That seemed like a jolly good idea, and our first chief executive, Tung Chee-hwa, bought it and launched the fatal campaign to build at least 85,000 housing units a year. The property bubble burst and prices tumbled. At its peak, there were estimated to be more than 1 million people in negative equity.

The same dissidents took to the streets again, demanding that the government put a stop to the price fall. This, together with the severe acute respiratory syndrome outbreak, ultimately hurt Tung and he resigned in 2005 after 68 consecutive months of painful deflation. The property crash was finally arrested when the administration stopped virtually all supply of government land and housing.

Unfortunately, our officials never know when to ditch a policy. After years of restricted supply of both government land and housing, prices have rocketed again. The very same democrats have reappeared in rallies, chanting the same old slogan of snails without shells.

The same holds for environmental protection issues. The people who previously lobbied the government hard to reduce vehicle emissions and build more railways, and to replace old-fashioned light bulbs with energy saving bulbs, are now fighting against the building of high-speed rail links as well as the bulb replacement programme.

Are these people really green, and what are they really up to? I can only conclude that dissidents are dissidents, and they will never pass up any chance to bash the government. They have no true convictions; only deep mistrust of the government and the chief executive, whom they regard as Beijing's puppet.

Out of this they can concoct any conspiracy theory of collusion and abuse of power for their own benefit. Following on from Chief Executive Donald Tsang Yam-kuen's recent policy address, dissidents dug up alleged collusion with his in-laws. Yet, these allegations are without substance. Still, the harm is done, and what can anyone do?

The silent majority is totally fed up with watching these meaningless fiascos in the mainstream media everyday. But again, what can anyone do? No one has the guts to call for an immediate stop to it. As the mainstream Chinese media is sympathetic to this nonsense, any objector would be either ostracised or shouted down. So-called public opinion is monopolised by the dissidents and manufactured at will, and the true voice of the public is totally drowned out and ignored.

I don't know what will happen, or when this nonsense will end, but the situation is unsustainable. Change is in the air. If our citizens take a proactive approach, we can surely make it a change for the better.

While I am no staunch supporter of Tsang, and don't think much of his latest policy address, I and any objective observer would agree that promoting energy-saving lighting is a step in the right direction.

The charge of conflict of interest is far-fetched, while the one of corruption is preposterous.

In Tsang's case, the allegation of conflict of interest arises because his son's father-in-law owns a controlling interest in a company that represents Philips, a major supplier of energy-saving bulbs in Hong Kong.

The energy-efficient lighting market in Hong Kong is highly competitive with no firm claiming a monopoly position. So we can discard any possibility of preference and collusion in this area, and there is plainly no conflict of interest.

In imperial China, the emperor would punish his officials by executing relatives nine steps removed. Thankfully, in the 21st century, we cannot expect one's interest to extend to in-laws, and as such, that it has to be declared.

Tsang was completely correct not to take his son's in-laws into account, and there was nothing improper about his not mentioning them.

The matter has nothing to do with political sensitivity, as some pundits insist. There has to be a reasonable point at which such disclosure is unnecessary.

I don't know how long this fiasco will go on, but like many of my fellow citizens, I find the noise annoying as it greatly distracts our attention, and that of government officials, from the more serious contents of the policy address and other important matters of the day.

It is highly unfair to Tsang, his immediate family and relatives who are themselves not public figures. It is unnecessarily cruel to put these innocent people in the limelight under such intense scrutiny.

It is also unfair to the Secretary for the Environment Edward Yau Tang-wah, who must now shoulder the responsibility for the alleged political insensitivity for proposing the measure in the first place.

This time Tsang has done exactly the right thing, and citizens should support him in this case. We have the responsibility to set the record straight for future officials and politicians to follow.

The moral of the story is, first of all, dissidents are dissidents, and that is all we can expect from these people. It is up to the rest of us to use our heads to decide what is right or wrong and to put our foot down when necessary.

The dissidents are running out of issues, and are desperate to the point of grasping any false issue that comes along. They are bound to be an even greater nuisance; it is up to us to put an immediate stop to it the moment it emerges.

This year, the situation is getting worse, with rainfall 17 per cent below average. In some areas in the northern and eastern part of the province, it is down as much as 30 per cent. At least 130,000 hectares of farmland have been affected, and more than 200,000 people face shortages of potable water; many reservoirs are now more than 40 per cent below capacity.

As we know, most of Hong Kong's water supply, and all of Macau's, comes from Guangdong. Last year, we consumed 956 million cubic metres of water, of which 653 million cubic metres, or more than 60 per cent, came from Guangdong. Traditionally, Hong Kong water consumers have enjoyed preference over their Guangdong counterparts, a fact that is bound under contract with Guangdong. As a result, come what may, we do not have to worry about water shortages.

