The Chinese Communist Party’s Social Sciences Network recently published an article on “Building the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area 2.0,” suggesting the establishment of a “Central Bay Area Committee” for centralized unified leadership, unified currency, and documents among the three regions. However, the article was taken down shortly after being posted. Some critics believe that following the Third Plenum, the CCP is facing criticism for their lack of crisis management arrangements, and this article was an attempt to please party leader Xi Jinping. However, it went beyond Xi’s imagination and was subsequently removed.
The Regional Coordination and Development Research Center at Zhejiang University, touted as one of the CCP’s “national high-end think tanks,” saw one of its researchers, Fang Hanting, publish an article on July 31 titled “It’s Time to Intensify Institutional Opening and Innovation to Build the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area 2.0” on the Chinese Social Sciences Network under the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences.
The article claims that the conditions are ripe for upgrading the Greater Bay Area to become a national offshore economic center, suggesting the establishment of a “Central Bay Area Committee” for centralized unified leadership, closing off the 11 cities in the region, unifying currency and documents to form an internationalized economic entity. However, a week later, the article was taken down for reasons unknown.
This proposal has sparked widespread discussion among Hong Kong residents on social media platforms, with many questioning the idea and expressing concerns that it may lead to Hong Kong’s “mainlandization.”
Veteran commentator Yuen Chun-kau mocked the aforementioned article as “nonsense” in a Facebook post on August 9.
Yuen pointed out that the article, titled “Building the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area 2.0,” seems to resurrect the half-baked Greater Bay Area project, which has been stagnating since its inception.
Yuen believes that the birth of an economic belt is not driven by one-sided government intentions but by the market’s actual needs. The so-called proposal for the Greater Bay Area is essentially a monster crafted behind closed doors by the CCP. In his opinion, Xi Jinping, during his idle moments, pondered over the administrative map of China, attempting to introduce something new to showcase his “personally directing and deploying” abilities.
Following the proposal of the Greater Bay Area concept, Yuen notes that there has been little interest from the three regions – Guangdong, Hong Kong, and Macao. Hong Kong has lost its external advantages and institutional strengths, especially after the implementation of the National Security Law and the 23 initiatives, leading to the fading of its capitalist identity. The rapid decline of Hong Kong as an international financial center is evident, with its economy facing challenges.
The article from the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences shamelessly proposes concepts like “one governance for the whole Bay,” “one border for the whole Bay,” “one currency for the whole Bay,” and “one certificate for the whole Bay.” It suggests the establishment of a “Central Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area Committee” responsible for top-level planning and decision-making, aiming to implement unified customs, currency, and identity cards within the Greater Bay Area to make it an “independent” political entity, which is deemed overly arrogant.
Yuen notes that following the Third Plenum, the CCP has failed to address crises effectively. The purpose of this article, intended to please Xi Jinping, was to create some buzz; however, it went too far beyond Xi’s imagination and was removed immediately after publication.
A netizen commented following Yuen’s article, “Apart from a large-scale international war, no other Chinese regional incident affects China’s international situation as significantly as the potential drastic changes in Hong Kong. Maintaining the unchanging status of the international city of Hong Kong for 50 years holds immense significance politically. Any policy that can change at any time loses its value, rendering the mainland’s planning fickle and worthless.”