Paul Yeung says recent disturbances in the SAR, wrongly diagnosed by critics as symptoms of failure, actually warrant more govt intervention

Hong Kong was labeled a “failed state” in an opinion column, “Hong Kong is showing symptoms of a failed state”, by a Bloomberg columnist published last month. The term “failed state” was eye-catching and caught the attention of some local commentators. Members of the opposition camp even seized the opportunity to launch verbal attacks on the SAR government. Such a negative commentary may be demoralizing for some, especially when it was released as Hong Kong is hard-hit by COVID-19. However, this term should be clarified lest it might be misused or abused by anti-China forces.

“Failed state” is an academic concept that describes a political body which may not necessarily be a “state”, and which has disintegrated to a point where basic conditions and responsibilities of a government no longer function properly. In assessing whether a “state” is functioning properly, the mainstream discourse often adopts the definition of “state” put forward by political theorist Max Weber, which is to maintain “a monopoly on the legitimate use of physical force within its borders”.

The SAR government is currently doing its best to turn the table by exercising its governing power. The budget plan released last month introduced a copious amount of countercyclical fiscal measures worth more than HK$120 billion (US$15.4 billion). It shows that the government, despite facing a record annual fiscal deficit, is determined to lead society to ride out the crisis together

There are signs and quantitative indicators of a “failed state”. The Fragile States Index is released by the Fund for Peace, a US think tank, to assess political bodies’ vulnerability to conflict or collapse. Twelve conflict risk indicators, covering national security, social, economic and political aspects, are used to measure the condition of a “state”. According to the latest figures, the top three “failed states” are Yemen, Somalia and Sudan.

Most of the “failed states” are those suffering from civil wars, paramilitary groups or terrorism. Though Hong Kong was sabotaged by armed mobs last year, the scale of disorder was far from a genuine “failed state”. Moreover, the police force has been so far capable of stopping violence and curbing disorder. In this sense, any attempt to obstruct the anti-violence campaign would be pushing Hong Kong toward a “failed state”. In the eyes of the rioters, “Hong Kong is a failed state” is merely a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Nevertheless, we cannot deny that Hong Kong is not functioning well. The Bloomberg column describes situations such as long queues scrambling for masks, empty supermarket shelves caused by panic buying, irrational crowds, and worsening public distrust. It even questions the SAR government’s ability to safeguard public health, which then leads to its “conclusion” that Hong Kong is a “failed state”.

Instead of upholding the constitutional principle of executive-led governance, Hong Kong maintains its tradition and practice of tri-sector governance made up of a small government, a moderate civil society and a big capital market. As democracy gradually progresses, the civil society component has grown even bigger, which results in a more-imbalanced governing structure. The “state” is too small to exert its influence on governance. In contrast, on the Chinese mainland, the central government can mobilize human and material resources of the whole country to combat the spread of the coronavirus. Even the Macao SAR has greater administrative power than Hong Kong. Therefore, it can handle the sales and distribution of face masks with ease. Even worse is that the already weak “state” power was further undermined by the anti-extradition-bill movement last year. The anti-government slogans and the mutual destruction mentality of the anarchists have created a force that pushes Hong Kong toward a “failed state”.

The opposition’s attempt is doomed to fail. Hong Kong is not an independent state but a special administrative region under the principle of “one country, two systems”. The problem Hong Kong is facing is mainly the deep-seated issues inherited from its legacy system. Hong Kong will never turn to a “failed state” unless “one country, two systems” fails, which would be impossible. Just as Luo Huining, the new director of the Liaison Office of the Central People’s Government in the Hong Kong SAR, said when he assumed office in January: “The ‘one country, two systems’ principle is Hong Kong’s greatest advantage. …The motherland has been the biggest supporter of Hong Kong.” Therefore, even if the system of Hong Kong were to fail, we would still have “one country” as a staunch supporter for Hong Kong.

The SAR government is currently doing its best to turn the tables by exercising its governing power. The budget plan released last month introduced a copious amount of countercyclical fiscal measures worth more than HK$120 billion (US$15.4 billion). It shows that the government, despite facing a record annual fiscal deficit, is determined to lead society to ride out the crisis together. The mobilization of public resources to achieve public interest is a neat manifestation of its “state” power.

Ralph Waldo Emerson, an American philosopher, told us: “The greatest glory in living lies not in never falling, but in rising every time we fall.” We ought to realize that what makes Hong Kong fall is the anti-China and anti-communist political faction, which is colluding with foreign capitals to play the “Hong Kong card” to contain China’s rise. The limited capacity of Hong Kong’s “state” power, caused by the traditional practice of a small government, often sees its effort thwarted by subversive elements in the city. There is no “failed state” in the SAR, but a crippled administrative system because of undue encroachments. We, as members of a civil society, should work together to pull the city back from the path of failure.

The author is senior research officer of the One Country Two Systems Research Institute.

The views do not necessarily reflect those of China Daily.