As a matter of fact, our reservoirs are always full, with the constant supply from the north. During rainy seasons, a huge amount of water has to be released into the ocean. This wastage is considered part of life here, and no action has been proposed to reduce it.

According to figures on the Water Works Department's website, as of October 5, our reservoirs were 83 per cent full with 487 million cubic metres of water in storage. This can last us for six months at least, until the rainy season, without Guangdong resupplying us.

If only as a good-neighbour policy, we should ask Guangdong to stop supplying water to Hong Kong for the next quarter. After that, if the drought does not lift, life can still go on as usual with half the normal supply until June. By then, our depleted reservoirs will be ready to receive all the water they can get from the heavens, without much having to be wasted.

This goodwill gesture will be of tremendous help to the Guangdong authorities, and here in Hong Kong there is nothing to lose. Apart from alleviating our neighbour's problem, we will also save a lot of precious rain water rather than having to pour it into the sea. An added bonus is that we may reduce our water bill with Guangdong.

In short, this is good solution for both Hong Kong and Guangdong, as well as the environment. Since it is not the first time our neighbour has suffered a drought, not performing such an act of goodwill, when the problem is out in the open, would be pure negligence.

It was recently admitted that Hong Kong loses as much as 20 per cent of its water supply through leaky pipes, at a cost of some HK$700 million annually. In the coming years, Guangdong will desperately need that water for its own use. Fix those leaks, please.

Any fair-minded person will agree that China has, over the past 60 years, made progress in leaps and bounds at a speed and scale unprecedented in human history. There has never been a paradise on earth, and there will never be a perfect society. Of course there is much to improve in China - where else is that not the case? - but not to the extent to deserve protests on its birthday.

It is also extremely odd that the voice of dissent should come from a marginal area of the country, whereas international opinion polls like the Pew Report indicate persistent, overwhelming support of the Chinese government by its people.

The very least we can conclude from such a big contrast is that there is a large cultural and value gap between mainland Chinese and some of Hong Kong's dissidents.

This is understandable as Hong Kong is a pluralistic society as a result of some 200 years of contact with the West. Unlike in other former colonies, there was no decolonisation after the handover. For example, English is still the dominant language in our education system, and is in the process of further squeezing out Chinese.

As a result, Western culture and values permeate many facets of our society, and some people tend to use this as the only standard by which to gauge China against the most advanced Western countries, which have a per capita gross domestic product 10 times higher.

Probing further, evangelism is at the core of the Judeo-Christian tradition of Western culture. Westerners are in the habit of thinking that they are the only custodians of universal truth, for which they have the responsibility to proselytise to the unconverted. It is the fabled white man's burden.

Currently, the West has in its hand a set of what it decrees as universal values, and wants to apply them to all corners of the world.

On the other hand, China has a longer cultural heritage than the Judeo-Christian tradition and is now practising its own brand of socialism.

In the eyes of the capitalistic West, China is highly idiosyncratic, and is steadfastly refusing to conform to the Western mould. It is therefore forever posing a challenge to the monolithic mind of the West.

That is why the West has not, so far, been wholeheartedly supportive of China's re-emergence. Westerners worry that one day a strong China will turn against them.

There is a Chinese saying: Those not of our kind will invariably think differently. The West should be thankful that Chinese do think differently.

China will grow in its own way, without invading other countries and setting up hundreds of overseas military bases, because that is the Chinese tradition. Throughout history, China has been plagued by perennial natural disasters, such as droughts and flooding, with subsequent famines and plagues.

Unlike the West, China never sought external conquest as the solution, even when subject to natural and environmental pressure much greater than the West.

In the same vein, China will develop its own brand of human rights and democracy instead of harping on the Western tune, as this is what 1.3 billion Chinese want.

A small group of Western-oriented dissidents in Hong Kong want to dictate their values to the whole country through minor protests. This is the typical Western spirit; and they can always try.

Despite his repeated denials, some people, notably the Liberal Party founding member Allen Lee Peng-fei, still insist that Leung is a secret member of the Chinese Communist Party.

It seems that unless Leung were to go to court, there is no way for him to counter this allegation once and for all.

For a public figure, and given the current political atmosphere, this is not an easy decision to make, and it is unlikely to  happen.

Let's put it this way: another possible candidate for the chief executive seat is  Henry Tang Ying-yen, the current chief  secretary. He used to be a member of the Liberal Party, but resigned before joining the government.

