Some people look at Hong Kong and see it as a bastion of capitalism. Unfortunately with the growing welfare state mentality here – and Henry Tang’s obsession to widen the tax base to pay for this folly, Hong Kong is becoming less capitalistic every day. Of course, the capitalist solution is to narrow the tax base, recognizing that taxation is theft.
Others point to the property tycoons, and say they are examples of capitalism. I would beg to differ. One of the characteristics of capitalism is a free market. Yet, time after time, property companies have asked the government to intervene in the market. Indeed, they seem to be the biggest supporters of environmentalists here. Could it be that these environmentalists serve a purpose to help restrict the supply of land, thus pushing up property prices? Or to help existing building owners preserve their harbour views, at the expense of those looking to purchase a home or place to work. Whilst I support a property company’s right to build what they wish, I definitely do not support them, when they ask for special favours. I think the biggest example of a non-capitalist is Richard Li. The method seems simple. Find a market (e.g. Cyberport), then ask the government for exclusivity, to stop any competition.
If we really want more competition, more government is not the answer. The government needs to end special favours – get out of the market entirely. One could do a whole laundry list of special favours granted. These include the airline companies, power companies, property companies, and telecommunications companies. Taking airline companies, how much cheaper would airfares be if special privileges for Cathay Pacific were removed? Now just apply this to every industry, and ignore the "special cases" presented by each company that runs to the government, begging for special favours.
