Hong Kong Roundtable: Ten Years, Five Views

TIME International Editor Michael Elliott, Senior Editor Zoher Abdoolcarim and Reporter Austin Ramzy
sat down with Hong Kong's former Chief Secretary Anson Chan; construction and property tycoon Sir
Gordon Wu; Christine Loh, head of think tank Civic Exchange; barrister (and former solicitor general)
Daniel Fung; and Raymond Zhou, Beijing-based editor at large for the China Daily.
TIME: In the past 10 years, what has surprised you most?Bali
CHAN: The very severe economic downturn [sparked by the 197 Asian financial crisis]. Before the
handover, everybody's eyes were directed at how well or not well the political transition would go. Nobody
expected difficulties on the economic front. Certainly, in the first few years, from where I sat as Chief
Secretary, the political transition went extremely well. Hong Kong wasn't swallowed up by mainland China;
the People's Liberation Army wasn't all over the place—it was, and still is, conspicuous by its absence.
WU: There seems to be a lot of discontent on the political front. In the 1960s and '70s, when Hong Kong
people were busy working to foster economic growth, China Hong Kong Roundtable was doing all the political [stuff]. Today, China
has settled down and become very busy with economic activities, while here in Hong Kong we're going the
other way. It's a fresh cultural revolution.

Hong Kong Roundtable: Ten Years, Five Views


LOH: Hong Kong is not quite sure how to attach itself to the mainland, and, at the same time, stay
connected to the rest of the world. There is this ambivalence about who and what we are. Many of us have
transited from being British to being Chinese. But [some] Hong Kong people, and perhaps Beijing, have
[doubts] about our loyalty. That has made it more difficult for us to be a part of China. We're still trying to
knit these two pieces together—attachment to both the nation and the world.
FUNG: The resilience of the legal system is a real surprise—not just the idea that common law would
survive the reversion to Chinese sovereignty, but the birth of constitutionalism. As a British colony for 156
years, we never had a written constitution. Now, post-'97, our courts, using a common-law system, are able
to [interpret the Basic Law] and make it living law. That is something amazing. That is a Hong Kong Roundtable miracle.
ZHOU: The biggest difference in the past decade is a stronger sense of national identity. A decade ago,
when I was first in Hong Kong, my friends would strongly advise me not to speak Mandarin. Nowadays I
can speak anything: English, Mandarin or my not-even-passable Cantonese, and I'm treated like an equal. I
feel very comfortable here.
TIME: Is Hong Kong's relationship to China, its identity, settled then?
CHAN: This acceptance of being Chinese has never been an issue. Even under British rule, I regarded
myself as Chinese and nothing else. The question really is: What are the defining qualities of being
Back to Article Click to Print
Chinese? What are the core values you espouse? In Hong Kong we have a group of what I describe as
disillusioned people who, before the handover, regarded themselves as loyal supporters of the communist cause.
This group has not had the reward and recognition, after 197, that they think they deserve. We continue to have
problems with this group.
WU: It's not only this group of pro-communists; there's also another one that is very vocal and doesn't even
want to respect the Basic Law. The Basic Law is our mini-constitution. Whether we like it or not, we must respect
it and follow it. If you analyze the Basic Law, it's not bad for Hong Kong; we don't have to pay taxes to Beijing, we
don't have to pick up the defense expenses. The Basic Law says that Hong Kong is going to be a capitalistic
system. It lays out the groundwork on how Hong Kong is going to be governed. Obviously, one day I'd like to see
universal suffrage [full democracy], but I don't want to see it tomorrow.
LOH: This point about whether we respect the Basic Law or not—there are different views as to what respect
means. We have essentially adopted a structure that was billed as highly successful back in the 1970s and
'80s—no democracy, strong government. Does it still work today? Can you make it work in the next 10, 20 years?
I have my doubts.
FUNG: It's really a matter of defining what is Hong Kong's role vis-à-vis China. Is Hong Kong's role in the 21st
century purely that of capital formation for mainland state enterprises, which is a very important role indeed, or
is there some other role? Is Hong Kong to be an intellectual decompression chamber between China and the
outside world?
TIME: Sir Gordon, would you agree that Hong Kong has not stood still over these 10 years, and neither has
China?
WU: Nothing has moved much on Hong Kong's political front—apart from the nearly daily demonstrations in
the streets. That is not good ... Some people say we should [have universal suffrage] immediately. The right way
is a gradual process so we get to the promised land without chaos and pain.
ZHOU: The future of Hong Kong and the future of the mainland are so inextricably linked that whatever
measure is taken in Hong Kong, we have to consider the repercussions in the mainland. Political reform won't
just happen in a vacuum of Hong Kong; it will happen in the framework of all of China. That's why the pacing is
so important. Ideally, you have universal suffrage tomorrow. It sounds great, but we have to be pragmatic. The
