Hm, I don’t understand the need for an obnoxious reply, particularly since you brought up the words and concept of “model capitalistic economy”, not me.
Once again, you’re insisting on “model capitalistic economy” as if it’s the only possible good or appropriate model. And, by the way, how many of those do you know that actually exist? There aren’t that many, are there? Are European or American monopolies and/or protectionist policies, for example, good instances of model capitalistic economies?
Nice of you to mention export, factories, entertainment, retail, etc., though, which are of course part of the picture. As is the legal system, the low cost of government hospitals and doctors, etc., although these are less economic “model” identifiers, but rather indicators of a sensible populist approach.
We all know that various houses have held sway in Hong Kong. Listing the evils of market dominance (monopoly) tells me London may have been unable or unwilling (given that a “model capitalistic economy” would probably have spun out of their grasp and into China’s) to do a perfect job, but it doesn’t tell me London didn’t do a good job. Is the duty of a government to do the very capitalistic best for its people, or is it to ensure the survival of the territory concerned? Probably a balance of the two–democracy isn’t always the highest priority, especially when an apparently rabid and vociferous China lies all around.
Actually, the long property bubble resulting from the above was not bad while it lasted, and I’m guessing contributed to the overall wealth of Hong Kong and its ability to function efficiently as a tiny city-state with no real native industries or resources–heck, water has to be piped in from China. Hong Kong was a piece of economic juggling. The city is paying for those days now, it’s true, but bubbles happen everywhere–even in supposedly model capitalistic economies. As an aside, I wonder how Shanghai is going to land after flying high in its own current bubble. If anything, we have to blame Hong Kong today for repeatedly failing to address in a meaningful manner the problem of artificially inflated property prices, the consequences of which are increasing in severity as the world economy weakens, China ascends, and HK is left in the lurch. Property prices are much lower today than they were a few years ago, but HK is still overpriced and therefore taking a hit in competitiveness–precisely because of those property developers and their covenant with the governments of HK and China. At the same time, these people helped turn HK into a very wealthy urban centre, one with infrastructure, services, and efficiency practically unseen in that part of the world.
In an astounding move, the HK government is offerring killer deals on office rent in the newly opened Cyberport–this in a city where it was preferrable to keep a property vacant rather than lower its price significantly. This seems like more of a tenancy drive for the Cyberport than any meaningful reform of inflated property prices, but it could be a beginning.
Thanks for the little democratic-economic precis, but, I think I said earlier, the case is largely inapplicable to Hong Kong. Not just because real democracy in Hong Kong would have meant losing too much control of the territory to Chinese interests (a clear disaster for Britain, especially considering the tension between the two cultures), but also because there is no way in hell that brutish China would have tolerated a democracy within its borders in the heyday of the communist party (it still wouldn’t today, and it’s come a long way). And I say this (repeating myself again) fully cognizant of the tendency of colonies to be less than perfect and harmonious places. You mention India as an example, but London couldn’t hold on to India indefinitely, particularly since the British couldn’t really afford to station enough troops there to ensure the colony continued to operate as British.
Uh-huh, Patten took office in 1992. There is no other leader of Hong Kong before or since him that did as much for democracy in Hong Kong, and who did it with both cool-headed diplomacy and (in my opinion anyway) bravery both in the face of China and London. He was also the first governor of Hong Kong to arrive in the harbour wearing a business suit as opposed to the full imperial outfit. According to Emily Lau, at the time a HK legislator in the democratic camp, “Patten has succeeded in making the administration more open, more accountable, more transparent. But he failed to give Hong Kong full democracy.” Should he have been sent to HK earlier, say, five years before that and allowed to carry out his reforms? I’m sure it would have helped to make HK under China a more democratic affair, but probably to a limited extent since China was and is categorically opposed to full autonomy and democracy for Hong Kong. Why esle was the most pro-democratic governor in Hong Kong–the one governor who mixed with the people-- the one that was most hated by Beijing?
Even assuming that instituting a “model” of democracy would have been possible and would have worked to Hong Kong’s advantage, how could that have been maintained in any way right there in China’s underbelly? With the threat of the British navy?
Also keep in mind that the Sino-British Joint Declaration on the future of Hong Kong was signed in 1984. Before that Hong Kong’s future was uncertain.
Depends how you look at it, doesn’t it? The other side of the coin is that Britain ought to be thanked for what democracy Hong Kong does have today–as much as China interests attempted to prevent it for bleedin’ obvious reasons. Without Britain there would be no Hong Kong (in fact, China could very well still be clamped shut, growling at Taiwan and the US in the way of foreign affairs). The city-state had a huge influence on China, demonstrating the advantages of a capitalist system in situ by being China’s port of entry and trading post for decades.
Capitalism, yes, democracy, less so. It’s the Asian way, as a famous man once said. Is it any surprise that China is developing along the exact same lines, setting up an increasingly capitalistic economic system as a precursor of democracy? The terrible job you keep saying Britain did in HK has resulted in the gradual shift to capitalism and (to a lesser extent) greater emphasis in democracy in the region.
Yes, they could have done a better job. Yes, the British were, throughout their history, quite racist, white man’s burden and all that. But that doesn’t make a point about Hong Kong, because most nations and governments have similar if not worse track record in comparable situations. And, all things considered, the legacies of colonialism are (overall) positive ones, Marxism and Holliwood to the contrary.
Cartels exist everywhere, sometimes they are visible, and sometimes they go by names like XYZ consortium. I don’t think the presece of cartels in Hong Kong tells us much, beyond the rapacious way of doing business common in China (the property houses are Chinese creations for the most part, not Western–and I already said before that no local tycoon has had a chance to prosper in the last 40 years if he wasn’t unequivocally pro-Beijing, which certainly puts the picture in better focus). Another problem Britain had to contend with in HK were the triads, whose history in the territory began at the turn of the century as mainland Chinese “business” interests infiltrating (or infesting) the Hong Kong economy. And of course corruption in general, which was usually tied to the triads and was a severe problem until the '60s and '70s. Britain had bigger problems in HK than granting the inhabitants of this small colony–most of whom went there by their own choice after the colony was established–democratic freedom.