"The future of Hong Kong lies in serving the mainland's economic
development." People who are interested in Hong Kong, and there are many on the
mainland and around the world, must have heard this line many times.
This saying has gained much currency and believers, including many
politicians and economists, are beginning to question if Hong Kong will need to
fundamentally overhaul its economic policy to cope with its destined mission.
Such a feeling was reflected in a recent article by a prolific political
commentator published in a Hong Kong-based newspaper.
In the commentary, the writer urged the government to take a more active role
in setting Hong Kong's economic objectives and channelling public funds to
achieve those objectives. In effect, he is suggesting that Hong Kong should
pursue a "planned economy" policy rather than the one that has been widely
described as "positive non-interventionism."
It is argued that a "planned economy," oiled by central government hand-outs,
can greatly enhance economic integration with the mainland. The intention,
obviously, is to turn Hong Kong into a mini-Shanghai.
I completely disagree with this. Hong Kong will have no future following the
path of Shanghai, as it will be made redundant by that huge metropolis to the
north that harbours such heroic ambitions.
The future of Hong Kong lies in its capability to preserve its established
social and economic system that will enable it to continue serving the mainland
as well as any other economies in this region and beyond. Therein lies the
wisdom of the "one country, two systems" principle that has made believers of us
all.
Hong Kong emerged as a regional financial centre in the early 1970s by
servicing needs of Japan and the developing economies of Southeast Asia. The
focus of Hong Kong's economic activities has shifted to its vast hinterland to
the north since the mainland began pursuing economic reform and an opening-up
policy in 1979.
Hong Kong owes much of its success as a centre of trans-shipment for mainland
exports and provider of capital and expertise for mainland industrialization to
the economic and financial mechanisms that have taken root in its unique social
and business environment. That environment is nurtured largely by a common
law-based legal system and the long-standing government policy of "positive
non-interventionism."
Such an economic environment rules out any form of a "planned economy"
involving a huge measure of government intervention, which not only goes against
the government-stated principle but is also exposed to challenges in court.
It is also wrong to suggest that the "positive non-interventionism" policy
precludes any economic objectives. In fact, this policy has a clear and distinct
objective, and that is to make room for the growth and development of
private-sector business without favours and subsidies, which are unfair in
principle and ineffective in execution.
To be sure, support of the central government in the form of CEPA (Closer
Economic Partnership Agreement), for instance, is always welcome and measures to
facilitate mainland tourists to Hong Kong have brought real economic benefits.
But the future of Hong Kong will be shaped, as it has always been, by the
private-sector business and not by government edicts.
Past experience shows that business people in Hong Kong have done well in
serving China's economic development, and Hong Kong, as a whole, has benefited
greatly from their efforts. As China is moving resolutely into a new phase of
economic development, we are confident that those business people can adapt to
the changes and identify new business opportunities as long as the economic
environment in Hong Kong remains conductive to entrepreneurship.
Let's always remember this when we contemplate the future of Hong Kong: Hong
Kong lives by the "one country, two systems" principle.
Email: jamesleung@chinadaily.com.cn
(China Daily 03/29/2006 page4)