gradual approach will not only be more acceptable to the central government but, I feel, to all mainlanders.
CHAN: I'd like to ask Mr. Zhou whether he thinks the central government is at all concerned about effective and
good governance in Hong Kong?
ZHOU: I think so. We should change the mind-set that the central government is somehow against Hong Kong.
That's not true; everyone in the mainland wants good things for Hong Kong. It's in the details, in the approaches,
that there are different opinions ... When [mainland] newspapers and magazines write about Hong Kong, we
mention how Hong Kong manages the environment, how Hong Kong fights corruption, how Hong Kong has this
civil society. In all these aspects, people in the mainland, ordinary people, people in the media, they see Hong
Kong as this role model ... Mainlanders also remember [that] when China Hong Kong Roundtable was opening up in the late 1970s and
early '80s, Hong Kong was so crucial. It was the engine that drove the growth at least of southern China. People
are grateful.
TIME: Think back to 2003, the SARS year. What were your thoughts then?
LOH: It was a phenomenal period. We were suddenly struck by this new disease. We were in the depths of
depression; we didn't know what was going to happen. Then we had 500,000 people demonstrating. Within six
months, Hong Kong people felt really bad, came together, and felt really good. Before we knew it, the so-called
economic depression was gone. That was the fastest transit in community emotions that I've been through.
WU: I have always felt confident about the future of Hong Kong, even in 2003.
TIME: Why so?
WU: I came back to Hong Kong in 1958 as a Princeton graduate. Hong Kong went straight into a real estate
depression. After that was the '65 bank run, '67 riots, the oil shocks, the '87 stock-market crash. I witnessed
many of these downturns, but Hong Kong always bounced back, because Hong Kong people rely on themselves.
They say, O.K., the roof has fallen, it's no good crying, let's get it Hong Kong Roundtable back up again.
TIME: Do people in the mainland admire that aspect of Hong Kong?
ZHOU: It's more than the resilience. That's something shared by all Chinese people. SARS was the darkest cloud
in the past decade but it was encircled by a silver lining. Something good came out of it, not just the economic
rebound but communication between Hong Kong and the mainland. It's a tragedy that led to something good.
The mainland realized that whatever decisions it makes in the mainland will affect Hong Kong positively or
negatively.
TIME: Let's turn to something specific. Why is the standard of English in Hong Kong deteriorating?
CHAN: The government has to create some sort of an environment where people can speak English. Singapore
has a better environment for speaking English because a lot of people speak English within their families and not
just in the workplace or schools. But here in Hong Kong they don't. Even officials are less willing to speak in
English despite the fact that English and Chinese are both official languages.
FUNG: It's not just English; it's also Chinese. One of the problems is the insistence, since 197, of teaching in
the mother tongue, which is Cantonese. It's the equivalent of teaching Sicilian instead of Italian or Provençal
instead of French. You're basically condemning the next generation to second-class citizenship when they hit the
job market. The government needs to expend political capital in order to push through Mandarin teaching.
Without language proficiency, Hong Kong will never grow. We are now 90% services. Therefore language ability
is at a premium. This is very serious—a long-term, systemic problem. I [once] asked the head of United Artists in
Hong Kong why we only got the sex-and-violence movies, the lowest common denominators, not intelligent
movies from the U.S. His answer was very direct, and very compelling. He said, "You people are so Hong Kong Roundtable badly
educated you do not appreciate the good movies, and therefore I cannot sell them." There's a kernel of truth in
that. You do not get that type of culture which says I want to look at those sort of movies. In Beijing you do.
TIME: Hong Kong may be a harbinger of something really important for the 21st century: a free, Chinese,
international city. All of us have an interest in such cities being tremendous successes. Do you agree that Hong
Kong is a city with a connection to China, but also to the rest of the world.
LOH: There are two layers, two societies, in Hong Kong. This is not based on race or how much money you have.
It's based on outlook and attitude and education. You have a small group in Hong Kong who find it quite easy to
switch between English and Chinese cultures. These are the same people who would talk about education quality,
English quality, cleaning up the environment, carbon trading, [London Mayor] Ken Livingstone [and his] road
pricing, and why we can't do it. Then we have this very local aspect that is much more belly gazing, much more
Cantonese driven. [We need] to reach out to those people and say, there's a big world out there, there's China at
the back, be interested, learn Mandarin, learn English.
CHAN: We're still depending on the capital that was accumulated over 156 years of British rule in terms of our
connectivity with the rest of the world. If you look at what has happened in the last 10 years, the government
