Hong Kong once thrived as a gateway between a largely closed-off China and the outside world, but its traditional role as an intermediary has diminished as the mainland opens up. The city can continue to play an important international role by fostering candid, two-way dialogue between China and the world, advancing cooperation on governance challenges such as AI, and cultivating future generations of globally engaged leaders.

It took me 5 hours to reach home – from Delhi.

In the same amount of time, I can travel from Hong Kong to Beijing, Jakarta, or Tokyo. Hong Kong’s five-hour circle covers countries comprising 50% of the world’s population.

The next day I had the pleasure of hearing both the current Indian Ambassador to China and former Indonesian Minister of Trade speak, back-to-back.

My walks from meeting to meeting on campus would be punctuated by Cantonese, English, Mandarin, alongside a smattering of Korean, Bahasa, French, and Hindi.

My favourite cha chaan teng features items originating in Britain (milk tea), Japan (instant ramen noodles), and India (modified curry) – a seemingly innocuous smorgasbord set against the base of Cantonese traditions and improvised fast food ingenuity.

Peers from abroad often remark on the astounding efficiency with which business can be conducted, within a highly compressed timeframe and comparably compact geography: one soundtrack with four languages, three meals serving different cuisines, and six meetings in one day. The hustle is engrained in the Hong Kong DNA.

Yet I am not here to extoll only the virtues of this city, which has withstood the test of pandemics, geopolitical flux, and merciless time. Nor am I seeking only to praise its civil society, who deserve more credit for their tenacity and resourcefulness, in make-shift pragmatism.

I am here to discuss Hong Kong’s role in facilitating a better international order.

Firstly, as a critical interpreter for both China and the world at large. Many write of the city’s positioning as a “super-connector” and “super value-adder”. I’m inclined to agree with a learned friend of mine that connectivity presumes there exist mature ends to which it is connecting, and that the “super” only comes through when there is a dearth of alternatives.

Such presumptions are increasingly tested. When the Chinese mainland was largely closed off from the outside world due to Cold War dynamics and then-political priorities, Hong Kong’s role as a pressure valve and trade intermediary made sense.

Yet as China continually opens – at least selectively in certain domains – the relative value provided by Hong Kong as a necessary middleman has correspondingly declined. Supply chains have been shortened, with countries relatively going directly to China for market access opportunities. Where lies Hong Kong’s unique edge?

The answer rests with nuancing one another’s understanding, through interpretation. I have long advocated that Hong Kong should create and maintain more spaces for unfiltered, nuanced, and balanced discussions about China’s challenges and bottlenecks. Here, I would also add that Hong Kong should double down on attracting thoughtful – even if provocative – intellectuals, politicians, diplomats, and thinkers, who can offer China unique perspectives into their respective countries.

Whether it be the state apparatus, semi-official think-tanks, or private entrepreneurs, many in the Chinese mainland yearn to know the unvarnished picture about the world out there. Hong Kong-based academics, researchers, and consultants must supply and interrogate such information. Both Beijing and the SAR government alike should make room for well-reasoned, vigorous debates – even if the conclusions are not always in conformity with orthodoxy.

Secondly, as a site and convenor of governance innovation. Hong Kong may not be able to replicate the Shenzhen, Hangzhou, or Hefei miracles vis-à-vis artificial intelligence (AI), robotics, and advanced manufacturing. So what? One would think that Shanghai can never become Hong Kong. The converse also holds. Mimicry is not the solution – strategic appropriation is.

Where this city commands a clear – albeit narrowing – lead vis-à-vis its mainland counterparts constitutes its willingness to maintain a high level of anti-corruption checks and balances, experiment with financial systems, and advance common law-based reforms in reflection of emerging technologies.

Yet these virtues alone do not make for an attractive site of investment or engagement. They must be drawn upon to further global governance – a term that has cropped up repeatedly in not just China’s soft power projection, but also the Global South’s disparate demands for a more equitable and inclusive world order.

This city can serve as a hub for regional coordination, alignment, and critical conversations, on issues ranging from carbon emission reduction and green financing to public health cooperation. In particular, navigating the socioeconomic and ethical implications of AI is a salient issue of interest not only to emerging economies, but also some of the most powerful countries in the world, including China and the US.

Hong Kong should seize upon China’s chairmanship of BRICS+ next year to convene a BRICS+ AI and Education Forum, where policy leads, diplomats, academics, and entrepreneurs can meet to discuss how AI can be harnessed, with its excesses curbed, for the advancement of skills critical to our future workforce. The SAR should encourage candid discussions of the disruptions to employment, interpersonal trust, and education generated by AI across the world, and host critical policy “hackathons” for regional stakeholders.

Of course, it is imperative that the government takes to implementing these new, bold ideas – for what good is an idea, if it sits alone in the room?

Click the U.S.-China Hong Kong Forum official website 

Finally, as a cradle of leading talents. Next month, the China-United States Exchange Foundation will convene its annual forum, bringing together different generations – from elder statesmen to bright, secondary school students – under the umbrella of the visionary late C.H. Tung’s conviction: for Hong Kong to add genuine value to its country, it must remain internationally engaged. A more cosmopolitan Hong Kong makes for a more cosmopolitan China.

A crucial prerequisite in engaging our future generations lies with educating them. Inviting them to excellent lectures with luminaries hosted by the Asia Society or our many universities. Encouraging them to ask probing questions – even if grating on the ears. Affirming their dreams about becoming bridge builders across national and sectoral boundaries. For what if one day, they can?

Education extends beyond the tertiary: it also encompasses professional education, especially programmes that empower and equip public policy professionals to lead and shape their respective fields. Earlier this month, I addressed a group of mid-career policy specialists hailing from all walks of life and corners of the world.

They came to Hong Kong with many a question and particular conception about this city. After a few weeks of intense debates and in-depth visits to important cities across our country, I hope they will leave with a few more answers and a couple of new questions, paired with renewed interest in where the future lies for our 7.5 million people as a part of the 1.4 billion.

There will of course be headwinds. There will be a fair share of prophets of doom. Some amongst them will have valid criticisms that we must take seriously. Let us not dismiss them as purported “propagandists”.

The best means of proving wrong our critics is action, as opposed to bloviation.

But I remain optimistic. If there is one thing Hong Kongers are wont to do, it is adapting.

Come what may, we shall find our way.