Open up, Hong Kong
When Hong Kong was a British colony, it was described as a borrowed place on borrowed time. Its search for identity did not end with the settlement of the 1997 question in the 1980s, because the prospect of 'one country, two systems' was uncertain. How the city should relate to the mainland, and to the world at large, remains ambiguous.
As the community becomes concerned with future uncertainties, a sense of Hong Kong-centred awareness has grown, along with a paradoxically inward-looking orientation, which, at worst, would make it fortress-minded.
After reverting to Chinese sovereignty in 1997, contradictions still abound on Hong Kong's positioning in the country. People here love to think of it as the financial capital of China. Several years ago, when former premier Zhu Rongji compared Hong Kong to Toronto rather than New York, there was some bitterness. Yet there is reluctance to see Hong Kong play an active part in national political life, as though economics can be disconnected from politics.
A sense of nationhood is not just about singing the national anthem or being patriotic. The last thing we want is crude nationalism or so-called post-colonial patriotic re-education. But Hong Kong should not decline a role in national development. The latest Central Policy Unit paper to the Commission on Strategic Development may be criticised for its somewhat apologetic language, but it is far from 'political indoctrination' (as alleged by Democratic Party chairman Lee Wing-tat) when it talks about Hong Kong contributing towards national integration, peaceful diplomacy, economic development, social harmony and cultural revival.
Refusing to help shape China's future is not only unconstructive in preserving the Hong Kong system - because if that system is so vibrant, it could inspire the rest of the country - it will only marginalise the city, casting it to the periphery. The mainland should not just be somewhere for Hong Kong businesses and professionals to make money.
It may be true that the mainland's political system and socialist exhortations do not appeal to Hong Kong people. But this is not a good reason for local leaders to avoid understanding how Beijing operates if they are to influence national policies towards Hong Kong. When cities such as Shanghai, Tianjin and Guangzhou have direct access to the national leadership through their political delegates at the highest policy-making bodies, what can Hong Kong rely on to ensure that the top leaders are also sympathetic to its needs and aspirations? Under the Basic Law, Hong Kong can participate in international organisations under the name of 'Hong Kong, China'. There is no reason why it should restrict its ability to reach out on the world arena. Hong Kong is a member of the World Trade Organisation and the Asia-Pacific Economic Co-operation forum in its own right. It should join more world bodies.
In 1999, the government made a laudable move to position Hong Kong as 'Asia's World City', but so far it has only given lip service to the idea, rather than backing it with concrete strategies. Hong Kong's leadership role in East Asia is not obscure. East Asian research is underdeveloped. Universities are not encouraged to train international-relations experts, because it is wrongly assumed that we do not need diplomats. It is time for Hong Kong to adopt a more proactive external-affairs policy.
Anthony Cheung Bing-leung is a professor of public administration at City University of Hong Kong, an executive councillor, and founder of SynergyNet, a policy think-tank
