Hong Kong’s welfare failures are a damning indictment of the government and the international community

The government’s woefully inadequate welfare package highlights its failure to implement Basic Law Article 145 to improve people’s livelihoods. The apathy in the business and international communities is shameful. Hongkongers deserve better

David Meyer

Published: 9:30am, 24 Jan 2020

Why you can trust SCMP

The Hong Kong government’s recent proposals to deal with the social, economic and political issues that motivate the protests reveal a leadership running off the track. It is essentially throwing money around in the hope that it sticks and reaches over one million people.

What are these proposals? Lower the age threshold for the elderly to enjoy reduced public transport fares, cash allowances for up to three months for low-income workers who lose their jobs or are unemployed, housing subsidies for people waiting for a public flat for more than three years, an increase in statutory public holidays to benefit blue-collar workers, and subsidies for protest-hit business sectors.

None of these deal with the core issues of inadequate housing, poor education, and low quality public health and social services. To add insult to injury, the government proposes a ludicrous HK$10.6 billion subsidy for the failed Ocean Park resort.

These proposals are shockingly out of touch when set against Leo Goodstadt’s devastating critique, in A City Mismanaged, of the Hong Kong government’s failure to implement the Article 145 of the Basic Law.

That article states: “On the basis of the previous social welfare system, the Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region shall, on its own, formulate policies on the development and improvement of this system in the light of the economic conditions and social needs.”

Goodstadt thoroughly documents the catastrophic failure to provide affordable, quality housing, inexpensive, rigorous school education (including English-speaking skills), better access to universities, and quality public health and social services.

Hong Kong is one of the world’s richest business centres. It can fully fund these services, but fails to do so. No one I met in Hong Kong during a recent trip to give talks and meet business leaders had heard of the book. I surmise no one in Hong Kong’s government has read it either.

The international community exhibits zero leadership in challenging Hong Kong’s government to implement Article 145. I ask businesspeople whether they would provide that leadership. The response is apathetic and self-focused. They explain to me instead how their firms prepare for the future, given the protests. Plan A is to do nothing. Plan B is to maintain or reduce their presence in Hong Kong but grow elsewhere.

Such responses reflect a widespread failure to appreciate the vast and sophisticated interweaving of Hong Kong’s financial and non-financial business networks. These networks intersect in complex ways – in the city, across the Asia-Pacific and reaching out to global markets. No serious alternative exists. Tokyo is a Japanese centre, Singapore’s networks focus on Southeast Asia, Sydney is far removed, and Shanghai and Shenzhen are in mainland China.

In talks and conversations I remind people: “We are in China; Hong Kong is a special administrative region of China.” They often nod in agreement, but I sense they do not really grasp the meaning. China’s government views Hong Kong as its window to global capital. It will never undermine that status, or let another country undermine it.

I also hear approval for the ways that governments in Britain and the US express support for the protests. Of course, China’s government strenuously rejects that intervention in its sovereign affairs. London and Washington would act with outrage at similar interventions by China.

People tell me that Beijing undermines “one country, two systems” and claim it is increasingly intervening in Hong Kong affairs. But I rarely hear specifics. Often, individuals refer to the proposed extradition law (since withdrawn) or issues from amnesty for protesters to an independent inquiry into alleged police brutality, to the need for universal suffrage. Rarely do I hear about the poor social and economic conditions of the average citizen.

Luo Huining’s arrival as director of the central government’s liaison office in Hong Kong raises the stakes for the local government. In contrast to the city’s executives, comprised of bureaucrats, President Xi Jinping sent one of the Communist Party’s leading politicians.

Luo is widely praised for cleaning up the massive corruption in Shanxi province during his tenure as party secretary. That involved breaking apart the networks of local businesses and powerful cliques which had ties to Beijing ministries. Given Shanxi’s population of over 37 million, Luo mastered huge government bureaucracies. He repeatedly states that the “one country, two systems” principle must be implemented.

One of his most common points is that the Hong Kong government must improve people’s livelihoods – that is, fulfil Article 145. This comports with the frequent criticism China’s leaders levy against Hong Kong’s government – its failure to improve social conditions.

Luo’s experience in Shanxi must give him pause when he observes the Hong Kong government’s totally inadequate response to providing better housing. If he were chief executive, one imagines, tens of thousands of housing units would be built quickly.

The Hong Kong government’s failure to improve livelihoods and the international community’s apathy are both shameful. Hongkongers deserve better.

The government’s failure to implement Article 145 borders on the immoral. When will the international community move from its conflicted self-focus to promote Hongkongers’ welfare and defend the city as China’s window to global capital?

David R. Meyer is a senior lecturer in management at the Olin Business School at Washington University in St. Louis, Missouri, US. He has published widely on Hong Kong as a global financial centre. The opinions expressed in this article are solely the author’s

Post