LettersDon’t let Hong Kong’s national security law controversy obscure urgent need for jobs, better health care and political security

The furore over the introduction of a national security law in Hong Kong has moved the issue of security to the forefront. In an increasingly unstable world, what does security really mean?

The end of the Cold War ushered in a new era. In 1994, the United Nations Development Programme introduced the concept of human security, which emphasises not only the security of the state but also the security of its people. Unlike the top-down approach of national security, human security encompasses seven categories: political, economic, food, environment, health, community and personal security.

States that devote massive resources to national security do not necessarily excel at ensuring human security. Although the United States spends more on defence than the next 10 countries combined, it has bungled in managing the coronavirus outbreak and more than 100,000 Americans have died, equivalent to total US military deaths since 1945.

As far as Hong Kong is concerned, several categories of human security are under threat. For instance, there are genuine concerns over the city’s political security, in the sense that the government has limited legitimacy, political violence is becoming commonplace, and there is justifiable fear of civil liberties being eroded.

In terms of economic security, the double whammy of political unrest and the coronavirus has endangered many of Hong Kong’s industries and their workers, such as retail, tourism, food and beverages, and transport. In addition, despite the health system’s success in containing the coronavirus, we can’t forget that Hong Kong public hospitals suffer from chronic staff shortages and overcrowding, which has implications for the city’s health security.