It could always be claimed that, deep in his heart, Tang is still a member of the Liberal Party. Again, this accusation cannot be proved or disproved.

This goes to show that such witch-hunts are irrational, and meaningless. It also shows that some people do not want a communist to be Hong Kong's next chief executive.

It is just a sentiment - a fear that may not be based on anything concrete. It is also an emotional distrust of the pledge of the central government and the stipulations in the Basic Law. Admittedly this is a prejudice, but it is there.

If some people harbour such deep prejudice and distrust against any and all communists, and they are not merely vocal, but vocally fighting for universal suffrage in 2012, how would you expect our central leadership, all of whom are communists, to react?

If these people so distrust and hate the communists, why should they also trust the witch-hunters?

Such an exercise is highly divisive within Hong Kong, as it could greatly erode the social rapport and implicit covenant with the community.

If there were to be a deadlock in our constitutional development, whose fault would it be? Clearly, fault would lie with the dissident witch-hunters. What if Leung were a communist and Tang a Liberal, and they would not admit it? Would this make them better candidates, or worse?

Let's stay focused and choose a good candidate for our next chief executive in 2012, based on a rational deliberation of the facts, not emotional biases.

In any case, we have not even started discussing the election method for the 2012 chief executive election.

We still do not know the rules of the game, and it is therefore highly immature to speculate, never mind start a witch-hunt.

It may be fun watching the witch-hunt spectacle, but most of us do not have such strong emotions against communists and the central government.

We are basically just enthusiastic, innocent bystanders, but there is a high risk that we may suffer collateral damage in the crossfire, which could weaken our social fabric.

In the interests of self-protection and preservation, it is incumbent upon us all to call a halt to this nonsense.

For our own sake, this pantomime just cannot continue.

In the 1950s, American citizens had the courage to put an end to the Red Scare witch-hunts.

I just wonder whether the residents of Hong Kong now have the fortitude to do the same thing, before some irreversible damage is done.

And, in drug-testing trials, there is nothing that cannot be corrected at minimum cost and short notice. This is no complicated six-sigma quality-control exercise - we do not have to do it right the first time, with no mistakes. Don't waste time. Let's move on and take a look at the real problems.

With the recent rapid increase in juvenile drug use and prostitution, our media have misled the population into classifying these as student problems. When a young person kills himself or herself, our newspapers invariably headline it as: Student commits suicide. If this were the case, the solution would lie in schools. These are, in fact, youth problems, not student problems, and we are barking up the wrong tree.

Schools are designed to be educational institutions, and our principals and teachers are already overburdened performing this important function. We are assigning more and more functions to schools, which are not equipped to perform them well even if we were to allocate more resources.

Hong Kong's international schools carry out drug tests as a screening procedure, and students who violate the rules risk expulsion. But it is a means of avoiding the problem, not solving it. As our mainstream schools cannot kick out such students, the success or otherwise of international schools is not applicable here. What do we do with our own students who test positive? Hand them all over to the police?

Without a comprehensive package, simple drug testing is practically useless.

During his election campaign and in his first policy address after re-election, Chief Executive Donald Tsang Yam-kuen promised to place more emphasis on the family, to solve social problems. It seems reasonable to expect families to do more to deal with their children's problems. So why does Mr Tsang leave the family out in this particular instance? Simple: as I have argued with our chief executive before, the approach does not work. Hong Kong people work extra-long hours, with both parents typically putting in 50-hour weeks. Rampant youth problems and neglected children are symptoms of families in distress.

Instead of providing them with the necessary relief, our government turns a blind eye to their problems, expecting them to shoulder the additional responsibility of solving what are social problems. This is downright wishful thinking.

Such problems are surfacing one by one. We cannot pin them all on the family unit or at the school level. It seems our government can do little more than air slick television commercials featuring drug-taking movie stars urging their peers not to take drugs, organise some carnival-type activities and break some records to make the news. Their message: Don't blame us, we are doing something about it.

Youth problems in general are reflections of the problems of society at large. So, too, are family problems, as I have outlined. An outwardly rich society like Hong Kong, where most of the wealth is in fact concentrated in a few hands, is not healthy.

Parents in Hong Kong have a hard time not neglecting their children while making ends meet. And what do their children get? Even the cream of university graduates can expect to start on monthly salaries below HK$10,000, while a new flat costs well over HK$5 million.

It is obvious that, on their own, our children are finding it ever harder to afford their own flat or get married. Social mobility is low, which means less hope. I would probably take drugs if I were 16. It is an SOS signal. Apparently, we haven't got the message.

