Marginalization of Hong Kong’s Leadership Position
First question is what “leadership position” are we talking about? If only leadership of the Pearl River Delta, I think, as his Hon Albert Chan emphatically described during today’s Legco debate, is rather disparaging. Hong Kong’s aspiration is, or perhaps was or should be, to establish a leadership position in Asia with a global perspective. Regardless of where we stand in our own history, I believe the best defense is probably offense, especially when rallying people behind a mission. Rather than rallying HK to maintain its position as the leader in the Pearl River Delta, why not rally to further establish as really Asia’s world city, and the leading financial, IT and trading hub of Asia? While I generally agree with the government having a macro direction, the timing of this inquiry is suspicious.
Many council members invoked the 11-5 explicit discussion with regards to Hong Kong and its positioning in central government’s “grand plan”, as well as the concept of “back support of mainland, face towards the world”. Both I think are worth mentioning, but must be understood with a correct perspective. The central government’s 11-5 plan confirmed Hong Kong’s unique leading position in logistics, finance, IT and trade. But does that mean those are the only industries where room for growth and development lies? Unlike the government directed economy in Mainland, HK’s economy is distinct and has traditionally been driven by opportunities that arise from market conditions and forces. To adopt a centralized view may not be the smartest idea. That said, such “opportunities” does not preclude and may in fact “happen” to be created by mainland’s “decree”, yet they should not be centrally “promoted” by the HK government, perhaps is what I wish to point out. I therefore actually agree with Henry Tang’s reservation on setting specific industries as Hong Kong’s main economic development and growth for the future. What should not be forgotten is also one of the core directives of 11-5 in self-directed innovation. Innovation and creativity does not work if people are only asked to “focused” on one area of thought. Creativity requires diversity and freedom of expression.
Civic party, especially Margaret Ng’s discussion on culture rather, I think is one of the key areas that should be explored. I am tired of hearing that HK people have no culture. In my mind, HK has a rich culture. HK however is lacking in explicit reflective expression of culture. I am also tired of hearing that HK people are not creative / innovative. HK people have great creative potential. What HK people are lacking is enough encouragement to express their creativity and innovation, especially in their work environment. In order for HK to establish its position as the leader in this new knowledge economy driven by globalization and informatization, I believe the cultivation of cultural expression and the commonplace-ization of innovativeness are keys.
Finally, no matter what the specifics might be, it is hard not to contemplate on the political motives of the inquiry given the timing of this discussion. It seems rather apparent in various perspectives that much which motivated this inquiry was to force Donald’s hand in making a move and putting a stake in the sand on his vision for economic direction of his administration. With the passing of the motion, Donald’s dilemma would be that whatever response his administration provides it would not be difficult to pick it apart as attack against him in his bid towards reelection. It seems like that in the name of public good, the political parties have colluded well this time in the attempt to smoke out Donald’s position. How Donald responses would be very interesting and likely provide clues for the points of attack against him come 2008. That being said, I still think the inquiry is a good one and beneficial for the public at large, even as it is part of the political game.
