US-China Watch

Like most, I have been warned to ignore comments on social media. Understandable in one sense, but at odds with my long-standing desire to participate in the public debate. I post an article, a comment, or a previously published op-ed at least once a week. My goal is to stimulate and provoke feedback, engaging in and learning from the marketplace of ideas.  I rarely respond — this time is an exception.

Recently, I wrote a Project Syndicate op-ed, “Yes, the Hong Kong of Old is Over,” and also posted it on LinkedIn.  It was a follow-up to a controversial piece I had published about two and a half years ago in the Financial Times (“It pains me to say that Hong Kong is over”). In the past few days, my LinkedIn pages have overflowed with largely one-sided critical responses. Several were laced with distortions and ad hominem attacks on me and my distant (presumably disqualifying) residency in Connecticut. But they were the exceptions rather than the rule.

The bulk of the feedback has been exactly what I am looking for — strongly worded, focused criticism that picked apart my arguments and made me think about the main assumptions of my thesis. The strength of the responses was indicative of the depth of conviction that most of these (presumably) Hong Kongers feel in defense of their city.   I respect and understand that.  As a former resident and still frequent visitor, I, too, have openly confessed my love for the Hong Kong of old — on the pages of the South China Morning Post, as well as in a 2024 speech before Hong Kong’s distinguished Foreign Correspondent’s Club.  But I digress.

Several readers took the time to write lengthy, thoughtful articles challenging my views on Hong Kong. Three of them were especially impressive — one by Viginia Lee ( lawyer/ solicitor from the Greater Bay area and a China-appointed attesting officer), another by Adam Clermont (an American-born lawyer living and practicing law in Hong Kong), and a third by Michael Wong (Deputy Financial Secretary of Hong Kong). Ms. Lee’s article was published as an opinion piece by China Daily; Mr. Clermont’s is available on LinkedIn; and  Mr. Wong’s op-ed was published in traditional Chinese by Sing Tao.

The thrust of these articles took issue with my core point on Hong Kong’s transformation from old to new. Wong wants us still to view Hong Kong through the “One Country, Two Systems” lens. Lee and Clermont speak eloquently and more directly to my key point — the changes that occur in any city; they argue that, in this respect, Hong Kong is no different than other dynamic financial centers such as New York, London, or Singapore. Their key premise is that Hong Kong is just as much a part of China as New York is of the US, or London is of Britain.

Fair point — but not the one I am making. Conveniently overlooked is that the timeline of a 50-year handover to China has basically been cut in half by Beijing’s aggressive takeover in 2020 following massive public demonstrations. Ergo, the transformation of Hong Kong has occurred in the middle of the period when the city was still largely guaranteed a “high degree of autonomy” under its Basic Law.  That autonomy gave it the freedom, at least on paper, to operate independently outside the legal and political structures of the mother country, the PRC. As a Pew Research survey conducted in mid-2023 shows, Hong Kongers still overwhelmingly supported those democratic rights after Beijing stepped in.

That is not  a trivial detail. Beijing’s actions, as condoned by a pro-Beijing Hong Kong government, resulted in a forceful takeover of the city rather than a spontaneous, organic evolution of a dynamic urban center. Would the large outflow of expats have occurred had there not been such a forced development? Would six foreign judges have not resigned? Would bookstores not have been closed?  Newspapers not shut down?  More so-called dissidents not rounded up?

 It’s one thing to love your city for all its history and traditions. It’s another thing to conveniently look the other way and ignore a much bigger force that connects the dots.  The questions I raise are not about normal occurrences, nor spontaneous coincidences, for any city.  They all happened after Beijing’s takeover. Right before your eyes. Resilience is Hong Kong’s timeworn battle cry. To me, it looks more like forced capitulation.

The  other points in my thesis — especially IPO leadership and economic linkages to China — speak for themselves and, despite the howls of protests from some social media commentators, are not worth re-litigating again in print. But there is one overarching aspect of the debate that I want to conclude with — the character of the city. As the questions above imply, the character of Hong Kong is now under assault.

Yes, the city looks the same, and to many, especially those who focus on fine restaurants and the sleek, efficient MTR, it feels the same.  But it’s not.  Steeped in denial, the questions I raise anger Hong Kongers, and their fear of Beijing-sponsored retribution silences the free and open debate that was once a core attribute of the character of Hong Kong.

You get what you ask for on social media. There is no way to control the quality of the feedback, which ranges from highly constructive to vitriolic. Over a year and a half ago, I pulled the plug on Twitter/ X when the balance shifted toward anonymous (often bot-driven) guttural soundbites.  I struggled with Bluesky and Threads but then settled on LinkedIn as a higher-quality platform — more limited distribution but connectivity with peer-level counterparts who generally delivered the type of feedback I was looking for.

That approached worked this time. Many thanks to those of you who responded forcefully and in most cases with dignity and clarity. You may not like what you read, and I may not agree with your feedback.  But in the end, respectful dialogue is what a thriving marketplace of ideas is all about. I will continue my best to try and uphold that lofty standard.