Greater Bay Area’s success depends on HK leadership

SAR government must guide society over perceived hurdles to geographical, ideological integration, writes Zhou Bajun

On Aug 23, the Hong Kong SAR Government announced details of the inauguration of the Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Rail Link on Sept 23, to be followed closely by the opening of the Hong Kong-ZhuhaiMacao Bridge. The projects will be the primary transportation links connecting the cities in the Guangdong-Hong KongMacao Greater Bay Area.

With a population of approximately 70 million and an area of 56,000 square kilometers, the Bay Area is intended to create a vibrant economy that bears significant influence to its neighboring regions. Facilitating personnel exchange and inter-city business activities will no doubt be the foremost steps to realizing that grand vision.

Prior to the commissioning of the XRL and the bridge, Hong Kong didn’t have the necessary conditions to form a “one-hour living circle” with major cities in the Bay Area. However, with these two major infrastructures in place, the entire Bay Area will be literally condensed into a commutable one-hour drive.

On Aug 15, one week before the announcement on the XRL’s opening date, Vice-Premier Han Zheng, who is a member of the Standing Committee of the Political Bureau of the Communist Party of China Central Committee and the head of the leading group on the development of Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area, presided over the group’s first plenary meeting in Beijing. The leading group didn’t deliberate on a long-awaited master plan for the Bay Area project at the meeting and made no announcement afterward. This has raised speculation.

Rumor has it that the absence of the master plan is to avoid further adding to the antagonistic sentiment of the US, since the “Made in China 2025” strategic plan has irked Washington and contributed to the subsequent trade war against China.

This is a feeble argument if we refer to the fact that the central government released a three-year development plan for the Yangtze River Economic Belt on July 18, just 12 days after the commencement of the trade war on July 6.

In reality, the absence of a development outline or an action plan for the Bay Area can be attributed to the fact that the Bay Area project is much more complex and difficult to implement than the Yangtze River economic integration program. The former region has two political systems, three independent customs and three currencies; whereas the latter has no such institutional differences to create problems.

This fundamental difference between the two regions has led to two outcomes: Firstly, it is easier for the Yangtze River Economic Belt to distinguish the leading city within the region (Shanghai), whereas it is difficult to nominate a clear and deserving leader among the major cities in the Bay Area. Judging from the overall economic scale and the comparative advantages of key industries, Hong Kong is wellpositioned to be the leading city within the Bay Area. However, institutional differences, in particular the historic “physical boundary” (immigration control) and the “intangible boundary” (ideological gap), hinder Hong Kong from assimilating with the nine partner cities on the mainland.

Secondly, these two boundaries will hinder Hong Kong’s integration into the Bay Area. Even if the SAR government and all sectors of the community are eager to adopt a creative thinking and approach to clear those hurdles, it is still difficult to identify the path and estimate the time required, nor is it easy to formulate a road map and timetable, never mind that such enthusiasm has yet to come into being in society.

Given these hindrances, the Bay Area must be developed in accordance with the directives given by President Xi Jinping and the guidance opinions put forward by Vice-Premier Han at the Aug 15 meeting, with an emphasis on enriching “one country, two systems”.

Take the Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge as an example. It takes less than half an hour for vehicles to commute between cities. However, owing to the separate locations of boundary-crossing control facilities, the time spent on immigration and customs inspection may be longer than the actual journey, thus defeating the purpose of bringing the “one-hour living circle” to fruition.

According to the “Plan for Further Deepening the Reform and Opening-up in the China (Guangdong) Pilot Free Trade Zone” published by the State Council in May this year, the Chinese mainland and the Macao SAR will implement the “joint boundary control system” at the MacaoZhuhai cross-boundary checkpoint when certain conditions are met. The reason why the Macao SAR and the mainland can put “joint boundary control system” on the agenda is because the mainstream society in Macao recognizes that “one country” is the core foundation of “two systems”.

In sharp contrast, it took a great deal of effort for Hong Kong to overcome the local opposition camp’s objection before it could implement the co-location arrangement for the Express Rail Link. Conceivably, it would be equally — if not more — difficult for the two sides to implement a jointboundary control system.

If the Bay Area is to be successfully developed under a synergetic framework to accomplish the desired economic complementarity among partner cities, the Hong Kong SAR Government must take a bold step to lead the community to overcome the hurdles caused by the historical legacy of “physical boundary” and “intangible boundary”.

...the Hong Kong SAR Government must take a bold step to lead the community to overcome the hurdles caused by the historical legacy of “physical boundary” and “intangible boundary”.