---

[The Mirage of Order: Why Rule by Law is Not the Rule of Law]

Friedrich Hayek, in The Road to Serfdom and The Constitution of Liberty, offered a precise definition of the Rule of Law: it is a system where laws are general, abstract, and known beforehand, allowing individuals to predict how the state will use its coercive power. This stands in stark contrast to Legislation or "Rule by Law," where the state uses specific commands to achieve particular social or political ends.

Many look at Singapore, China, and Hong Kong and see "order." However, from a Hayekian perspective, these regions are increasingly substituting the spontaneous order of liberty for the rigid commands of a central authority.

1. Singapore: The Managed Success

Singapore is often lauded for its efficiency, but its legal system relies heavily on arbitrary administrative power.

• The Examples: Laws like the Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act (POFMA) allow ministers to decide what is "false" and issue correction orders.¹ This is not a general rule; it is a discretionary command used to manage the information market. Similarly, the Internal Security Act (ISA) allows for detention without trial—the ultimate negation of predictable law.²

• The Ending: Hayek would argue that as the state continues to manage every facet of life—from housing quotas to social behavior—the entrepreneurial spirit will eventually stifle, leading to a "golden cage" where growth plateaus because of a lack of spontaneous innovation.

2. China: The Zenith of Central Planning

In China, the law is explicitly a tool for the Communist Party to achieve "national rejuvenation."³

• The Examples: The Social Credit System is a digital manifestation of Hayek’s nightmare; it turns law into a granular, real-time command system that rewards or punishes behavior based on state-defined "trustworthiness." Furthermore, the National Intelligence Law requires all organizations to "support and cooperate" with state intelligence, creating an unpredictable environment where no private sphere is safe from state command.⁴

• The Ending: By centralizing all knowledge and power, China risks the "Knowledge Problem." Without the feedback loops of a free society, the system becomes brittle. Hayek would predict that the "Road to Serfdom" here ends in a massive economic correction or systemic collapse when the central commands can no longer manage the complexity of a billion people.

3. Hong Kong: The Lost Spontaneous Order

Hong Kong was once Hayek’s favorite example of a "spontaneous order." That has changed.

• The Examples: The National Security Law (NSL) and Article 23 introduce vague, broad categories like "collusion" and "soft resistance."⁵ Because the definitions are so fluid, the law is no longer a "predictable rule" but a "political command." When a businessman cannot know if a past comment constitutes a crime today, the Rule of Law has vanished.

• The Ending: As the legal system becomes an instrument of political "Legislation," Hong Kong’s unique status as a global hub will continue to erode. It will cease to be a bridge between East and West and become just another managed city, losing its dynamic economic soul.

---

---

【秩序的幻影：為何「依法治國」不等於「法治」】

海耶克（Friedrich Hayek）在《自由憲章》中對「法治」（Rule of Law）下了一個精確的定義：它是一套普遍、抽象且預先告知的規則，讓個人能預判國家何時會行使強制力。這與「立法」（Legislation）或「依法治理」（Rule by Law）截然不同，後者是國家利用特定命令來達成特定的社會或政治目標。

許多人看新加坡、中國與香港時只看到了「秩序」。然而，從海耶克的觀點來看，這些地區正日益以中央權力的僵化指令取代自由的自發秩序。

一、 新加坡：被管理的成功

新加坡常因效率受讚譽，但其法律體系高度依賴行政裁量權。

• 實例： 如《防止網絡假信息和網絡操縱法案》（POFMA），允許部長決定何為「假信息」並發布更正令。這不是普遍規則，而是用來管理資訊市場的裁量指令。同樣，《內部安全法》（ISA）允許不經審訊的拘留，這是對「可預測法律」的根本否定。

• 結局預測： 海耶克會認為，當國家繼續管理生活的方方面面（從住房配額到社會行為），企業家精神最終會窒息，導致進入一個「金絲雀籠」，因缺乏自發創新而使增長停滯。

二、 中國：中央集權計畫的巔峰

在中國，法律明確是執政黨實現「民族復興」的工具。

• 實例： 「社會信用體系」是海耶克噩夢的數位體現；它將法律轉變為精細的、實時的指令系統，根據國家定義的「誠信」來獎懲行為。此外，《國家情報法》要求所有組織「支持與配合」國家情報工作，創造了一個任何私人領域都無法免於國家指令的不可測環境。

• 結局預測： 通過將所有知識與權力集中，中國面臨著「知識問題」的風險。缺乏自由社會的反饋機制，系統會變得脆弱。海耶克會預言，這裡的「奴役之路」將在中央指令無法應對十億人口的複雜性時，以大規模經濟修正或系統性崩潰告終。

三、 香港：消失的自發秩序

香港曾是海耶克最愛的「自發秩序」典範，但現在情況已變。

• 實例： 《國安法》與「基本法 23 條」引入了如「勾結」和「軟對抗」等模糊、寬泛的範疇。由於定義流動性極大，法律不再是「可預測的規則」，而是「政治指令」。當商人無法判斷過去的言論在今天是否構成犯罪時，法治便已消失。

• 結局預測： 隨著法律體系成為政治「行政命令」的工具，香港作為全球樞紐的地位將繼續侵蝕。它將不再是東西方的橋樑，而變成了另一個被管理的城市，失去其動態的經濟靈魂。

---

結語： 海耶克教導我們，真正的穩定來自於法律的穩定性，而非指令的嚴厲性。當法律變成統治者的工具而非人民的盾牌時，繁榮終將枯萎。