An article by Ted Naganawa on the future of Hong Kong amazingly combines some keen insights with superficial cliches. The gist is that Hong Kong's focus on democracy should be secondary to improving itself economically. In the introduction there is the usual comparison of HK with its "rivals" in Asia, namely Singapore and Shanghai, although the author already hits upon HK's key advantage: the future is based on China's development and Singapore is too far away (not to mention not Chinese) and Shanghai lacks HK's infrastructure, legal system and collective expertise.

Next the author asks if full democracy in HK is an end in itself and thinks it is not. Here is the one key insight the author reaches and something I've been thinking about lately myself:

Election reform is only one step in a process to achieve an ultimate objective, not an end itself. What really matters politically—and economically—is not immediate democracy, but the preservation of Hong Kong’s special status after 2047, when the “one country, two systems” stipulation of the Basic Law, Hong Kong’s mini-constitution, expires...No matter how much democracy Hong Kong enjoys internally for another 43 years, once the Basic Law expires and Hong Kong becomes another big—however democratic—city in Southern China, then democracy in Hong Kong probably will not mean a whole lot. Instead, what will matter is how much China itself would be democratized by then. However, if Hong Kong attains, by 2047, the position of an unparalleled financial/business center in Asia and the world, the approaches of the Beijing government and the entire world, including that of the United States, when dealing with the city, would be different.

Regardless of the democratization of China itself, whether the Beijing government wants to maintain Hong Kong as a democratic free economy after 2047, or do something else about it, depends on three key factors: the economic advantage for the mainland economy in keeping Hong Kong democratic, the international recognition of Hong Kong’s importance to the global economy, which would force a political calculation by the Beijing government, and the democratic will of the people of Hong Kong.

The article in question makes one other good point. For Hong Kong to have a better hand in determining its own future, democracy is not the only factor at play. Gaining greater links with the USA, in the author's opinion, is crucial to act as a counterweight to China. That isn't true: Hong Kong's status is and will be an itnernal Chinese issue. But keeping its economy vibrant and remaining a key gateway to China (dare I use the words "world city"?) will be crucial in determining the city's future post-2047. Most likely is Hong Kong's "special" status will be retained post-2047; while China's growth is rapid, it is a long way short of HK in living standards. Why would China ever give up its golden goose? In other words, if it ain't broke, don't fix it.