Hong Kong Signs Up for Beijing’s Five-Year Plan — But at What Cost?

Hong Kong Signs Up for Beijing’s Five-Year Plan — But at What Cost?

Apple Daily - Hong Kong Images ()

The city’s first homegrown five-year plan marks a historic departure from the autonomy that defined it

A Historic First

For the first time in its history, Hong Kong will formulate its own five-year plan, aligned with Beijing’s national 15th Five-Year Plan covering the period from 2026 to 2030. Financial Secretary Paul Chan confirmed in his budget address on February 25 that the Chief Executive would lead a cross-bureau and interdepartmental task force to proactively align Hong Kong with the national planning framework. The announcement was presented by the government as a positive step toward greater integration with China’s development agenda. Critics see it differently.

What Beijing Wants From Hong Kong

According to Chan and the official framing, the 15th Five-Year Plan offers Hong Kong explicit support to consolidate and enhance its status as an international financial, shipping, and trade center while developing into an international innovation and technology hub and a global hub for high-caliber talent. The plan also calls on Hong Kong to help build a modern industrial system, support high-level self-reliance in science and technology, and serve as a super connector linking China’s economy to the world. Under One Country Two Systems, Chan argued, Hong Kong possesses unique institutional strengths. Its efficient aviation, shipping, and logistics infrastructure, its world-class universities, and its international talent pool make it capable of roles that no mainland city can fill in the same way.

The Framing of Integration

Chan’s language throughout the budget address on this topic was notable for its emphasis on alignment, integration, and contribution to national goals. The phrase new quality productive forces, drawn directly from President Xi Jinping’s policy vocabulary, appeared in the address as a framework for thinking about innovation and industrial development. This linguistic alignment with mainland political discourse is itself a marker of how Hong Kong’s governance has shifted since 2020. Officials who a decade ago would have carefully distinguished Hong Kong’s development agenda from Beijing’s are now openly adopting the mainland’s conceptual framework as their own.

The Autonomy Question

One Country Two Systems was the framework under which Hong Kong was promised a high degree of autonomy for 50 years following the 1997 handover. That promise was made to the people of Hong Kong and to the international community. The formulation of a Hong Kong-specific five-year plan that is explicitly designed to align with and support the mainland’s national plan raises serious questions about how much of that promised autonomy remains meaningful in practice. Human Rights Watch has documented a comprehensive dismantling of Hong Kong’s independent institutions since 2020, including the restructuring of the electoral system to eliminate meaningful political opposition, the prosecution of pro-democracy activists, and the closure of independent media outlets. A city whose political structures are being redesigned to ensure loyalty to Beijing is not exercising high-degree autonomy, whatever planning documents may say.

Talent, Technology, and the Brain Drain

Chan emphasized Hong Kong’s ability to bring together high-caliber talents from across the globe and noted that the government would continue to attract top scientific researchers from around the world. The city’s universities and internationalized environment were cited as assets. This framing glosses over a significant challenge: many of the most talented people who built Hong Kong’s international reputation have already left. Scholars, journalists, lawyers, and civil society leaders who formed the backbone of the city’s intellectual life chose emigration over accommodation with the post-2020 political order. The Academic Freedom Index documents a sharp decline in academic freedom in Hong Kong since 2020, affecting the very universities Chan points to as competitive advantages. Attracting new talent while continuing to suppress the freedoms that made Hong Kong attractive in the first place is a contradiction that no five-year plan can paper over.

What This Plan Could Deliver — and What It Cannot

The economic ambitions embedded in Hong Kong’s alignment with the 15th Five-Year Plan are real. Investment in innovation infrastructure, AI development, financial market reform, and talent attraction could generate genuine economic activity. The city’s fiscal position has improved. Growth is forecast. The stock market is rising. But economic growth is not the same as the kind of city Hong Kong was or could be again. A city that formulates its development plans in explicit service of a national agenda directed from Beijing is a different kind of place than the freewheeling, disputatious, internationally connected Hong Kong that became one of the world’s great cities. The question is not whether Hong Kong can grow economically within this framework. It probably can. The question is whether the people who care most about Hong Kong — its diaspora, its democracy advocates, its former residents — recognize the city they see in these plans as the Hong Kong worth fighting for.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *