Yesterday, various pro-establishment newspapers, inclusive of Hong Kong Commercial Daily, Wen Wei Po and Hong Kong Economic Times, devoted quite some space to publishing an exclusive interview with Carrie Lam Chen Yuet-ngor. It could not be a coincidence that a few pro-establishment newspapers had an “exclusive interview” with Carrie Lam concurrently. It was obviously meant to give Carrie Lam an opportunity to barge in on the public opinion with an account of her decisions about different policies. The questions she was supposed to answer were naturally what the western media call “softball” quizzes, easy to answer, unthreatening as well as being a far cry from those menacing ones asked by disparate media outlets at press conferences. It is better called political publicity rather than news coverage.

In the interview, Carrie Lam spent quite a lot of time in talking about collaboration between Hong Kong and Shenzhen and the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area, conspicuously echoing the speech delivered by Xi Jinping during his southern tour in Shenzhen last week, and justifying her decision to put off her Policy Address for awaiting “policies favoring Hong Kong” from the mainland. As to the subject matter of collaboration between Hong Kong and Shenzhen, she alleged that “unification” proceeding under “one country, two systems” is not tantamount to blurring “two systems” with Hong Kong integrating into the big picture of national development or the Greater Bay Area development. However, how can “unification” not blur “two systems”? Carrie Lam did not elaborate on her statement, which is basically self-contradictory. The whole narration that follows is just about unification without a single word about “two systems”.

She said "as long as Hong Kong and Shenzhen work together…the outcome has to be bigger than 2 from 1 + 1… competitiveness is even stronger than that of New York and California. She also pointed out “instead of just caring about itself, Hong Kong should also look into Shenzhen and even the whole country if Hong Kong wants to develop well with Shenzhen”, as well as pronouncing clearly that she hopes for drawing up a “joint policy package” with Shenzhen, materializing “joint forces of two powers” to “draw in more people of high calibre and capital to settle in the two places”. “1 + 1 bigger than 2”, “Shenzhen-Hong Kong unification” and “joint policy package” were bragged about as a paradise out of this world. Yet, what they really imply is what Hong Kong people have been concerned about: Under mayor Lam’s leadership, Hong Kong is drawing close to the mainland’s system much faster, becoming in the end one of the municipalities on the mainland directly under the jurisdiction of the Central Government, or even merging with Shenzhen. By then, the Hong Kong we used to be familiar with will have been gone.

With regard to “competitiveness stronger than New York and California” and “drawing in more people of high calibre and capital”, the freedom and rule of law in Hong Kong under “two systems” that used to be appealing to multinational enterprises could even challenge the status of New York and Silicon Valley, if managed attentively. Yet, after a succession of ridiculous political events and the enactment of the National Security Law over more than a year, disinvestment has become an option seriously considered by a lot of foreign enterprises. Local people, not least professionals, have also been shaping into a mass migration wave. Making mention of “drawing in more people of high calibre and capital” for the time being is simply an impractical pipe dream.

In the eye of Carrie Lam, however, everything is attributed to the international situation unfavorable to Hong Kong, and the “unreasonable stance and policies” employed by the U.S. that hamper the economic development of Hong Kong. As such, according to her, Hong Kong can only place hopes on the mainland, counting on China to drive the economy if the city craves for getting out of the woods. But cities “counting on the motherland” are everywhere in China. While every city is scrambling for economic resources from the Central Government, for what reason is Hong Kong granted preferential treatments? Beijing used to think highly of Hong Kong, proffering to the city a lot of treatments inconceivable to other cities on the mainland, mainly because Hong Kong was a special administrative region putting “two systems” into practice, opened up to the world, and carrying strategic values, hence worth investing in. Now that the foundation has been annihilated by Carrie Lam and foreign countries have started deeming the place the same as any other cities on the mainland, why should Beijing give priority to Hong Kong anymore? As Hong Kong has lost its use value, isn’t putting economic resources in Shenzhen and Shanghai, which are “royal” and “loyal”, much better and safer? In the game of scrambling for resources played by local governments in China, is a Hong Kong without international connection still competitive?

The past success of Hong Kong was founded on its uniqueness of connecting the East to the West that brought in huge fortune from the world and the mainland. Now that Carrie Lam has ditched “two systems” , the most valuable possession, making Hong Kong grossly uncompetitive, blindly embracing Shenzhen-Hong Kong cooperation and the Greater Bay Area initiative will only end up with Hong Kong withering away one step at a time. After all, the stance upheld by the Chinese Communist Party is perspicuous: Beijing has more trust in Shenzhen than in Hong Kong. In the integration of Hong Kong into Shenzhen, it is crystal clear who takes centre stage and who runs errands.

(Lam Hoi, journalist)

Click here for Chinese version

---------------------------------

Apple Daily’s all-new English Edition is now available on the mobile app: bit.ly/2yMMfQE

To download the latest version,

iOS: bit.ly/AD_iOS

Android: bit.ly/AD_android

Or search Appledaily in App Store or Google Play