espouses to be an international city but it doesn't ask itself what are the prerequisites and the ingredients of an
international city. If you ask any of our main trading partners—the U.S., Britain—we're rapidly disappearing
from their radar screens. In a sense it's natural because, with China becoming economically stronger and having
more prominence, people's eyes will naturally gravitate toward the mainland. But we're not doing nearly enough.
I remember in the days before 197, because of concerns over the political transition, the government had no
choice but constantly to go overseas to sell Hong Kong.
FUNG: It's not just trade missions either; we need substance, because without substance there's nothing to sell.
The environment is critical. Education is absolutely critical. You will not get a world-class city like New York or
London unless you get first-class educational institutions. You will not get the intellectual ferment of world-class
cities unless you have a cultural scene which is commensurate. You don't get that in Hong Kong. Without those
critical components, [the government's slogan] "Asia's World City" is just an aspiration. We can't just keep
repeating that mantra; we need to do something about it.
TIME: Raymond, when looking at Hong Kong compared to many mainland cities, Hong Kong must seem pretty
well run. Now you're with four very thoughtful Hong Kong people revealing what doesn't work here. Are you
surprised by this?
ZHOU: Not really. I lived in the U.S. for almost 15 years. When you look at the States, you feel they run their
country perfectly. But when you move there you see all the complaints. It's the same thing. I hear you talk about
the educational system here, but you probably haven't heard us talking about the mainland's educational system.
We all hate it. It has so many more problems. In terms of hardware the mainland is quickly catching up with
Hong Kong, so maybe you have a sense of competition. But if you look at the software, Hong Kong is so far
ahead.
TIME: For the next 10 years, what would be the absolutely key two or three things essential to an exciting,
international vision for Hong Kong?
CHAN: You need a constitutional structure that will enable government to govern well, tune into community
aspirations and be able to get its policies and programs through the legislature. If you can't, then you're going to
have a very difficult road ahead. You need good, strong, ethical leadership. I have more faith in the people of
Hong Kong. They're pragmatic. They know what they want. This manifestation of civil action—you're going to see
more and more of it, not less and less. And the government needs to be able to cope with it.
WU: The main thing is a harmonious partnership between the legislature and government, not this
confrontational thing. Christine, this is where you and I differ. If you look at all the constitutions, even in
America, it is not [the case] that everybody is equal. In Hong Kong Roundtable, [the business [a {e}]lite] must have
representation.
CHAN: Gordon, why do you assume that under full democracy businesspeople will be thrown out lock, stock
and barrel? You underestimate their own abilities to woo the public.
LOH: Hong Kong has $3.5 billion in the bud get to spend on infrastructure. I want that to be spent on the kind of
infrastructure that is well designed. What do we mean today by something that is well designed? It takes public
health and environment and energy efficiency all into account, plus heritage preservation.
FUNG: If there's one issue that should be visited in the next 10 years, it's really to confront the sacred cow of
positive non-interventionism. Has its shelf life expired? If you look at the way that Asia is developing, nobody
subscribes to this. And who is the loser? Hong Kong. Let's take one example: the film industry. In the 1980s the
film industry in Hong Kong, plus music, which was a spin-off, the Canto-pop phenomenon, led Asia. Today we
are totally eclipsed by South Korea, by Thailand. Why did Hong Kong lose New York University's Tisch School of
the Arts to Singapore when Tisch actually wanted to establish in Hong Kong? Singapore gave them the land—flat
Click to Print
out, that's it. We lost that and therefore we lost the chance to regenerate film, drama, television. Our
entertainment industry is in the doldrums. Our directors go to Hollywood, or they work in mainland China. They
don't stay here. Why is it that even New York, the world's world city, has a film policy which has wrested film
production away from Toronto? By tax rates and subsidies—that's how they did it. That's the opposite of positive
non-interventionism, which is a mantra for "do nothing."


CHAN: You need to be very careful about selecting winners.
FUNG: If we refuse to look at the sacred cow, if we do not have an honest debate about it, [and just say] this is
the Hong Kong way, then we need to ask ourselves: Is the Hong Kong Roundtable way going to succeed for the next 50 years?
We know that these people in Singapore are not just sitting on their hands and doing nothing. Nor are those in
South Korea, nor is Malaysia, nor is Dubai, nor is Almaty, nor is Abu Dhabi. Let's look at some of their policies.
Let us not be complacent, let us not assume that because we are where we are today, nobody can overhaul us. In
a globalized world, we can be overhauled whilst we sleep.



More Travel Guides
Copyright © 2011 www.OnePieceTravel.com All Rights Reserved. E-mail:OnePieceTravel@gmail.com