Marketing Hong Kong in the New Economy

By Philip Bowring

Mercifully, not much time was spent debating whether there really was a New Economy, leaving more time for policy suggestions.

Mike Rowse kicked off to a lively start going out of his way to be an abnormality, a controversial civil servant. He proposed three things to do to improve the product to be marketed:

• Reduce air pollution to make the city more attractive to high-tech investors and their managers' families.

• Provide easy access to mainlanders wanting training here. Trainees could more easily go to Singapore, which meant that some multinationals preferred to do training there.
• No more Cyberports, which gave an impression, albeit unfair, that the Hong Kong playing field was no longer even and that lack of competitive tendering suggested some local interests were given unfair advantage.

No one disagreed with the first of these, though equally no one commented on the draconian fixed fines Rowse proposed for polluters. Whilst there is now a consensus about the need to improve the environment, it remains unclear whether there is a similar consensus for the tough action and big spending needed to make rapid progress.

Selina Chow rejected the idea that slow progress on pollution was Legco's fault. An "executive-led" government has declined to lead on issues like LPG and low sulphur fuel because of pressure groups not LegCo obstruction. Barrie Cook said that the community and government had not yet accepted the "polluter pays" principle. The government needed more courage, and LegCo should move beyond the narrow interests of the groups represented there.

The Cyberport jibe met with a generally warm welcome, though Rowse was put on the defensive by Richard Wong's suggestion of "no more Disneys". Rowse's defense – that Disney was foreign therefore did not give the impression of helping local investors – did not go down well with purists who thought that the field should be level for all.

No one disagreed about the problem of mainlander access. Indeed, the issues surrounding immigration became the most oft-repeated theme of the session. Although this is not within the Financial Secretary's remit, and certainly not a budget issue, it is one the government at large must address.

James Tang said that there should be a long-term strategy to attract top academics, especially from the mainland. Martin Barrow complained how ridiculous it was that it took six weeks to get permission to bring trainees from the mainland. Singapore took two days at most. (It was later noted that the time had now been reduced but was still far longer than Singapore). Anthony Griffiths mentioned the shortage of IT personnel. Selina Chow noted there was a protectionist attitude limiting import of top quality mainlanders. Anna Sohmen was eloquent on the shortage of male ballet dancers in Hong Kong and the difficulty of bringing them from the mainland.

In defense of his department, Ambrose Lee said that things were being speeded up. It was generally very easy for professionals from abroad to come here. the issue of mainlanders was more difficult because of local sensitivities and the vexed issue of right of abode claimants. Policy was under "constant review". Rowse said obstacles to mainland visits were often more there than here.

Rowse took the migration issue to a broader level by suggesting that Hong Kong might follow the example of Canada and Australia with a points system based on skills. No one seemed to disagree that this was a good way to select the 150 a day arriving on one-way permits. However, the session did not get around to discussing whether total inflow should be more or less, or tackle the thorny issue of whether Hong Kong had much say in choosing who got one-way permits.

The issue of population size relative to economic and environmental capacity to absorb was touched on by Thomas Chan. Maybe, he suggested, Hong Kong should have 9 million people but if so because of pollution it would need to expand its urban space into the Pearl River Delta. Hong Kong should get beyond colonial border thinking, he said, but without addressing the political implications for both sides.

There were numerous references to the need to improve the quality of life in Hong Kong if it were to be a global city, with big and small things of the sort found in places like Paris, London and New York. It was agreed that Hong Kong was a dynamic and exciting place but other cities were now moving ahead more quickly. Siu Sin Por said Hong Kong did not have the sense of urgency needed to shape up and prevent Shanghai catching up. He did not suggest what things in particular needed to change. Chandran Nair at the dinner suggested that it needed not just be quality of life now but very low spending on research meant we were not taking care of the future. (It was also suggested at dinner that lavish buildings and salaries meant that university costs per student were high and overall enrolment low.)

Anthony Yeh mentioned the low quality of the local city landscape with masses of concrete but not much design of high technology. Traffic signs were bad, there were few maps to guide visitors, no open-air public concerts etc. Sohmen mentioned the need for Hong Kong to be proud of its history and buildings, colonial and otherwise, and its role as meeting place of various Chinese sub-cultures.

However, Sohmen was also of the view that Hong Kong was too shy and did not market its strengths. The outside world was aware of pollution problems but there was not enough awareness that 70% of the territory was green, and traffic was nothing like as bad as in most big Asian cities. Nor was it just a place for money making. It was becoming a city of the arts and culture.

There was a general inclination to "shoot the messenger" of bad news. The good news was not getting out either because of "the press", that handy scapegoat not represented (yet) at the forum. John Chan of KMB was convinced the press only reported bad news. But Donald Tsang was unafraid of the local media which, he reminded the dinner, was an integral part of Hong Kong's variety and vitality.

Rowse however found culprits for bad news closer by – some colleagues in the government who were not getting the good news of Hong Kong across. Griffiths urged Hong Kong to "boast of its success". Charles Kao enthused about all aspects of Hong Kong except its public relations.

There was a suggestion that the Trade Development Council was still more organized to promote merchandise trade than services. This was denied by Rebecca Lai who noted the good work it was doing on financial services. The outreach committee headed by Mervyn Davies of Standard Chartered was involving financial service practitioners both in spreading the good word of Hong Kong and providing a channel for communication on issues such as financial sector regulation.

Rowse mentioned the importance of helping those who were already investing here. Most foreign investment was from people already here, not newcomers.

However, there was a need for better coordination of efforts to promote Hong Kong involving TDC, Hong Kong Tourist Association, government, industry, trade and information departments. Major airlines and banks should be brought in too. There was a particular need for more representation on the mainland. Dodwell thought there could be promotion cooperation with the Pearl River Delta.

All this raised the issue of what sort of image Hong Kong should present. Chow noted the debate about the junk logo, which was familiar overseas but local people did not identify with it. Anthony Au was critical of Hong Kong's official websites which were dull. Richard Wong thought the government should lead by giving a better example of using IT itself, presenting Hong Kong as an ultra modern and efficient city. He believed that targeted marketing was needed but doubted the ability of government agencies whose main role was regulatory to be much good at promotion.

Prof Kueh Yak-yeou asked whether Hong Kong was being marketed as a New Economy city using New Economy tools. K.H. Lee thought that Hong Kong should play up its position as the most developed and civilised contemporary Chinese city, and that it should play up its history and its links to SE Asia.

There were differing views on the extent to which marketing should be targeted, leaving the generic image to take care of itself. Chow and Wong noted that diversity was central to Hong Kong's attraction. There was not a unified image but an overlapping series.

However it was noted by several speakers that while Hong Kong generally enjoyed a positive image overseas, its self-image, particularly among the young, was more problematic. Rowse in particular quoted polls showing the poor morale and low future expectations of many young people. There were not many ideas for how to deal with this. More local marketing of Hong Kong's strengths was one suggestion. But Emily Lau noted that the participants, all successful people in touch with the New Economy, were out of touch with the feelings of her less educated constituents for whom jobs, wage levels, transport costs and educational opportunities were uppermost. These people had good reason not to be so bullish.

That water was too deep for this forum which – legitimately – was more concerned with marketing Hong Kong to outsiders, be they tourists, investors or users of its commercial services. But some have left their mark on the dinner audience through their eloquence and passion.