If there is a number that seems to define the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region’s policy conversation this year, it is the number five. The nation is embarking on its 15th Five-Year Plan (2026-30). Hong Kong is preparing its first five-year development plan. The chief executive is about to deliver his fifth Policy Address. And the Northern Metropolis is being developed around five major pillars. One could almost think someone planned it that way.

The coincidence is interesting, but the timing matters more. Hong Kong is moving beyond the immediate business of recovery toward a bigger question: What kind of economy and city does it want to become?

The public response suggests that people understand what is at stake. The SAR government has held more than 90 consultation sessions and received around 13,800 submissions on the five-year plan, almost twice the number received during last year’s Policy Address consultation.

This is not simply another annual policy exercise. A five-year plan asks a different question. Where should Hong Kong be several years from now and what needs to get started today to make that future possible?

The recent district consultation on youth development offered a glimpse of what that future means in practice. Residents raised concerns about housing affordability, career choices, and opportunities for younger people. These are often discussed as social-policy issues, but they are economic issues too. A city hoping to attract and retain ambitious young people needs to offer more than employment. It needs to offer the prospect of building a life. That makes youth policy part of economic policy.

Hong Kong has already introduced initiatives covering employment, entrepreneurship, international exposure, financial education, and talent development. The next step is to connect these efforts more closely with the industries that the city wants to develop.

Consider the choices facing Hong Kong’s brightest students. Medicine and law remain highly attractive, while science, engineering, and technology have not always enjoyed the same appeal. Rather than simply asking how to produce more technology talent, perhaps we should ask what kind of economy would make a young person want to become an engineer, scientist, or entrepreneur in the first place.

Talent follows opportunity. If Hong Kong wants to build the industries of tomorrow, those industries need to offer compelling careers today. This is one reason the Northern Metropolis could become so important.

The discussion has understandably focused on land, housing, transport, and infrastructure. Those foundations are essential. But the success of a new town will ultimately depend on what happens after the buildings are completed. People need reasons to live there. Companies need reasons to locate there. Universities need reasons to collaborate there. Investors need reasons to stay.

The question is therefore not simply how quickly the Northern Metropolis can be built. It is what sort of economic engine Hong Kong wants it to become. That means closer links between universities, research institutions, and industry, alongside the development of artificial intelligence, advanced manufacturing, biotechnology, fintech, and other emerging sectors. Small and medium-sized enterprises should also have clear routes to take advantage of the opportunities created. Better coordination of investment, development, and talent could help bring these pieces together. Stronger university-industry partnerships and cross-border digital businesses could give the district an economic identity beyond its physical infrastructure.

The value of a five-year plan is not that it tells Hong Kong exactly where it will be five years from now. It is that it gives the city a chance to decide where it wants to go

The Northern Metropolis should therefore be viewed not only as an urban development project, but as an opportunity to create new economic capacity. The same thinking applies to Hong Kong’s relationship with the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area.

Hong Kong has rightly described itself as a superconnector and super value-adder. The next stage could see it becoming an even stronger partner within the region. The first phase of integration was largely about connectivity: enabling people, capital, goods and professional services to move more easily across the boundary. The next phase can be about complementarity.

Hong Kong and other cities of the Greater Bay Area do not need to become identical. Their strength lies in their differences. Hong Kong brings international finance, professional services, universities, capital markets, and global connections. Other cities bring manufacturing, technology capabilities, land, talent, and vast consumer markets.

The opportunity is to connect these strengths through cross-city supply chains, shared standards, stronger university-industry links, and more coordinated services in areas such as tourism, healthcare, and elderly care.

The prize is not simply greater connectivity. It is a more productive regional economy. This is where the idea of Hong Kong evolving from a superconnector to a superpartner becomes meaningful. It reflects a broader ambition for Hong Kong to participate in value creation, rather than simply facilitate the movement of value between markets. The five-year plan can provide the continuity needed to pursue that ambition.

A Policy Address naturally operates on a one-year cycle. It identifies priorities, introduces measures, and sets targets that can be reviewed relatively quickly. A five-year plan asks what Hong Kong should begin today even if the benefits will not be visible tomorrow.

A new building can be photographed when it opens. A transport link can be measured. A new program can be counted. Research infrastructure is different. University-industry partnerships take time. Talent pipelines take time. New industries take time.

Governments need to deliver within political cycles. Cities are built across generations. Hong Kong needs to be good at both. That is why regular reviews of the five-year plan deserve consideration. Five years is long enough to pursue a strategy, but the world can change considerably within that period. Clear indicators, periodic reviews, and enough flexibility to adapt would allow the plan to remain ambitious without becoming rigid. The objective should not be to predict the future perfectly. It should be to build Hong Kong’s capacity to respond to it.

The city has spent recent years moving from stabilization to recovery, from recovery to reform, and increasingly toward delivery. The next phase can build on that foundation by giving greater attention to long-term transformation. For stakeholders, perhaps the most useful question is no longer simply, “What should the government do this year?” It is: “What should Hong Kong begin this year so that we are better positioned in 2030 and 2035?” That is a more demanding question, but also a more constructive one.

The 2026 Policy Address will inevitably attract attention for the number of initiatives it announces. The first five-year plan deserves to be judged by a different standard.

Five years from now, will Hong Kong have more opportunities for its young people? More innovative companies? Stronger universities? Deeper regional connections? A broader economic base? If the answer is yes, many of the individual announcements made in 2026 will matter less than the direction they collectively established.

The value of a five-year plan is not that it tells Hong Kong exactly where it will be five years from now. It is that it gives the city a chance to decide where it wants to go.

The author is chairman of the Asia MarTech Society and sits on the advisory boards of several professional organizations, including two universities.

The views do not necessarily reflect those of China Daily.