Ronnie Chan, Regina Ip on Bloomberg

The original interview was taped in late June, apparently, but I just saw Bernie Lo's interview with property tycoon Ronnie Chan. Unfortunately there doesn't seem to be a linkable site, at least to those of us unsubscribed (such as myself). In any event, Chan made some interesting, some may say bold, points, suggesting that:

1. The opening of China is the biggest economic opportunity in the history of mankind.
2. The press in Hong Kong has more freedom under Beijing than it did under the British.
3. Hong Kong is moving too slowly compared with Singapore and Shanghai, and missing out on the prime opportunities.
4. Foreigners don't care about the economic future of Hong Kong.
5. Los Angeles, in the 1970's (whilst Chan was living there) had pollution problems that were comparable or worse than those China faces today.
6. Hong Kong already has universal suffrage.

He's extremely pro-business, yet one also detects a certain Anglophobia too, or at least bitterness. Perhaps rightly so, too, but I couldn't be sure on that.

I'm not sure on the facts about press-freedom, as I was under the impression that it was more heavily censored these days than before.

He also may be right in his optimism about the pollution problem. L.A has, according to him, come huge bounds since the 70's, and current technology should allow a faster transition.

I think, however, on the point of universal suffrage, he is completely mistaken. Bernie seemed to think as much, too. Chan was nonetheless a very persuasive, impressive man, and he knew how to debate in a civil manner.

Regina Ip, formerly security secretary of Tung Chee-Hwa's administration, made a small headline by saying Hong Kong doesn't need democracy for economic prosperity. I don't think that's at all controversial though, as it hasn't had democracy for all this time, and still had huge growth. China hasn't had democracy through its period of extraordinary growth either. Just a case of trying to find a headline I guess. But still, surely it's not simply for economic reasons that a democratic system is desirable.

Green Prosperity

I figure I'd take this chance to draw attention to an interesting study, whilst at the same time plugging my university.

Firstly, take the time, if you will, to read an article by Bruce Sterling, this one.

And then read this, a brief outline of a study done by Associate Professor John Asafu-Adjaye.

Now, to be fair, I should really read Growth Fetish by Clive Hamilton before I can form a balanced opinion here.

But a possible conclusion to draw from the first two, though probably contrary to the third, is that a green future is not an ideal belonging only to those of the far reachest of green left. It would seem that theres is empirical evidence linking improved economic growth and the greening of an environment, which may be summed up by Asafu-Adjaye when he says

“In many cases people start to care about the environment because they can afford to,”

Note, though, the qualifer 'in many cases'. It certainly isn't a universal occurence, but it is a possibility. Another criticism is that the study only focused on carbon dioxide emissions as a measure of environmental quality.

But still.

Take for example Japan, a model nation in my opinion, whose environmental credentials come as a result of economic prosperity, smart governance and an investment in research and development. The last element, investment in R&D, is something that to my knowledge Australia is lagging behind in, where it could be leading. And so the commitment to more spending on education and development is one of Rudd's strongest points I feel, a point which I am in fervent agreement with him.

Some radical types seem to be anti-capitalist, or anti-corporate, to the extreme point where it becomes anti-wealth. Just as some ultra-conservative types seem to conflate any environmental protection with poverty and economic decline. I think this is a worrying trend. I consider myself of a moderate center-left, middle of the road persuasion, a bit like Paul Keating perhaps, or currently Barack Obama. Keating is/was certainly my favourite politician- watch his Lateline interview if you haven't! And as he points out in the interview, he initiated several drastic economic changes. Changes which are still feeding our prosperity today.

My point is, before there is anything to share around to those who need it, we first need to create that wealth. This is a point that only the most extreme seem unable to grasp, and something that most of us can agree on, surely. It's the management of that wealth, and how to generate it, that is a point worthy of debate.

But like I said, I should read Growth Fetish first.