What is in a word? Time and again over the last few years in particular, I have come across articles extolling the virtues and imperatives of increased integration into the Chinese mainland for both the Hong Kong and Macao special administrative regions. Various strong, decent and rational arguments are put forward for this, and indeed, there are many important and virtuous reasons why increased integration is desirable and important. However, what this word actually means and the reality of what is meant by it by the powers that be, and indeed how it is interpreted, is crucially important.
This is for its implementation for both Hong Kong and Macao. Indeed, this is especially when compared to the perception many may have of the implications for such a direction of travel for the English-speaking readers of such articles in particular. The Merriam-Webster dictionary describes “integration” as “the act or process or an instance of integrating” such as “incorporation as equals into society or an organization of individuals of different groups”. It also then defines “integrate” as “to incorporate into a larger unit” and “to unite with something else”. A thesaurus would also say “combination”, “amalgamation”, “incorporation”, “unification” and “consolidation”, with the strongest synonym match being “assimilation”.
As I get on in years, I have increasingly realized that people’s perceptions rather than reality are surprisingly more influential on how they behave and think than, as a scientist, I had hoped or imagined. I was so naive. Our abilities to forensically discriminate fact from fiction seem in decline in the era of biased loud and powerful voices in much of the Western media especially. This malignant process that has led to concepts of fake news, alternative facts and the repeat of untruths until they become accepted as reality by many, has spread like a cancer around the globe. Education here is essential, especially the inculcation of critical-thinking skills across our education systems, and particularly at the highest levels in our globally elite universities. I honestly think much of the world’s madness stems from such things, but it is hard to counteract.
So accurate and simple messaging based on the essence of reality is key. This is why some of the current, relevant messaging from this year’s two sessions is so important. We are indeed urged to seize the benefits of the amazing “one country, two systems” model for all the advantages and privileges it has bestowed on our colorful, vibrant, distinct and powerful city. Indeed, we are urged by Zheng Yanxiong, director of the Liaison Office of the Central People’s Government in the HKSAR, to “fully grasp the similarities and differences between Hong Kong and the mainland” and “give full play to the institutional advantages of ‘one country, two systems’ ”.
A further case in point is that the vice-premier, Ding Xuexiang, has also emphasized the key role and importance of Hong Kong’s financial sector in advancing the nation’s technological development — this is as remarked by national political advisers from Hong Kong. This also comes along with Premier Li Qiang’s appeal for the Hong Kong and Macao special administrative regions to enhance their global ties. I could not agree more with all three major points, each of which is highly significant and crucially important to our future and prosperity.
Indeed, the development of important global ties arise from our tertiary education and banking sectors as key drivers of innovation and technology that act as magnets for external interest. However, one must note that the ability and capacity to fulfill these important developmental roles of global interconnection, technological development and institutional advantages, not just for Hong Kong and Macao but for the whole Greater Bay Area and China more broadly, comes primarily from our very distinctiveness. Hence, the frequent voices calling for increased integration must not raise fears that this is just another word for “assimilation”. This is not desirable nor intended, I believe. Again, simple messaging is key.
So, integration where it is valuable, where it improves and expands joint capacity, capability and efficiency for wealth creation and improving people’s lives on both sides of the border is needed but not for integration’s sake.
Such talk just of integration does not fit with the implementation of our wonderful “one country, two systems” principle that we are told time and again is fundamental and must be preserved beyond the current expiration date of 2047. It needs to be carefully set in the correct light and context — its value must be clear and simple to understand with no fear attached.
Hong Kong’s complete and full integration into the Greater Bay Area in the way that some have suggested would remove our distinctiveness and ability to independently develop new ideas and processes, and would erode our performance edge. It would depress competition that spurs innovation and opportunity particularly in finance, fintech, investment, regulation, arbitration and much more. It would negate our international superconnector status and depress our attractiveness as a distinct world city that can attract global talent. We can and must preserve what Hong Kong is, even as we improve natural ties and integrate.
The author is director of the Laboratory for Space Research, the University of Hong Kong.
The views do not necessarily reflect those of China Daily.
