 universities because five universities in Hong Kong are now ranked among the global top 100 universities.

And interestingly, when earlier this year, when the US President Donald Trump attempted to ban Harvard University's international students,

we saw Hong Kong authorities calling on its universities to open their doors to those affected students. So, Dr. Edward Lehman, do you think Hong Kong's national security law has in any way enhanced the vitality and global competitiveness of the city's university community? Why or why not?

Yeah, no, I certainly think obviously that the idea of the national security law is to show that there is security in the region and that that is coming from Beijing. I mean, again, they had an attempt to do it from 1997 under basic law under Rule 23.

to have their own local security law passed and instituted at LegCo. They couldn't do it. And eventually the national government came in, like it would probably happen in the United States, and said, "Well, we'll institute the national security law." And that's what happened. But I do think that the educational system here, from what I can see, is at an extremely high level.

and them opening up to international students and foreign students is great. I mean, the mode of communication for the universities here, like under the Basic Law, everything should be in English and in Chinese. The court system, again, is open to be in English or Chinese, which is different than Cantonese, I should say, but which is different from the mainland. And so there's so many great reasons.

I think one of the things we kind of left out here is that besides the national security law, I mean, what has been a big stumbling block has been the United States with regards to instituting their own, you know, impediments on international financial services that are instituted in Hong Kong that have acted as a retardant or some kind of, you

not a positive notion about opening up bank accounts for folks, which we're following U.S. laws, policies and regulations.

that it's easier to open up a bank account certainly than it is in the United States than it is in Hong Kong. And that is because America is using its long arm to reach out and not only would be local banks but also intermediary banks on wiring and financial services. So that is also added to its problematic nature of making it less dynamic than other places.

But on paper, certainly everything works. It just is a practical measure. That's the problem. The educational institutions, you know, sort of speak for themselves. I think that they're

getting better. I think a lot of these educational institutions, you know, are coming from foreign sources, but just like in Beijing, Beijing University was founded by the Luce family, the guy who founded Time Magazine, his mother and father set up Yanqing Academy. Tsinghua was set up by Teddy Roosevelt by returning the money from the Qing dynasty, you know, the money that was

was given for war reparations and setting up with YMCA to set up. So, and even I taught at a place called Huadongzheng, the East China University of Politics and Law, used to be, it was set up by American missionaries in Shanghai.

So there are these roots, but I think that and I think Hong Kong has made them into incredible institutions. You know, so it started out in one direction and it's now flowered into great institutions that anyone could be proud to go to and weren't frankly available because of whatever lack of knowledge.

decades ago and I think it could be an alternative to universities or institutions in the United States.

We know in the financial sector or in the equity market, Hong Kong is on track to become the world's biggest initial public offering destination this year, surpassing Nasdaq or the New York Stock Exchange if you take a look at the projections by the PricewaterhouseCoopers, for example. So Aina, now with order and social stability, political stability effectively safeguarded by this national security law,

How do you think Hong Kong should envision the next step in terms of the city's social or economic development?

Well, I mean, it has to use its assets. Obviously, you know, it's well known and you've seen, you've quoted all the statistics indicating that it's very well regarded as a place to do business. But the future is digital and it's artificial intelligence and there's so many different new technologies, innovations coming along. And in order to create those, you have to have universities, places of learning. And this is really where, uh,

Hong Kong has the ability to shine with the top, you know, five top universities in the top 100. They can be very, very important, you know, with stability restored. Yes, financial hub, but particularly in conjunction with the greater Bay Area.

This gives Hong Kong leverage because now it can not only attract people to these universities, it can also have access to areas where, places where you can build things, where there are other technology hubs, where they have cluster developments.

And this is really, really important because the future for Hong Kong is going to be, you know, innovation hubs using its educational resource to create new physical, financial and virtual products and services that are the key to the future. And this is the future, not like Donald Trump, where he says he wants to go back to industrialization, which is actually a very, very low margin business because there's so much competition and

Let's say he replicated what China could do. That would just mean that there's too much capacity and there would be a real bloodletting, intense competition. But in the area of new things, this is where Hong Kong could really shine. So

I expect them to double down on that. And instead of just being Hong Kong to take on this mantle of being part of this greater Bay Area, which has so much dynamic stuff, including Shenzhen, et cetera, there's so much there that they can leverage. And as Ed was talking about,

This is a great place to do business. It's easier. People are used to it. They have mechanisms in place which allow you to hold, retain, and trade values. And that's very important. And as the professor was pointing out,

You know, China has done everything that is necessary to make this happen. First, by making sure that the place is safe and orderly, that you can walk the streets. You know, I always think it's ironic that so many of the organizations that criticize, you know, China, if you go to where they're from, you can't walk the streets at night.

Whereas in Hong Kong or Beijing or Shanghai, you can't. So hopefully the hypocrisy goes away. Definitely wealth is moving east. The markets are east. The manufacturing is east. And the innovation is in the east. So that's why you're seeing a lot of these IPOs. But the future, as I said, is innovative products. Hmm.

Well, a big thank you to our panelists, Professor Yao Shujie from Chongqing University, Edward Lehman, Managing Director of Lehman Lee and Xu La firm, and Ina Tengen from Taihe Institute. That's all the time for this edition of the program. I'm Dinghan in Beijing. Thank you so much for listening. Bye for now.