The recent session, which ended on July 20, seemed to be a particularly important one as it was attended by all members of the Politburo, and President Hu Jintao's speech showed a clear departure from the previous guidelines laid down by Deng Xiaoping two decades ago.

At the time of Deng's proclamation, China was only 10 years into its reform and opening-up policy and was still weak and poor, and isolated following the 1989 Tiananmen incident.

Deng instructed the Chinese government to lie low in the international arena and not stick its neck out.

This policy avoided many conflicts with the West, notably the United States, and paved the way for a peaceful and stable environment for the next two decades of rapid development.

This year, China will probably overtake Japan to become the second-largest economy in the world, after the US.

With the Western world now beginning to advocate a G2 - China and the US - and demanding that China play a bigger role in international economics and politics, it is no longer possible for the nation to keep a low profile.

Internally, events over the past two years, especially those related to Tibet and Xinjiang , have alerted the entire country to international influence in China's domestic affairs and its image abroad.

China's global interests also dictate that it cannot avoid sticking its neck out. One example is escorting its merchant ships through the troubled waters near the Horn of Africa and protecting them from heavily armed Somali pirates.

China's policies, both domestic and foreign, are guided by some basic tenets. If the underlying principles remain unchanged, the policy, on the whole, stays intact and actions are only piecemeal. The changes in important guidelines are always announced in high-level meetings.

At the diplomats' meeting, Mr Hu called on China's overseas representatives to play a bigger role in serving the country's reform and national interests, as China is seeking stable and rapid development amid the global economic downturn.

What the Western media did not pick up, as it was not reported in the Xinhua English release, was Mr Hu's exaltation to increasing the country's influence in politics, its competitiveness in economics, its congeniality in image, and its poignancy in morality.

A few years ago, in the report to the 17th Party Congress, Mr Hu, in the capacity of party general secretary used the phrase soft power for the first time in Chinese official documents.

The new diplomatic guideline can be regarded as an extension and a natural development along this line of thinking. It signifies a clear departure from the guidelines to lie low. It is also a new mission statement of what role the country would like to play in the international community, and how it wants to be received.

China now feels a need to proactively project its newly acquired big power status in international affairs, and not have its image distorted and demonised by the usually hostile Western media.

It all boils down to the old saying: We come in peace. The emerging China is definitely not a threat to anyone.

Taken this way, the world will soon find it is a new blessing.

As a firm believer in transparency, I honestly think that failing to pick up on this important message is a big mistake on the part of the Western media, and a big loss to the Western world.

The issue is gathering momentum and gaining support from a growing number of non-governmental organisations and pro-democracy politicians, some of whom have pushed the matter to the moral high ground of spatial democracy - that is, the democratic distribution of facilities and services to all urban areas.

Except for the NGO involvement, the protest sounds familiar. Similar demonstrations have taken place many times in the past, and were invariably solved when the stakes were raised to the protesters' satisfaction.

Those who shout: I don't want your money usually mean: I want more. If, with the intervention of the NGOs, this incident were to escalate into a moral issue in the realms of democracy and justice, there would be no room for compromise, no deal and, in the end, no money. This bargaining strategy is very bad for business.

But, if the villagers backed down when sufficient incentives were offered, the NGOs would appear to have been sold out, resulting in a tremendous loss of credibility. To the public they would look gullible, rather than righteous.

Of course, they would justify their retreat with excuses like: We have helped the villagers gain better compensation from the government, but that would ring hollow all the same.

I am all for conservation and helping vulnerable groups, provided they have a case. But apart from the I don't want to move argument, I see no justification here.

I agree that, in many instances, people are treated worse than butterflies, for example. At least when the habitat of the latter is endangered, it becomes a conservation area. We cannot reason with butterflies and persuade them to move, but we can do so with our fellow humans. Moreover, the butterflies' offspring will also thrive in their reserve; there is less reason to be optimistic about the descendants of present-day villagers living there for long.

So, if the fact that someone is unwilling to move is a good enough reason to win the moral support of citizens at large, then the development of our entire city will be put on hold.

Dissident politicians entered this dispute to gain exposure. One claimed that the construction of the high-speed rail link would only serve to bring more mainland visitors to Hong Kong. Coming from the mouth of a trade union leader, such a statement is alarming. It seems he must have forgotten that more tourists mean more employment, especially for vulnerable, uneducated and unskilled workers.

The dissidents also forget that many Hong Kong citizens travel north. Will they not benefit? With the completion of the initial phase of the high-speed rail network on the mainland, by 2012, major cities will be much more interconnected.

