Wasn't Kai Tak the epicenter for that?
Stabilized approach is about energy management and having the airplane in the right configuration and energy state for landing. It's not about difficult or challenging airports. Burbank isn't difficult, for example, but an unstable approach led to disaster.
en.wikipedia.org
A stabilized approach is when the airplane is configured for landing, engines spooled up, airspeed within +15/-5 of target, on vertical path, on lateral path, and staying there, not transiting through glideslope or course. The goal: be stable at 1,000 feet. If you're not stable at 500 feet, go around.
The approach to Kai Tak was easy if flown well. I've done it.
The MDA on the IGS was about 680 feet. So, by 500 feet, you were on profile - speed stable, configured, on the centerline of the lights, and on the vertical path to runway 13.
Being unstable happens often, both in the US and other countries - approach control keeps you at high speed to the marker (outer marker, final approach fix) and often, high. Combine high and fast, and you simply can't get to a stable approach from where they put you. The flight parameters exceed the criteria I listed above.
The infamous San Francisco "Slam Dunk", for example. London Heathrow CDA (Constant Descent Angle) requirements ensures that every 757 will be unstable at 1,000 feet ( our target for achieving stable approach parameters) but you will be stable by about 600' and just barely comply the 500 foot go-around window.
London Control, of course, will levy hefty fines and penalties for airlines that fail to comply with their rigid speed assignments, even if you're 5 knots off. Via ADS-B, they can see everything.
So, while the FAA pushes for pilots to fly a stabilized approach, approach control facilities at busy airports push pilots into unstable situations to maximize arrival capacity.
Here's more on the concept, as articulated by the FAA: