Christine Loh says SAR has set the direction; the opportunity now is to turn purposeful leadership into transformative delivery

The most important feature of Hong Kong’s first five-year plan may not be any individual policy or target. It is the new pragmatic governing architecture that the document begins to construct.

The plan begins with Hong Kong’s transition from disorder to stability and the next stage: moving “from stability to prosperity”. Against an external environment marked by geopolitical tensions, technological transformation and changing economic forces, Hong Kong must deploy its distinctive strengths under “one country, two systems”: its rule of law, international connectivity, open economy, financial and professional services, education and talent. But these advantages will not automatically produce prosperity.

The plan acknowledges Hong Kong must restructure its economy, cultivate new growth engines and address deep-seated social problems. Its answer is medium-term planning combined with executive leadership.

ALSO READ: HK’s first five-year plan: A road map to inclusive development

As Hong Kong’s first five-year plan, it should be judged partly by the framework it establishes, not only by whether every policy has been fully worked out. It notes the “Five-Year Plan leads, Policy Address implements, Budget supports, annual report gives accounts.”

This matters because major transformations extend beyond annual policy cycles and even one chief executive’s term. The new framework can provide continuity while allowing annual policies to adjust.

Its 22 major indicators, including five binding targets, are also part of this architecture. Indicators do not create transformation, but they show which outcomes the government is prepared to measure. They should eventually be connected more clearly to missions, budgets, responsible leaders and delivery pathways.

The plan also gives “executive-led governance” a clearer definition. The executive is expected to exercise policy leadership, direct public resources and mobilize society.

Implementation is described as a system-wide undertaking, guided by systemic principles, departmental accountability and interdepartmental collaboration. It combines an “effective market” with what the English text calls a “capable government”.

A capable and purposeful government need not replace the market. But it must provide strategic guidance, infrastructure, legislation, institutional innovation and public-resource allocation. It must create conditions for new markets to emerge, crowd in private capital, and galvanize experts, professionals and the public around shared outcomes.

In this conception, government becomes what I would call a “systems architect”. It must understand how policy, finance, infrastructure, regulation, technology, nature and social needs interact, looking beyond individual bureaus to see how decisions reinforce or obstruct one another.

READ MORE: New blueprint will drive high-quality growth

Part VI of the plan includes some necessary machinery: stronger heads-of-department accountability, cross-bureau workflows, digital government, and data sharing. This shows the government recognizes that transformation requires more than routine administration. But an implementation system is not necessarily a mission-oriented system.

The plan uses “mission targets”, which can also mean just tasks and objectives. A genuine mission is more than a task or objective. It requires a defined transformation, with projects organized as mutually reinforcing parts of a delivery pathway rather than a menu of activities.

Without a mission, a vision may remain aspirational, a strategy may become a list of desirable directions, and numerous actions may not add up to transformation.

Many of Hong Kong’s challenges cannot be resolved within one five-year period. Moving from a brown to a green economy takes decades, as do renewing the aging building stock, education reform, housing improvement, healthcare transformation, and adapting to an aging society. Successive plans should obviously hold government and society to a long-term course rather than restart the mission under a new label.

Mission-oriented thinking appears in the policy chapters, though unevenly. Where government and stakeholders have developed substantial consensus, the mission is clearer. Elsewhere, the plan more often gathers existing initiatives beneath a broad heading.

The maritime section provides the clearest positive example. Rather than simply promoting Hong Kong as an international maritime center, it proposes transformation from “volume” to “value”. It connects a smart and green port with logistics data, green fuels, energy corridors, trading, finance, insurance, arbitration, technology and talent. By 2030, the proportion of Hong Kong-registered vessels adopting green maritime fuels should reach 7 percent; carbon emissions from container terminals should fall by 30 percent from their 2021 level; and five Green Energy Corridors should be established.

Emissions could fall much more dramatically if Hong Kong adopts full electrification as a pathway for the port and local craft. This will eventually be necessary because the Chinese mainland is pushing ahead.

READ MORE: HK’s first five-year plan: A road map to inclusive development

The plan envisages a regional system based on South China production and transportation, Hong Kong bunkering and trading, and services for global shipping. The 2026 Policy Address supplies practical measures, including port incentives, bunkering arrangements, safety codes, digital logistics and the Port Community System. Viewed through the transformation from tonnage to value, these become parts of a coherent mission. This is systems architecture and market making. Hong Kong can combine mainland production with its strengths in trading, certification, finance, insurance and professional services.

The government must overcome the chicken-and-egg problem: Suppliers need demand before investing, while shipowners need reliable, affordable supplies before changing fuels. Infrastructure, standards, incentives and finance must therefore develop together.

Aviation has similar qualities. Its sustainable aviation fuel program links production in Dongguan with blending facilities in Hong Kong, with a target for sustainable fuel to represent 1 to 3 percent of fuel used by departing flights by 2030.

The finance section is moving in the right direction but has further to go. Strengthening offshore renminbi business, asset management, securities, bonds, gold and commodity trading can deepen Hong Kong’s financial-center functions, but these are not necessarily missions. The “Finance+” framework is more promising because it treats finance as an implementation capability serving the real economy, but it must go beyond disclosure.

The missing step is market-making around Hong Kong’s own transition needs. Buildings must be retrofitted; shipping and aviation must decarbonize; the city must become more resilient to extreme weather; and nature must be conserved and restored. Together, carbon markets and crowding in international capital will become easier.

These needs will not automatically become investment-ready projects. Government, financial institutions, asset owners, engineers, insurers and researchers must create pipelines, standards, data systems and risk-sharing arrangements. Finance follows investable activity.

The Northern Metropolis is the plan’s largest place-based mission and the clearest test of government as systems architect. It combines housing, innovation, industry, transport, education, ecological conservation and integration with Shenzhen.

The binding target to expand “spade-ready sites” from 120 to 900 hectares by 2030 provides urgency and measurability. But land readiness is an enabling target, not the ultimate mission. The real question is what kind of city it will create.

A mission-led approach would define the Northern Metropolis as a model of productive, low-carbon, nature-positive and socially inclusive development, with planning, infrastructure, finance, ecological restoration, university development, industrial strategy and community life designed as one system.

The ingredients already exist. The Civil Engineering and Development Department has produced guidelines on nature-based solutions; the Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department has BSAP 2035 to protect nature; and the five-year plan expressly incorporates ecological civilization into its approach to regional ecological cooperation, providing an important national framework for Hong Kong’s development.

The task is to combine these elements with land planning, engineering standards, measurable ecological outcomes and long-term financing.

A regional ecological civilization mission could connect coastal and marine management with wetlands, forests, water quality, biodiversity corridors, and climate resilience. It would require shared science, public-sector coordination, community participation, and new forms of long-term public, philanthropic, and private financing.

The Northern Metropolis University Town presents another systems challenge. Allocating land is only the beginning. Government and the future universities must decide how campuses relate to one another, surrounding communities and the future of teaching and learning.

Hong Kong has set the direction; the opportunity now is to turn purposeful government into transformative delivery.

The author is the chief development strategist of the Institute for the Environment, Hong Kong University of Science and Technology.

The views do not necessarily reflect those of China Daily.