Then & now: taking liberties

Hong Kong likes to congratulate itself that – thanks to the Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC) – it remains mostly immune from official graft. But those who believe this probably also buy the ubiquitous pronouncements from right-wing think tanks about this city being the “world’s freest economy”; maintain that the number of prostitutes in Wan Chai is overstated; and think our choking air pollution is really just thick fog.

Acceptance of official venality varies over time and across cultures. Standards that are met with tolerant “what-elsecan- you-expect?” shrugging in some societies are viewed with horror in, or by, others.

The Germans – to cite one example – have had difficulty adapting to contemporary business practices in the mainland.

By contrast, Italians – whose own customs emphasise personal connections over official protocols, and often food and sex as social and business lubricants – have always done well there. Italian business interests prospered during the 1930s, when the Nationalist government was in full, unscrupulous control. And, sure enough, Italian commerce thrives in China today, too.

Corruption may be reasonably defined as the utilisation of one’s official position for private enrichment.

But how has the nature of it changed over time? Nineteenth and early 20th-century compradores – upon whose earnings many old-money Hong Kong Chinese (but more usually Eurasian) family fortunes started – made their money on a commission basis. The compradore was not paid a cent by his ostensible employer. It suited European bosses not to know the amount of his “squeeze”: as long as trade went on uninterrupted, and profit margins grew, then exactly how things were done was best ignored. And it still suits the same firms to have appropriately connected Chinese fixers on board. Very little, then, has really changed.