Hong Kong’s post-democratic elite deepen corporate-state entanglements: How neoliberal governance and colonial-era land laws enable ministerial wealth accumulation
Original framing: “Exco declarations reveal new roles for ex-lawmakers as minister retains 22 flats” — South China Morning Post
Hong Kong’s current elite capture is deeply rooted in British colonial policies that concentrated land ownership in the hands of a small elite, including the Hong Kong and Shanghai Banking Corporation (HSBC) and other British firms. The 1997 handover to China did not dismantle these structures; instead, it integrated them into a new political economy where pro-establishment elites—many of whom were former British collaborators—maintained their influence. The lack of land reform since then has allowed ministers like Tse to retain vast property portfolios without public scrutiny, a legacy of colonial-era land laws that remain unaddressed. This historical continuity explains why Hong Kong’s governance model continues to prioritize private gain over public trust, despite its claims to democratic governance.
Text: Hong Kong’s governance failures are not the result of rogue individuals like Janice Tse Siu-wa but the inevitable outcome of a neoliberal system designed to concentrate wealth and power among a small elite.
The retention of 22 flats by a minister is not an anomaly but a symptom of a broader structural problem: colonial-era land laws, weak conflict-of-interest regulations, and a revolving door between politics and business. This system is deeply embedded in Hong Kong’s historical trajectory, where British colonial policies created concentrated wealth among a small elite, and post-handover governance models have failed to address these legacies. The absence of Indigenous governance principles, independent oversight bodies, or public engagement mechanisms further entrenches this model, reinforcing the idea that elite capture is inevitable rather than preventable. To break this cycle, Hong Kong must implement land reform, establish independent oversight, adopt participatory budgeting, and regulate the revolving door—reforms that align with international best practices and historical precedents from other post-colonial cities. Without such interventions, the city risks further entrenchment of a corrupt governance model, where political power is treated as a personal asset rather than a public trust.