During Chief Executive John Lee Ka-chiu’s recent duty visit to Beijing, the central government delivered a rare and unequivocal message: Hong Kong must “proactively align with the national 15th Five-Year Plan (2026-30)”. This directive was placed alongside three other priorities — improving executive-led governance, promoting high-quality development, and deep participation in the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area construction. Taken together, these demands signal a fundamental shift in Hong Kong’s role. The city can no longer rely on slogans about “integrating into the national development strategy”. It must instead advance institutional reform, functional restructuring, and urban renewal, and put forward a genuine “Hong Kong plan” capable of carrying national responsibilities.
For more than two decades, Hong Kong’s position in national planning has been largely reactive. Whenever the central government set a priority, Hong Kong echoed it: When the Greater Bay Area was emphasized, Hong Kong pledged to integrate; when innovation and technology were promoted, Hong Kong built science parks. Yet this pattern revealed a lack of deep understanding of the strategic imperatives behind national policy. The city has lacked initiative and failed to produce institutionalized responses. Now, with the call for proactive alignment, Hong Kong must answer a deeper question: What can Hong Kong contribute to the nation?
The first challenge is governance capacity. The central government’s emphasis on “executive-led” governance is not a return to old rhetoric, but a demand that Hong Kong institutionalizes and modernizes its executive leadership. Current policymaking is fragmented, with cross-departmental coordination often dependent on individual officials rather than systemic design. This may suffice for routine administration, but it is inadequate for national-level tasks.
Hong Kong must establish clearer authorization mechanisms for the chief executive, restructure policy processes, and create a city-level “Strategic Planning Commission” to align national planning with local governance. The city should formulate its own five-year plans, and even a 15-year long-term vision. This is not merely about efficiency — it is about demonstrating institutional confidence. Hong Kong must show it can plan and shoulder responsibility, not just follow.
In the national drive for technological self-reliance and high-quality development, Hong Kong must identify its irreplaceable role. The city’s strength has never been replicating Shenzhen’s hard tech, but rather its institutions, rules and international connectivity. Hong Kong’s core value lies in “institutional openness”.
Three concrete national tasks could be advanced: establishing an international center for technology standards and regulation, building an overseas research collaboration hub, and developing a national professional services platform. These functions are both needed by the country and uniquely deliverable by Hong Kong. Its common law system, global research networks, international capital and professional services can fill gaps in the Chinese mainland’s institutional opening-up. This is the key to preserving Hong Kong’s distinctiveness in the new era.
Only by modernizing governance, reshaping industrial functions, deepening regional division of labor and advancing urban renewal can Hong Kong move from “integration” to “contribution”, from “participation” to “responsibility”. The 15th Five-Year Plan is both a window for Hong Kong’s new departure and a litmus test of its governance capacity and institutional confidence. Hong Kong must seize this moment to put forward its own “Hong Kong plan”
Regional collaboration must also evolve. “Deep participation in the Greater Bay Area” does not mean homogenization. Hong Kong and Shenzhen should form a “dual center, dual platform” division of labor: Shenzhen focusing on research and development and industrialization, Hong Kong on international rules, capital and services.
The proposed Twin Cities Special Zone embodies this logic. Based on the concept of “dual enclaves, dual headquarters”, it would leverage the institutional advantages of both sides and enable free flow of production factors. This zone should not be seen as a property development project, but as the frontier of institutional opening-up. Breakthroughs in cross-border infrastructure, data flows and talent mobility must be achieved during the 15th Five-Year Plan. Such a zone would serve not only Hong Kong-Shenzhen cooperation but also as a national testbed for institutional innovation.
The Northern Metropolis is already underway, with the Hetao Hong Kong Park progressing rapidly. Yet its current planning, with a floor area ratio of 2.3 and 2 million square meters of construction, risks being overly property driven. A better approach would be to utilize the 6 square kilometers of government land south of the Shenzhen River, adjacent to Futian and Luohu, to extend the innovation park and build a Northern Metropolis university town.
These sites, close to major border crossings, enjoy convenient transport and sufficient infrastructure capacity. They could immediately attract leading enterprises — such as Tencent, Alibaba, Huawei, DJI, and ZTE — much as Shenzhen’s Nanshan district did. This would allow the innovation park and university town to take shape quickly, without waiting for the Northern Link railway scheduled for completion after 2034.
The central government’s recent directive on high-quality urban development made clear that China’s urbanization has shifted from “rapid growth” to “steady development,” and from “large-scale expansion” to “quality improvement of existing stock”. For Hong Kong, the key is not simply to switch from expansion to renewal, but to balance both. More importantly, urban renewal must be treated as a national mission, not a property project.
Hong Kong’s aging urban fabric, rigid land regime, regulatory bottlenecks and lagging infrastructure have become major constraints. The city needs a comprehensive urban renewal blueprint, reform of land reserves and acquisition mechanisms, and a shift toward “governance-oriented renewal” centered on community and industry. This extends the concept of becoming less real estate-addict: Hong Kong must move from property-development dependence to institutional platforms.
The current Urban Renewal Authority model is stuck. Fragmented ownership, the 80 percent compulsory sale threshold, limited or even reduced redevelopment floor area, and the “seven-year-old compensation” rule form three major obstacles. Combined with the requirement of financial self-sufficiency, renewal has become nearly impossible. Without removing these barriers, the growing stock of dilapidated buildings will overwhelm renewal efforts.
My earlier proposed “Urban Renewal 3.0” plan would allow the HKSAR government to use market forces to acquire old properties at closer-to-real values, in exchange for development rights in the Northern Metropolis. Developers would be incentivized with sufficient profit margins. The government would then gain valuable urban land for renewal, enabling road widening, easing congestion, adding community facilities, and correcting “planning deficits”. This would release “land consolidation dividends” and “planning dividends”, generating environmental, social, and economic benefits. Developers, meanwhile, could swiftly build housing and commercial projects in the Northern Metropolis, attracting population and investment. Together with the “Twin Cities Special Zone”, the first phase of the Northern Metropolis could quickly achieve economic viability.
Ultimately, aligning with the 15th Five-Year Plan is not about waiting for the central government to write the plan and Hong Kong to follow. It is about Hong Kong proactively asking: What can the city do for the country?
Only by modernizing governance, reshaping industrial functions, deepening regional division of labor and advancing urban renewal can Hong Kong move from “integration” to “contribution”, from “participation” to “responsibility”. The 15th Five-Year Plan is both a window for Hong Kong’s new departure and a litmus test of its governance capacity and institutional confidence. Hong Kong must seize this moment to put forward its own “Hong Kong plan”.
The author is chairman of Doctoral Exchange, a Hong Kong-based think tank.
The views do not necessarily reflect those of China Daily.