Hong Kong started late and will only be able to plug into the system by 2014. If we don't hurry, we risk being left out in the cold. We will then become a lonely island in the South China Sea, which would clearly be detrimental to our future development.

Our dissidents have yet to learn from the disappointing turnout for the July 1 march that being anti-government without a real cause is not a very good rallying point for voters.

The protesting villagers in the New Territories will be much more grateful if the pan-democratic politicians can help them get off their high horses and get higher compensation instead. And if they don't get in quickly, pro-establishment lawmakers like Lau Wong-fat will do a much better job.

The conspicuously disappointing turnout for the July 1 march was quite expected. The pro-democracy movement believed that up to 200,000 would take part, given the high level of dissatisfaction with the Tsang administration. On top of that, they thought the high turnout on June 4 would have a knock-on effect. Such euphoria blinded them to the reality.

First, are people frustrated to such a degree that they will take to the streets in numbers? People are not happy, for sure. They are not happy about negative growth and rising unemployment. But, unlike the last recession coupled with the severe acute respiratory syndrome outbreak, people today seem less affected, in general. And, for those who are suffering, they know it is the result of the international financial crisis, which did not originate here. Anyway, this is only the beginning of hardship, not the accumulation of more than 60 months of anguish, as it was in 2003, and the aggravation is far less severe.

Let's face it, although Chief Executive Donald Tsang Yam-kuen's popularity rating is in the doldrums, it is still quite high, and much higher than that of a lot of world leaders. True, many people are unhappy with the government's performance, but not to the point of demonstrating. And a smear campaign would not help, either. If our dissidents are genuine democrats, as they claim, they should know that people cannot be fooled too easily for too long.

Hong Kong citizens are highly rational. Unlike in 2003, when many were led to believe that by participating in the July 1 march they could vote with their feet and change things, now, they are under no such illusion. Good governance takes a great deal of hard work and commitment from both the government and the public. A new positive, proactive mood is growing, and this was not present six years ago. History does not simply repeat itself, and our dissidents neglected this fact, much to their regret.

The June 4 factor failed to rub off onto July 1 because rational Hongkongers know these are two completely different subjects. For decades, the dissidents have succeeded in lumping democracy and anti-communist sentiment together, and many have come to believe that one man, one vote would be an effective firewall against possible intervention from Beijing.

Although more than 100,000 people still feel strongly about the official handling of the events of June 4, 1989, the general anti-communist animosity is almost gone. Very few now believe democracy is a panacea, and that the central government has no legitimate role in Hong Kong.

Inciting hatred directly towards Beijing is very dangerous and the dissidents have, in the past, consciously steered away from this course. They are resorting to it now only because they are running out of steam - and slogans. Such suicidal tactics are a sign of weakness and desperation. The dissidents' glory days are numbered.

The World Health Organisation has raised its worldwide alert to the highest level and, in Hong Kong, the virus is clearly spreading in the community.

But unlike severe acute respiratory syndrome, or even the H5N1 avian flu, there is no emergency in the air. This somewhat lacklustre reaction is understandable as we now know that this new A(H1N1) virus is not much more fatal than ordinary flu.

But, because of this, there are plenty of carriers of the virus among us who are not showing any symptoms.

In other words, the virus is now rapidly reshuffling genes among the human and pig populations in different places around the world. The outcome, many generations down the road, is anyone's guess.

In the case of H5N1, that virus seems to be getting much milder and that is why we have not seen its recurrence. But if the genetic reshuffling were to result in some more fatal strains, we would be in very deep trouble.

Facing such scenarios, many of the measures now undertaken worldwide, as well as in Hong Kong, seem irrelevant.

Stocking up on Tamiflu, for example, is not a very good strategy since, if the new strains die down, the chances are that this batch would pass its expiry dates and become useless. And, should the strain become more virulent, Tamiflu may not be effective.

In either case, it is a waste of public money and only benefits pharmaceutical companies. Quarantine has proved to be too much of a hassle, and we have already abandoned it for the most part.

This time, the Americans may be right. It is now too late to try to stop the spread of the virus and the accompanying gene reshuffling. Our new lines of defence should be built around vigilance, as well as public hygiene.

We can, to a large extent, forget about the original A(H1N1) virus, because it is now too late to do anything about it, and because it is not fatal in 99.6 per cent of cases, anyway.

The objectives of constant vigilance are to monitor the genetic development of the virus and to stop new, more fatal variants from spreading, as well as to quickly develop drugs and vaccines against them.

This is the real enemy that we should concentrate our efforts on eradicating and, if we do it right, we still have the ability to succeed.

