Feel strongly about these letters, or any other aspects of the news? Share your views by emailing us your Letter to the Editor at [email protected] or filling in this Google form. Submissions should not exceed 400 words.Stephen Roach’s recent assertion that “the Hong Kong of old is, indeed, over” relies on a familiar mix of ideological bias and factual omission. While he laments the city’s transformation, several inconvenient truths undermine his argument.First, in dismissing Hong Kong’s return to the top of global IPO rankings as driven by Chinese listings, Roach conveniently ignores that the Global Financial Centres Index – the industry benchmark – evaluates infrastructure, rule of law and capital mobility, not the nationality of issuers.This is just like with a Michelin-starred restaurant: diners come for the culinary artistry, and whether the ingredients are sourced from France or locally makes no difference to the restaurant’s star rating.Furthermore, data shows that 2025 cornerstone investments in Hong Kong hit HK$106.6 billion, with giants like UBS, Jane Street, and Singapore’s GIC participating. If global institutional investors see value where Roach does not, perhaps he should re-examine his lens, not the market.Second, Roach criticises the implementation of national security law for eroding judicial independence, but fails to mention that national security cases account for less than 0.2 per cent of total criminal prosecutions. Moreover, sedition charges carry a maximum seven-year sentence in Hong Kong, whereas similar offences can draw up to 20 years in the United States. This selective outrage is not analysis; it is double standards.