bodyType

customContents

entityId

entityUuid

articlePageQuery

filter

article

articleBaseAdvertisingInfoArticle

articleListArticle

articleSeoArticle

helpersCheckIsPostiesArticle

hooksArticleAcknowledgementGateOverlayArticle

hooksTrackPageViewArticle

hooksContentInterestArticle

articleLinkingDataContent

articleSchemaContent

liveArticle

advertZone

sentiment

contentLock

topics

types

sections

moreOnThisArticles

urlAlias

commentCount

sponsorType

authorLocations

authors

paywallTypes

corrections

displaySlideShow

multimediaEmbed

printHeadline

seriesContainer

socialHeadline

headline

flag

firstTopic

glossary

flattenTypeIds

publishedDate

additionalInfoBoxes

images

image

relatedLinks

relatedNewsletters

__typename

createdDate

sponsor

factSheets

series

disableOffPlatformContent

published

updatedDate

summary

subHeadline

body

keywords

copyrighted

customTimezone

liveContents

Frank Ching

I WAS INVITED BY THE World Economic Forum to take part in the East Asia Economic Summit in Kuala Lumpur earlier this week and, specifically, to respond to remarks by Secretary for Commerce, Industry and Technology Henry Tang Ying-yen, who was to provide a briefing on Hong Kong.

The briefing took place at a breakfast on Tuesday, where perhaps a fifth of those present were employed by the SAR government. At least one businessman had told me ahead of time that he would not attend, as he expected the talk to be 'very gung-ho about Hong Kong'. He was right.

Mr Tang obviously felt his job was to sell Hong Kong, and sell it he did. We were told about Hong Kong's wonderful infrastructure, about broadband connections and a mobile-phone penetration of more than 100 per cent, and the territory's efficiency.

But we did not hear about deflation, poor morale, the low-skilled workforce, the low level of English or the proposed new subversion laws. In other words, listening to Mr Tang, Hong Kong sounded like a modern-day Garden of Eden before the serpent made its appearance.

Since I was the only non-government person speaking (the third panelist was Mike Rowse, Director-General of Invest Hong Kong, who acted as moderator), I assumed my presence was to keep the government honest.

Record unemployment

I felt constrained to say that Mr Tang had somehow forgotten to mention the fact that Hong Kong was suffering from, among other things, a rising tide of personal bankruptcies and record unemployment.

In fact, he has said himself that Hong Kong would not see low unemployment in his lifetime. (When I reminded him of this at the briefing, Mr Tang suggested it was something he had said in the distant past. He actually made the remark on June 25. The South China Morning Post  reported it the next day.)

My role was to pose a couple of questions to Mr Tang, so I asked him about the government's philosophy. In the past, Hong Kong prided itself on allowing market forces to do their work. The government did not intervene, a philosophy described as 'positive non-interventionism'. In 1998, however, Hong Kong intervened massively in the stock market to halt a freefall but later assured the world that that was a 'one-off event'.

Recently, however, Financial Secretary Antony Leung Kam-chung said the government was studying ways to boost property prices. Chief Executive Tung Chee-hwa said the government would try 'to help push [the market] up a bit'. Has the government turned interventionist?

Mr Tang, in his response, denied the government was intervening in the market. His explanation was that the government controls 40 per cent of housing and 'by not releasing land, by not making new housing available, it can move the market up'.

To my untrained ear, this sounded very much like an explanation of how the government manipulates the property market, rather than a denial that it does intervene.

Long memories

I turned next to Mr Tang's personal philosophy of doing business. Readers with long memories may recall that, two years ago, a Chinese official, addressing the Chinese Chamber of Commerce, urged Hong Kong business people not to do business with pro-independence Taiwan businessmen.

At the time, an alarmed Mr Tung contacted the then head of the Chinese Liaison Office, Jiang Enzhu. Mr Tung then announced there would be no change to how business is done in Hong Kong. Trade would not be politicised.

However, Mr Tang, then an executive councillor, self-righteously declared that even business people must have principles and, as a principled businessman, he would never do business with pro-independence Taiwan businessmen.

Of course, Mr Tang today is not just another executive councillor. He is secretary for commerce. My question to Mr Tang: does he still believe in politicising business or has he repudiated his original stance?

He clearly did not expect the question. He merely responded that, in Hong Kong, people are free to do what they want. He did not repudiate his principled position of two years ago.

In other words, Hong Kong now has a secretary of commerce who believes that business should be politicised, as a matter of principle.

Is this what Hong Kong wants? Is it what Hong Kong needs? Should Mr Tang remain secretary of commerce if he does not disavow his previous position? Readers can draw their own conclusions.

OBSFRAGES



Observer