To help fight a possible new H1N1 virus, we should - just like in wartime - raise the level of alert against our enemies. This is where heightened public hygiene comes in.

Following Sars, Hong Kong citizens acquired the habits of wearing masks, washing their hands and using separate chopsticks. Such habits are now being reinforced. But, after a while, a cry wolf mentality may prevail, and we will soon forget about such good habits.

Always keeping people on their toes is very difficult, and it is also unnecessary.

Our government should clearly explain the situation and its strategy to the public, keep disseminating information quickly, and devise an appropriate alert system, then enforce it.

For example, wearing masks in public areas may not be necessary at this stage, and it can be unbearable during hot summer days, so we should drop the idea.

But the habit of frequently washing our hands and immediately taking a shower and changing all our clothing after coming home should still be encouraged at all times.

Meanwhile, the city should be thoroughly cleaned up, and kept clean. This way, come what may, we will be prepared.

Imagine having breakfast at West Kowloon MTR station, then waiting no more than a few minutes before hopping on a train that will reach Shenzhen in about 15 minutes or Guangzhou in less than an hour. Those travelling beyond the provincial capital will be able to board inter-city trains departing every 30 minutes, reaching Changsha in time for lunch and Beijing or Shanghai for dinner.

Such convenient travel will no longer be the monopoly of the super-rich, but affordable for just about everybody.

This new and much improved connectivity - to be made possible by a dense network of inter-city high-speed trains, suburban subways and light-rail networks - will be mind-boggling.

If you want a taste of things to come, visit Japan and try its famed rail system. It is estimated that more than 80 per cent of all travel within that country is via the rail system, and city life tends to centre around stations. A less-extensive version of this is now unfolding in Taiwan, gradually replacing short-haul air travel within the island.

By that time, car owners will be able to drive anywhere on the mainland when temporary licences become readily available at any border checkpoint.

The Hong Kong-Macau-Zhuhai Bridge, also ready by 2015, will carry at least 20,000 cars daily. Through the temporary licence system, tens of thousands of mainland cars and their passengers will flock to Hong Kong.

Together with the even larger number of passengers arriving by rail, just think of the tremendous boost this will give to our tourism-related industries.

Those who still think we need to maintain a firewall along the border will have been proved totally wrong. Hong Kong and Shenzhen will very soon become practically one city, though under different administrations. Market forces will begin to equalise prices between the two cities.

Now you will understand why local property developers are desperately pushing their inventories, because they are much better informed than most and know that their golden days are over. Soon there will be practically no difference between living on either side of the Shenzhen River.

With improved travel links, the Pearl River Delta cities will be forced to diversify as their proximity to one another will heighten competition. The first to develop unique industries or attractions, therefore, will definitely enjoy an advantage.

The lesson for Hong Kong is that we must discard our insular mentality and confront the reality of regional co-operation and economic integration.

This is something which we are not very good at, and one country, two systems poses many unprecedented problems. For example, questions raised over proposed joint customs and immigration inspection remain unresolved: in the meantime, many of the above scenarios will remain pipe dreams.

We should therefore take the initiative to start negotiations, and come up with creative solutions. At the same time, Hong Kong should strive to maintain its lead in the delta region and be the first mover in many areas. It is the only way to keep our competitive edge and our higher standard of living.

This is going to be the biggest challenge Hong Kong has ever faced and, if we cannot overcome it, we have nowhere to go but south.

Many Hong Kong people still perceive their city to be an island in the South China Sea, and refuse to become another Chinese metropolis. This is, of course, wishful thinking: the direction of Hong Kong's economic development and its positioning in this region is fixed into the regional economy of the nine plus two cities.

With the onset of the global financial crisis, this might even be our salvation, at least for the short term. We can consider ourselves lucky: the other East Asian tigers - Taiwan, South Korea and Singapore - all suffered double-digit negative growth in the first quarter of the year. Hong Kong's gross domestic product fell by only 7.8 per cent in the same period. Having been an advocate of regional economic integration for the past two decades, I am pleased with this development blueprint. We must adopt a wider vision, with regional and national development in mind, or risk losing out on a share of the windfall. Should that happen, Hong Kong would become an insignificant second-class Chinese city. Of course, we don't want that to happen.

Now that the general direction is set, I no longer worry about regional economic integration. My new fear is that Hong Kong will focus too much on mainland opportunities to the point of losing its competitive advantage in the region and in the country. By then, we would have lost our vitality and our unique contribution to regional and national development. There would be no winners if this were to happen.

