As the government consults the public on the proposed partial privatisation of the Airport Authority, there appear to be a lot of misgivings about the plan among airlines and some legislators. The fiasco over the Link Reit listing has also raised concern about possible legal repercussions.
Some claim that Article 130 of the Basic Law - which says Hong Kong 'shall be responsible on its own for matters of routine business and technical management of civil aviation, including the management of the airport' - might pose a constitutional hurdle to changing the authority's status.
Such concern may be misplaced, as this proviso is to emphasise autonomy - that Hong Kong, rather than the central government, should manage its own civil aviation, including the airport, unless otherwise specified in the Basic Law.
Whether the Airport Authority should be privatised ought to be examined more in terms of what is best for Hong Kong. The government argues that privatisation offers an opportunity to operate the airport with greater efficiency and would provide more commercial opportunities. But isn't the authority already operating efficiently according to market principles?
There is also the political concern that a privatised Airport Authority may become too detached from what is best for the public and care only about maximising shareholders' interests. Some worry that, with a huge amount of land and a monopolistic control of a strategic public facility, the authority could become akin to an independent kingdom.
Economic concerns about price caps, and measures to prevent anti-competitive practices, are similar to those articulated in most airport privatisations elsewhere.
Under the proposal, the new company is unlikely to gain new powers or freedom. The government will continue to be the majority shareholder, and no other single shareholder would be allowed to own more than 10 per cent of total voting rights.