I’ve only just completed my final blog post that covers the last 2 weeks of my time at Lion Rock since the past fortnight has been intense but well worth the challenge having provided me with the ideal conclusion to an amazing internship.
One of the highlights last week was having had the opportunity to meet many of the founders like Simon Lee and Bill Stacey for the first time over dim sum where I distributed a publication from the ‘Institute of Public Affairs’ and we discussed some of the shortcomings associated with the education system in Australia: in particular, the growing trend that is emerging whereby an all-round rudimentary historical knowledge that gives students basic understandings of the foundations of the Western Civilization upon which our nations have developed is being wholly rejected in favor of piece-meal, departmentalized bites of knowledge focusing on method rather than substance. Bill Stacey is chairman of the Institute and had just gotten back from an overseas business trip and was a pleasure to have lunch with. It was great hearing about his earlier days at the University of Western Australia and the research he was doing that related to libertarianism which ultimately led him to meet up with Ron Manners and become so involved with Mannkal over the years, having recently taken up post on its Advisory Council. Bill Stacey has been a strong advocate of market reform over the past 25 years and I thought it would be pertinent to attach a paper (located at the end of this blog entry) which I came across this week in the officethat had been co-authored by Bill and provides a very good critical analysis of the recent, ‘Global Financial Crisis’ looking to the causes and actions that should have been taken.
One of the most rewarding things that I was lucky enough to experience over my entire time at Institute were the 2 one-to-one workshops that were given to me by founders Simon Lee and Andrew Shuen last week. The first by Simon Lee was catered to introducing me with a historical grounding in the cornerstones of Hong Kong’s astounding success and continued resilience. The eloquence and simplicity with which Simon delivered the presentation and the depth to which he explored the subject are commendable and instilled in me an entirely new way with which to view Hong Kong, it’s history and people. Inter alia, he got me particularly interested in researching further the work of Saul Alinsky and his book, ‘Rules for Radicals’ as well as the work of political scientist Ronald Inglehart and his theories regarding ‘generational value change’. One of the strongest messages Simon imparted in me was that of the best technique through which think-tanks get their message across; which is to work with influencing peoples’ values within their particular individual belief systems rather than working to change the belief systems that can only result in what Festinger termed ‘belief disconfirmation’ that comes about from cognitive dissonance. The second workshop with Andrew Shuen focused on the technical aspects associated with working in a free-market libertarian Think Tank and looked specifically at the most effective communication techniques a person can use to frame a debate and shift the ‘window of possibility’ to the right. I found Andrew to be an incredibly down-to-earth individual who was so passionate about his beliefs and was a fantastic mentor who helped instill in me a new-found appreciation for much of the finesse associated with furthering libertarianism in a public debate and representing a right-wing Think Tank institution. All-in-all, these one-on-one workshops that were provided to me helped in not only allowing me have a better understanding of Hong Kong and the audience for whom I was writing but also how to critically analyze proposed public policies as well as be the most convincing and effectual when trying to further libertarian ideals in a different context.
Apart from having completed 2 pieces for the ‘Best Practice’ Journal, finalizing work on an op-ed for ‘South China Morning Post’ and managing to prepare a speech for the last Happy Hour of the month I had the enviable opportunity to visit Macao and Disneyland with a colleague from work over the 2 weekends. Macao was an amazing place to visit particularly given the fact that it is the only other special Administrative region (SAR) of China apart from Hong Kong that operates under the principle of, “one country, two systems” whereby, despite the practice of socialism in mainland China; Macau has and will continue to retain its established capitalist system under a high degree of autonomy until at least 2049 (50 years after reunification). Unsurprisingly, as a result Macau has had a thriving economy having recorded a real growth rate of 27.1% in the last quarter and is consistently ranked as one of Asia’s freest economies which has attracted foreign investment to a peninsula whose land area is only slightly larger than that of Rottnest Island. Since the government monopoly license in the gambling industry was lifted in 2002, more and more foreign gaming firms are investing billions of dollar’s into Macao with new casino’s being opened each year such that Macau has now become one of the world’s gambling centres even surpassing Las Vegas in gaming revenues in 2007. The sustained growth of tourism particularly from the mainland following China’s easing of travel restrictions can only mean that Macau will continue to grow into the future. I really do recommend that anyone that does have some time to spare in Hong Kong does take the 1 hour ferry ride to Macau to really see what it’s all about not to mention the fact that it’s colonial Portuguese past has resulted in the truly unique culinary mix of Cantonese and Portuguese cuisines which are sure to make your mouth water.
Since I have constantly been following different public policy measures that have been implemented or are yet to be introduced in Hong Kong I thought it would be a good idea to summarize a few of the bigger issues and the Institute’s respective position. The running vein that runs through any objective analysis of these government policy initiatives is how the practical ramifications that are often already being evidenced paradoxically reflect public policy measures that only serve to further the problems that were initially intended to be alleviated.