Hong Kong has always been, and will continue to be, an open city with a cosmopolitan outlook and international connections. Sad to say, for the past two decades, our local citizens have become far too inward-looking. We are not interested in anything that happens outside Hong Kong. In contrast, if you open any newspaper in Singapore on any day, you will invariably find one or two news items about Hong Kong. But, typically, reports on Singapore, Hong Kong's major economic rival, feature maybe less than once a month in the local press, most of it infotainment. Singaporeans keep a close watch on Hong Kong and benchmark every move we make. No wonder it eclipses Hong Kong in many areas.

In the aftermath of the global downturn, China will soon surpass Japan as the second leading economy in the world. It will be the growth engine for East Asia and for the world. China urgently needs a major international gateway now, not a decade later. Despite all the hoopla and policy incentives, Shanghai is clearly not up to it at the moment, and Hong Kong is perhaps the only choice. Given its historical relations with the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, Hong Kong is arguably even the preferred gateway.

We have to break away from our navel gazing and regain our presence in the international arena. This is the rationale behind one country, two systems, and the Basic Law has specifically made provisions for that. Clearly, the central government does not want Hong Kong to become just another Chinese city either, because this would do nobody any good.

The opportunities are there, but it is up to us to seize them. The authorities in Beijing and Guangzhou will be more than happy to see us taking up the role as the country's economic gateway to Southeast Asia, and will do everything to assist us in this direction. Quality employment and high growth should not be a problem for Hong Kong.

During the next decade, the question of Hong Kong's future was directly translated into: Is there life after the handover? The expat community was quite pessimistic, as evidenced by the mass exodus and the Death of Hong Kong, which was forecast by Fortune magazine.

Some locals were affected by the pessimistic mood and started migrating in the 1990s, only to return en masse later. For the majority of us who stayed, we enjoyed a terrific time - for a while - as the value of our assets rose by the day.

As long as we were the centre of the universe, we had no need to worry about our future. That position has been greatly eroded now, but Hong Kong is still decades ahead of Shanghai, our only rival in sight. At least, that is what we think.

Despite our grumbles, deep in our hearts we know that, as long as Daddy loves us, we have nothing to fear.

The crunch came when Premier Wen Jiabao announced that Shanghai was destined to be China's international financial centre, and later warned Hong Kong that, if it did not move forwards, it would lose its lead. We are on our own now, with no special favours in the future. Suddenly, the roof has fallen in; Daddy has thrown us into open competition. The future has suddenly become a problem.

The consensus now is that Shanghai will surely overtake us in less than a decade as the international financial centre of the country, and that will be the end of Hong Kong as the Pearl of the Orient.

This was the fate suffered by Yokohama in Japan. It started off as the most important port, handling half the country's trade, but was soon eclipsed by Tokyo.

Closer to home, Quanzhou , in Fujian province , was one of world's major trading ports until as late as the 14th century, but look at it now. This may well be the fate of Hong Kong if we do not strive to maintain our current position.

It is pathetic to see a confident metropolitan city suddenly shattered under a wave of pessimism. This is especially so when it is evident that the whole community, starting with our government, lawmakers, opinion leaders and media, all maintain a conspicuous silence and a resigned attitude. This is more than denial, it is a grudging acceptance of fate. We are doomed and there is nothing we can do about it.

Should this sinking-ship atmosphere continue, some people will just jump ship. They will leave Hong Kong but, this time, instead of migrating to industrialised English-speaking countries, many will choose to head north, where opportunities still abound. This will start a vicious cycle to accelerate and fulfil the consensus forecast of Hong Kong's downfall.

Fortunately, our young people refuse to give up without a fight because, for them, Hong Kong is no longer a transient money-making vehicle; it is home. I was delighted to read a recently advertised declaration by youngsters urging us to participate in making Hong Kong better.

They are not alone; there are many others like me, who might not share exactly the same vision, but who all see Hong Kong as our home. To us, it is irrelevant whether the city is China's only international financial centre, and we will not desert Hong Kong when it faces challenges. While every one of us is still standing, Hong Kong will have a future. Nobody can ever write us off.

During the next decade, the question of Hong Kong's future was directly translated into: Is there life after the handover? The expat community was quite pessimistic, as evidenced by the mass exodus and the Death of Hong Kong, which was forecast by Fortune magazine.

Some locals were affected by the pessimistic mood and started migrating in the 1990s, only to return en masse later. For the majority of us who stayed, we enjoyed a terrific time - for a while - as the value of our assets rose by the day.

As long as we were the centre of the universe, we had no need to worry about our future. That position has been greatly eroded now, but Hong Kong is still decades ahead of Shanghai, our only rival in sight. At least, that is what we think.

