The current obsession with "people’s wisdom" in Hong Kong’s economic planning is a polite way of saying we have run out of ideas.
Competitor op-eds are currently littered with the same tired trope: that the secret to the next Five-Year Plan lies in broad public consultation and grassroots feedback. It sounds democratic. It feels inclusive. It is also a recipe for stagnation. If you ask a thousand people how to build a quantum computing hub or navigate the intricacies of the Greater Bay Area (GBA) integration, you won't get a visionary strategy. You will get a list of grievances about housing prices and a demand for more subsidies.
Public consultation is a governance tool, not a growth engine.
When leaders mistake the "wisdom of the crowd" for economic foresight, they end up with a strategy built on the lowest common denominator. History doesn't reward the consensus-seekers. It rewards the specialists who see the shifts in capital and technology before the public even knows the technology exists.
The Myth of the Generalist
The prevailing narrative suggests that by "listening to the streets," the government can fix the structural rot in the economy. This is a fundamental misunderstanding of how high-tier economies evolve.
I have spent decades watching boards of directors and municipal planners fall into the "Stakeholder Trap." They believe that by checking every box and making everyone feel heard, they have created a stable foundation. Instead, they’ve created a beige, uninspired mess.
Economic planning is a high-stakes game of specialization. Hong Kong is currently caught in a pincer movement between Singapore’s surgical precision in family office attraction and Shenzhen’s relentless R&D machine. You do not beat those rivals by asking a generalist population what the tax code should look like.
We need to stop pretending that every opinion is equally valid when it comes to trade architecture. The "people" are experts in their own lives, yes—but they are not experts in the shifts of global liquidity or the decoupling of Western and Eastern supply chains.
Efficiency Over Empathy
The "wisdom of the people" often translates to a demand for the status quo.
Humans are naturally risk-averse. If you ask a neighborhood how they feel about a massive tech corridor, they will worry about the traffic. If you ask them about digital currency integration, they will worry about their privacy. These are valid human concerns, but they are friction points for a city that needs to move at the speed of light to remain relevant.
True disruption requires a certain level of top-down ruthlessness. Look at the development of the Northern Metropolis. If that project is subjected to the "wisdom" of every local interest group and environmental hobbyist, it will be finished in 2050, by which time the opportunity will have evaporated.
Economic survival requires $V > C$, where $V$ is the value of the strategic shift and $C$ is the cost of delay. In Hong Kong, the cost of delay is currently astronomical because our neighbors are not waiting for consensus.
The Expertise Deficit
We have a chronic fear of elitism. We have rebranded "expert-led planning" as "out of touch."
But let’s be honest: would you crowdsource the blueprints for a suspension bridge? Would you take a poll to decide the dosage of a lifesaving drug? Of course not. You want the person who has studied the stress-strain curve of steel or the pharmacokinetics of the compound.
The Five-Year Plan is the city's blueprint for structural survival. It requires:
- Quantitative Analysis: Identifying exactly which sectors of the GBA provide the highest multiplier for HK’s service economy.
- Geopolitical Arbitrage: Navigating the "Two Systems" advantage while the "One Country" integration accelerates.
- Capital Reallocation: Shifting away from a property-heavy GDP toward high-margin intellectual property and biotech.
These are not "wisdom of the crowd" problems. These are "room full of the smartest, most cynical experts you can find" problems.
The Subvention Trap
When you prioritize "the people’s wisdom," you inevitably end up with a plan that prioritizes subventions over innovation.
The crowd wants safety nets. It wants grants for failing businesses. It wants the government to protect the past. But the Five-Year Plan should be about ruthlessly funding the future.
In my experience, the moment a government starts "consulting" on economic direction, the lobbyists for dying industries are the first ones at the table. They wrap their demands in the language of the "people," claiming they protect jobs. In reality, they are just protecting their own rent-seeking behavior.
If Hong Kong wants to be a "Game-Changer" (a term I despise for its vagueness, so let's call it a Dominant Market Actor), it must stop trying to please everyone.
Stop Asking, Start Leading
The real "People Also Ask" query isn't "How can the public help the Five-Year Plan?"
The real question is: "Why has the government lost the confidence to lead without a focus group?"
The answer is a fear of political friction. But friction is the price of progress. If you aren't making someone angry, you isn't changing the economy.
We need a Five-Year Plan that is built on hard data and cold logic.
- Acknowledge the decline of the traditional middleman role. The world doesn't need a gateway if the gate is always open or if the two sides aren't talking.
- Force-feed digital transformation. Don't ask if people are comfortable with it; make it the only way to do business.
- Pivot to the Middle East and ASEAN with zero hesitation. The old West-facing model is a legacy system.
The "wisdom" we need isn't found in a town hall. It is found in the data of global capital flows. It is found in the labs of the Science Park. It is found in the minds of those who understand that Hong Kong’s survival depends on being more efficient, more specialized, and more daring than any other city on earth.
The crowd doesn't want daring. The crowd wants a comfortable Tuesday.
If the Five-Year Plan is designed to make everyone comfortable, it has already failed. Stop asking the public for the coordinates of a destination they haven't seen yet. Put the experts back in the cockpit and fly the plane.
The "people" will thank you when the economy actually grows, not when they are asked for their opinion on a white paper they didn't read.
Build the infrastructure for the world as it will be in 2030, not as the vocal minority wants it to stay in 2024. Lead with the arrogance of the informed, or follow with the humility of the stagnant. There is no third option.
