Pie Growing
Hong Kong doesn’t really have an equivalent of Singapore’s Economic Development Board or China’s National Development and Reform Commission. That is in keeping with our historical stance on the economy that it is for the private sector to take the lead and the government’s role is to facilitate and support. The question is whether such a position is still tenable in a global economy more integrated than ever before and now thrown into turmoil by Trump’s tariff war.
That is not to say the administration is completely bereft of tools to influence development of our economy. After all we do have a minister for commerce and economic development and he has InvestHK, the Trade and Industry Department and the overseas Economic and Trade Offices (ETOs) at his disposal. (The mainland ETOs report to a different minister). He also oversees the Trade Development Council (HKTDC).
Then there is the financial secretary (FS) himself to whom the Office of Attracting Strategic Enterprises reports. The manpower equivalent – the Talent Services Unit – reports to the chief secretary. The FS also supervises the work of the Hong Kong Investment Corporation, the Hong Kong Monetary Authority and the Government Economist.
Another important player is the minister for innovation, technology and industry who sits atop the relevant commission and various supporting agencies such as the Science Park, Cyberport and the HK Productivity Council.
Two other major areas of economic activity should also be highlighted at this point. The first is tourism, the commissioner for which reports to the minister for culture, sports and tourism who also oversees the HK Tourism Board. In terms of leisure tourism, our marquee attraction is HK Disneyland, with Ocean Park, the Peak Tram, the big Buddha and HK 360 as important supporting acts. A major driver of visitor numbers is the whole network of trade exhibitions and conventions.
The second major area is education. Hong Kong has eight publicly funded universities. They are of generally good quality and are rated highly in different international ranking tables. There are four more universities for self-funded students, and additional institutions in this category are under development. There are also at least two major professional training bodies, the International Aviation Academy and the MTR Academy. Collectively these institutions have a major economic impact because of the large proportion of external students and the potential for additional ones.
Given the references to Hong Kong’s future role in the 14th national five-year plan we should also note development of the northern metropolis with its intended focus on innovation and technology. Historically our strength in these areas has been commercialisation rather than blue sky research, but proximity to the Shenzhen powerhouse should make for a complementary relationship. Innovation and technology are not ends in themselves, rather they are a means to create new, or improve existing, products and services people want to buy, or produce them in cleverer ways.
There are several aspects of the current scenario that are troubling. First, there are clearly areas of duplication and overlap. The difference between InvestHK and Oases is not always apparent, and how they interact with the Investment Corporation is not clear. The reporting lines of some units are blurred or contradictory. There is also a problem of the so called silo mentality, the tendency of different departments and agencies to focus only on their own small corner of the world without regard to the wider implications for society outside it. This is not a problem unique to Hong Kong. All bureaucracies are prone to it to some extent but everyone who has worked in the local administration, or has dealt with it, can give examples of where the government machine is not “all joined up”.
Finally, despite the establishment of the Economic Development Commission in 2013 by then chief executive C Y Leung it is questionable whether anyone is now taking a holistic view of the whole economy and setting priorities which must prevail over turf wars. There have been no recent reports about the Commission and at least part of its work seems to have been absorbed by the current chief executive John Lee Ka-chiu’s council of advisers.
We cannot be the hub for everything under the sun or we risk being jack of all trades master of none. Instead, the public discourse is periodically swept with trendy catch phrases which quickly fade. Who now remembers the “panda economy” that was going to save us all? In six months time, who will remember the “low altitude economy” with similar claimed magical powers. We do not need slogans with ephemeral lifespan, but rather carefully thought out long term strategies which take into account the latest developments in the global economy.
This does not require large numbers of additional civil servants, on the contrary there may be scope for reductions if duplication is eliminated. Though there will have to be some reshuffling and straightening out of reporting lines. Perhaps scope for a top down review of management structure?
In short what I am proposing, without going too far down the Singapore track, is re-energising of the original Commission or revamping of the council of advisers so we have a body laser focused on the economy. It will probably need to conduct some updating studies to take into account all the recent developments. The world has changed and is still changing. We need to be nimble and bring all our survival strategies up to date. We will either learn how to ride the wave or be swept away by it.