Despite our grumbles, deep in our hearts we know that, as long as Daddy loves us, we have nothing to fear.

The crunch came when Premier Wen Jiabao announced that Shanghai was destined to be China's international financial centre, and later warned Hong Kong that, if it did not move forwards, it would lose its lead. We are on our own now, with no special favours in the future. Suddenly, the roof has fallen in; Daddy has thrown us into open competition. The future has suddenly become a problem.

The consensus now is that Shanghai will surely overtake us in less than a decade as the international financial centre of the country, and that will be the end of Hong Kong as the Pearl of the Orient.

This was the fate suffered by Yokohama in Japan. It started off as the most important port, handling half the country's trade, but was soon eclipsed by Tokyo.

Closer to home, Quanzhou , in Fujian province , was one of world's major trading ports until as late as the 14th century, but look at it now. This may well be the fate of Hong Kong if we do not strive to maintain our current position.

It is pathetic to see a confident metropolitan city suddenly shattered under a wave of pessimism. This is especially so when it is evident that the whole community, starting with our government, lawmakers, opinion leaders and media, all maintain a conspicuous silence and a resigned attitude. This is more than denial, it is a grudging acceptance of fate. We are doomed and there is nothing we can do about it.

Should this sinking-ship atmosphere continue, some people will just jump ship. They will leave Hong Kong but, this time, instead of migrating to industrialised English-speaking countries, many will choose to head north, where opportunities still abound. This will start a vicious cycle to accelerate and fulfil the consensus forecast of Hong Kong's downfall.

Fortunately, our young people refuse to give up without a fight because, for them, Hong Kong is no longer a transient money-making vehicle; it is home. I was delighted to read a recently advertised declaration by youngsters urging us to participate in making Hong Kong better.

They are not alone; there are many others like me, who might not share exactly the same vision, but who all see Hong Kong as our home. To us, it is irrelevant whether the city is China's only international financial centre, and we will not desert Hong Kong when it faces challenges. While every one of us is still standing, Hong Kong will have a future. Nobody can ever write us off.

After going through the article, I found nothing novel or unorthodox about the points he made. Mr Cao was at pains to delineate the functions of the liaison office from those of the SAR government, in strict accordance with the Basic Law, and emphasised time and again that the office should not meddle in Hong Kong's internal affairs.

That perhaps explained the general lack of public interest when a Chinese newspaper first introduced the article to its readers as part of a campaign to encourage more participants in the upcoming annual July 1 march. But, if at first you don't succeed, try, try again. With more orchestrated efforts, and a little more distortion, the dissidents have finally succeeded in generating more debate on the subject.

Pan-democratic lawmakers, in particular, now regard Mr Cao's article as a sort of political jackpot. Judging by the reactions of their supporters on the internet, the hoopla just reaffirms their old prejudice that the commies in the north never gave Hong Kong real autonomy.

To them, the role of the liaison office should be reduced to that of a minor consular office, and it should shut up and let the US consulate do the talking.

The problem is that this is wishful thinking on the dissidents' part, and it is not the arrangement stipulated by the Basic Law for one country, two systems. The past 12 years have demonstrated that the liaison office provides a vital link between Hong Kong and other parts of the country and, without it, the SAR cannot function in many important areas.

In this respect, the liaison office is, of course, part of the governance establishment here, and of course it has authority over certain matters; but, as long as it doesn't infringe on the authority of the SAR government and does not contravene the Basic Law, what's the problem?

Whether our dissidents like this arrangement is another matter. In that case, why didn't they voice their objections in the long consultation period during the drafting of the Basic Law? In fact, it baffles me why they should bring up this fundamental point 12 years after the handover, when this division of labour first came into force. Dissidents are dissidents, and their brains are probably wired differently, you know.

And that is probably why the heads of some of our pro-democracy legislators are growing bigger every day. They have been getting used to invoking the Powers and Privileges Ordinance, and this time they want to apply it to summon Mr Cao to testify in the Legislative Council.

While some lawmakers willingly submitted to the authority of the US Senate and testified there, it does not imply that the Hong Kong legislature can have jurisdiction elsewhere. For one thing, the ordinance does not apply to the central government, and therefore not to a central government official like Mr Cao. I am sure some of our dissident lawmakers, themselves legal professionals, are aware of this simple fact.

Don't make empty threats if you do not intend to carry them out. I would challenge anybody to formally move this in Legco, and would be most interested to see whether the Legco president, Tsang Yok-sing, allowed it to proceed. If Mr Cao were to appear in the council chamber to testify, you would see me in the front row of the public gallery.