I had a conversation the other day with a young woman who has aspirations to return to her studies, and to do so in Britain. She has already received acceptances from two very good colleges in London - and "all" she needs now is to obtain some funding by way of a scholarship, and she's working on it. But something came up during the conversation which caught my attention.
She started to talk about sub-sovereignty, in so far as it applied to Hong Kong and wondered where the "boundaries" were. China through the Basic Law, she said, authorises some autonomy to Hong Kong to conduct "relevant external affairs", but where was the dividing line between "external affairs" and "diplomatic relations"? Good question and one, by the way, that I am definitely unqualified to answer. However, there are plenty of people out there who could undoubtedly give chapter and verse of the legal answers - probably shrouded by intentional ambiguity.
The question set my thoughts in another, but related, direction. To be honest I had never really thought of Hong Kong as a sub-sovereign state; no one had used the term before in conversation.
Under British jurisdiction foreign policy had been directed out of Westminster, defence was provided by Britain and the Court of Final Appeal was, I think, the House of Lords. It was therefore not a huge shock to discover in 1997 that China was going to take on all of those responsibilities. Hong Kong, after all, was being returned to the "owners" who had it before the 99 year lease. (And before anyone starts, I am well aware of the distinction between the "barren rock" itself - Hong Kong Island as described by Lord Palmerston in 1841- and the land in Kowloon actually leased from China).
But this sub-sovereign status is pretty unique, and I would argue it is of benefit to Hong Kong and is something we should promote rather than risk sinking into the state of being thought about as "just another city in China" - and a pretty small one at that.
So, the Foreign Ambassadors go to Beijing while the Consuls are here. Defence is provided by China and although we have a very good Court of Final Appeal there are still those tricky issues that need a Beijing clarification. But despite these diplomatic, legal and defence issues Hong Kong is a member of APEC in its own right. It is represented at the WTO. It appears in all the top sporting events, subject to qualifying but including the Olympics in its own name and under its own flag - Hong Kong.
Here we are with a population of around 7 million (yes, I know it's a bigger human population than New Zealand) rubbing shoulders with mega countries, ostensibly at least on an equal footing. Given this privilege, you have to wonder what areas like Chongqing Municipality think about all this with a population of 34 million give or take a million or two. Don't you think they would like to appear at the Olympics with their own flag, given half a chance? Or Shanghai appear at APEC meetings? Or actually any one of a dozen bigger Chinese cities with mega populations?
The issue for those cities is that they are just cities in China. Hong Kong has a different place! We have something privileged, unique and special. We do, though, need to walk the walk and talk the talk. We still get bogged down by a narrow minded mentality and we argue about the minutiae. The latest Government budget, for example, was not ideal - but get over it. And to those who say that it has made us a global laughing stock - I think they overestimate the impact this sort of news has on the rest of the world. A pretty big yawn is the usual response.
And another thing about Hong Kong. In December I wrote a blog about some predictions I had made at an Economist event in Hong Kong for 2011 (If the video clip works, I'm the fifth clip down).
One of my predictions was that Hong Kong would overtake both New York and London to become the number one Financial Centre in the Global Financial Centres Index (GFCI) in either March or September 2011. Well it hasn't happened in March, but the recently issued GFCI report says "... there remains no significant difference between London, New York and Hong Kong". Despite the best efforts of the naysayers about Hong Kong's talents and skills, and while the push to number one in the rankings will need firm action over the next six months, for Hong Kong to be recognised in this manner is not a bad achievement. It is a pity that the critics seem to come from within Hong Kong itself.
So can we please look forward and outwards? We are unique. We are in some good company. We are sub-sovereign - not sub prime, and we should act like we deserve the attention.
Comments