The objective behind the government’s introduction of a minimum wage has all the right intentions but all the wrong effects. Despite repeated efforts by the Lion Rock to educate the public on the logical consequences that would arise following the institution of a minimum wage law, the bill was passed through the legislative council with astounding speed spurred on and supported by the public and such populist groups as the ‘post-80’s movement’ which is an amorphous political movement that has begun taking to the political stage comprising a high proportion of students and young professionals. Any move to introduce minimum wage law spits in the face of the free-market fabric that has come to epitomize Hong Kong which is widely regarded as the freest economy in the world. Of course, there is an emotive association to help the lowest paid individuals by through an increase in their wages but all this achieves is more harm than good. As Henry Hazlitt, a well-known American economist from the Austrian School of economic thought summed up so well, “You cannot make a man worth a given amount by making it illegal for anyone to offer him less. You merely deprive him of the right to earn the amount that his abilities and situation would permit him to earn, while you deprive the community even of the moderate services that he is capable of rendering. In brief, for a low wage you substitute unemployment. You do harm all around, with no comparable compensation.” Hong Kong has everything to lose and going ahead with such a policy based on the emotional but inaccuratepremise that employment now is an exploitative relationship whereby businesses will never raise the wages of their workers through their own voluntary volition. Not only will basic economic analysis tell us that unemployment will rise but one can easily predict the financial losses related to government efforts associated with getting the mass numbers of individuals employed as a result of the law employed but even more important is the consideration that should be given to the net loss to Hong Kong society that will come about as a result of consumer prices that have driven up to cover the higher labor costs. Real wage rises come about, not through increases in the wages of workers who maintain the same economic output but through the creation of new wealth as a result of greater productivity that will naturally, without government intervention spur on higher wages and lower prices. Although the minimum wage bill passed by the Hong Kong Legislative Council on 17 July 2010 is yet to come into force on 1 May 2011, many events that have been occurring during my time in the office reflected the negative by-products of the law already taking effect in eliminating many entry-level job opportunities as evident in the recent moves by large businesses such as the popular Hong Kong ‘Café De Coral’ food chain which has started introducing self-service meal ordering machines which has replaced the need to employ individuals to get the same job done. Ultimately, the legislation aimed at helping those who are the least well-off directly harms its intended beneficiaries.
Government regulation and intervention in Hong Kong has been steadily growing and recent moves to introduce Competition Law legislation has been one of the biggest threats to the economy’s dynamics. Lion Rock has played a crucial role in opposing the law and educating the public on its fallacies by initiating public debate from the onset and achieving to delay the law ‘s implementation from the onset through live television and radio debates and the publication of articles in the press. The Institute has achieved success in having the law delayed over the years but the way things stand it seems that the law will indeed be implemented. The current wording of the bill is extremely vague which is precisely where most of the problems lie as the bill contravenes against the basic principle of legal security and the rule of law through it’s highly vague nature and the highly complex concepts that it seeks to define in an ever-changing active free market where no, ‘one size fits all’. The competition regime will be enforced by a specific tribunal while regulators will be afforded search and seizure powers and the potential to fine companies up to 10 per cent of worldwide turnover for each year of contravention. A major shortcoming of the proposed bill is that no mechanisms have been set in place to prevent the tribunal from granting exceptions to certain industries and companies or objectively ascertaining whether ‘anti-competitive behaviour’ which is so broadly defined has taken place which means there is clearly room for the system to be manipulated. The hypocrisy of the bill is epitomized by the immense number of exemptions that apply to the government and quasi-government bodies which distort competition and to whom the laws should equally apply. It is as if due consideration to the way monopolies even form in Hong Kong has been overlooked since it is government intervention which frequently creates them in most instances as evident in such recent instances such as through the granting of special deals for companies to set up Disneyland and Cyberport, or through the restriction of competition in the Stock Exchange or Jockey Club. Ultimately, the only people that will benefit from the law will be the legal profession who have major vested interests in the bill and to whom the high administrative and compliance costs that arise from the law once implemented will flow to. Competition law will only go against Hong Kong’s proud tradition of free enterprise and end up in a limitation of market participation and a weakening of Hong Kong’s competitiveness in the financial world. I invite any interested readers to look over some of the Institute’s submissions concerning this proposed legislation, which has passed its first reading in the Legislative Council and is likely to pass through parliament despite its contentious nature.
As I end this final blog entry I would like to take this opportunity to express my thanks everyone at the Lion Rock Institute for the great time I’ve been able to share with you all. Although I’ve only been in Hong Kong for a relatively short period of time and have only really just started getting used to the way things operate; there is no doubt the experience has provided me with an invaluable opportunity to find out how things really work in a think-tank as well as help me soak up so many new ideas and perspectives on topics that are quite specific to Hong Kong yet could equally apply to other jurisdictions. I appreciate the attention and time I was given by so many of the founders and employee’s of the Institute whose help made my transition into Hong Kong that much easier. I extend equal thanks to the Mannkal Economic Education Foundation whose ultimate support and interest in individuals like myself is what allowed for this internship experience to even be possible. I hope to continue to fight for liberty wherever it is I end up being in the future and will never forget the time I had in Hong Kong and the thing’s I learned.

