Donald's Free-Market Charades
Hong Kong's current debate on free-market theory seems like a throwback to the 1960s. Then, China and Soviet Union feuded over who represented "true socialism." Now, Hong Kong Chief Executive Donald Tsang is engaged in another ideological charade.
At issue is whether his government still follows the free-market policy that was responsible for Hong Kong's economic success. Mr. Tsang started this game of semantics a few weeks ago by dismissing "positive noninterventionism" as an outdated relic of Hong Kong's colonial past. That's the policy made famous by the late Sir Philip Haddon-Cave, who served as the territory's financial secretary during the 1970s. Sir Philip used this laissez-faire policy to resist calls for government meddling in the local economy.
But no sooner had he rubbished "positive noninterventionism" than Mr. Tsang did an Orwellian somersault. He insisted that, though the old term was gone, his government still adheres to a policy of, "big market, small government." The subtext was that the free market continues to reign in Hong Kong. Last week the chief executive "clarified" himself once more in his policy address by resorting to pragmatism: "I have always believed that we have to keep our feet firmly on the ground, and not be hamstrung by ideology or slogans." In other words, government will intervene if that is what it takes to get Hong Kong going.
Mr. Tsang did not start this "pragmatic" turn away from "positive noninterventionism." It began under his predecessor, Tung Chee Hwa, who panicked after the 1997 Asian financial crisis threw Hong Kong into recession. His solution was to throw money at the problem, trying to incubate hi-tech at an ill-conceived Cyberport, and offering billions of dollars to persuade Disney to develop a theme park in Hong Kong.
Sir Philip anticipated all of this. His warning still rings true more than a quarter of a century later: "In any particular case, the trick is to avoid being unnerved by short-term difficulties for which market forces would provide the best solution in the course of time. The inevitable results of a mistaken act of interventionism designed to correct such short-term difficulties are that market forces are prevented from having their corrective effect and, very probably, they create a situation which is worse than the short-term difficulties they are supposedly designed to correct."
What Sir Philip had not anticipated was the fallout from the reversion of sovereignty. As part of China, Hong Kong's economic success is no longer enough. Mr. Tsang asserts that Hong Kong must also play "an important role in the peaceful rise of our country." Toward this end, for the first time ever, China has explicitly incorporated Hong Kong into its five-year plan. To be "consistent with our national and regional interests," Hong Kong is to foster the growth of the four "pillar sectors" of finance, logistics, tourism and information services, according to Mr. Tsang.
While this "national" role is something new, pinning hopes on these so-called pillar sectors is old hat. It is "industrial policy," or more aptly, playing favorites, a la Japan Inc. With the benefit of hindsight, we now know that Japan Inc. was never what it was cracked up to be, and government planners were by no means omnipotent.
As a small economy with virtually no natural resources, Hong Kong can ill afford such follies. As Sir Philip said, "The open nature of our economy means that the achievement of growth, and growth with stability, is dependent on forces largely outside our control. Generally speaking, this must lead on to the recognition that it would be futile for the government to intervene in the economy."
Mr. Tsang may think that he has his feet firmly on the ground. But, if Japan's experience is any guide, those pillars that he now pins his hopes on are, in fact, planted on quicksand.
Mr. Yeung is publisher of Hong Kong-based Next Magazine.
曾荫权的“自由市场”文字游戏
香港眼下正在进行的有关自由市场理论的讨论似乎让人一下子回到了上世纪六十年代。当时，中国和前苏联正在为两个国家谁能代表“真正的社会主义”争得不可开交。而现在，香港特首曾荫权则忙着玩另一场有关意识形态的文字游戏。
惹起争议的话题是港府是否还要继续执行曾造就当年香港经济繁荣的自由市场政策。曾先生几周前在讲话中率先拉开了这场游戏的序幕。他当时表示，“积极不干预政策”是香港殖民地历史留下的遗迹，现在已经过时。
这一政策在夏鼎基爵士(Philip Haddon-Cave)七十年代担任香港财政司司长期间声名大噪。夏鼎基爵士当时抵制住那些希望政府干预香港经济的呼声，坚持实行这种放任主义的政策。
但是，曾先生这边刚刚抛弃“积极不干预政策”，随后就又来了个大转弯，倒向了奥威尔笔下的集权主义。曾荫权坚定地表示，虽然这个老一套的政策已经过时，但他的政府仍将坚持“大市场、小政府”的政策。他的潜台词是，自由市场将继续统治香港。上周，这位特首在其施政演说中试图借用实用主义手法再次澄清自己。他说：我一直认为，我们必须让自己脚踏实地，不能被意识形态或笼统的口号搞得固步自封。也就是说，曾荫权的意思是如果干预是出于推动香港发展所需，政府将照做不误。
从“积极不干预政策”转向“实用主义”并非始自曾特首。实际上，其始作俑者是董建华。1997的亚洲金融危机让香港陷入衰退，董建华因此惊恐万状。他想出的解决办法是大量投钱，试图在那个设计上就存在缺陷的“数码港”项目上造出高科技奇迹，另外，他还拿出数十亿美元说服迪斯尼在香港建乐园。
夏鼎基爵士早就预见到了这一切。他当初的警告在将近三十年后的今天听来仍掷地有声。他说：在任何情况下，都不要被暂时的困难吓倒；经过一定时间，市场的力量将为化解那些困难提供最佳方案。
为克服暂时困难而采取的不当干预行动所产生的不可避免的结果是，市场力量应能产生的纠错效果被压制住了，而且非常可能的情况是，干预造成的情况可能比它想克服的暂时困难更为糟糕。
夏鼎基爵士没料到的是主权交接给香港带来的变化。香港的经济成就如果放到整个中国总量庞大的经济版图上就没那么可观了。曾荫权先生放言，香港还必须“对整个国家的和平崛起发挥重大作用”。而中国在制定“十一五”规划时也首次写进了有关香港的内容。
曾荫权表示，为与整个国家和地区的利益保持一致，香港将加强四大支柱产业即金融、物流、旅游和信息服务产业的增长。
虽然赋予香港顺应“国家”利益的角色还是个新生事物，但寄希望于所谓的支柱产业却是老生常谈。日本就曾是这样的例子。他们也搞了所谓“产业政策”，或者更确切地说是重点发展强项。但从事后总结来看，我们现在都知道，日本企业从来都不像他们被吹捧的那么神奇，政府计划部门也绝非万能。
香港经济总体规模很小，且几乎无任何自然资源。它将难以承担这样的荒唐使命。正如夏鼎基爵士所言，香港经济的开放特性决定了其发展成就及发展的稳定性将取决于基本不受控制的力量。一般来讲，这势必能得出这样一种认识，即政府如干预经济将是徒劳的。
曾荫权或许认为他脚下的根基很牢。但是，从日本的过往经验看，曾先生寄以厚望的那些支柱产业实际上不过是建在沙滩上的楼阁，不堪一击。
（编者按：本文作者杨伟康是香港《壹周刊》(Next Magazine)发行人。）
