in Hong Kong ,
In the book Edge of Empires, John M Carroll, makes clear that Hong Kong's politics have always been neatly linked with the socio-economic myth-making of the ruling class. From the time British tycoons were taking credit for the economic activity of Chinese merchants to the time of Chinese elites becoming incorporated into the elite social structure. It's even continued in post-handover Hong Kong as the economic elite state HK success is as an entrepot in order to forget the role of manufacturing in Hong Kong's economic success as Hong Kong's manufacturing was shipped north by the economic elite.
So it shouldn't be surprising to informed observers of Hong Kong's politics to see pro-Team CronY elite wrapping their anti-democratic propaganda in socio-economic myth-making. SCMP featured an op-ed from Andrew Leung on Saturday April 11 and an op-ed from Regina Ip on Sunday April 12 that both wrap Hong Kong's economic success in the mantle of Hong Kong's elite. Andrew Leung stated Hong Kong's economic success was because of the current unrepresentative CE Election Committee and argued that the future Nomination Committee needed to be just as unrepresentative in order to maintain Hong Kong's wealth. Regina Ip on the other hand stated that Hong Kong's economic success was dependent upon the combination of the anti-democratic colonial rule and Hong Kong's elite and suggests that Hong Kong's future wealth depends on leaving Hong Kong's political power with them for the future. Given that Hong Kong's current elite's wealth and power stems from inclusion in Team CronY, it's cannot be surprising that they see their continued power and wealth as being dependent upon Team CronY retaining its stranglehold on Hong Kong's political and economic system.
The problem with myth-making is that it doesn't stand up to scrutiny of facts. Much like Team CronY's team studying Hong Kong's financial future made up all sorts of crappy assumptions about growth in government infrastructure spending in order to justify Hong Kong going broke in the future (is this disclosure the cause of Tom Holland's disappearance from SCMP?), the more you look at the foundational premises of Team CronY's myths and you see they are built on crap. For example Li Ka-shing's success depended upon the pre-DAB creating a violent disturbance large enough to allow him entrance to Hong Kong's property market. Sun Hung Kai's foundation is linked to the squatter clearances, New Town development plans and reservoir formation with their attendant resettlement property and vouchers of the late 50s and early 60s. Both of these firms survived the economic downturns in the post-bubble and SARS-era due to government policy interventions by Tung Chee-hwa in the property market in order to ensure property did not drop far enough that Li Ka-shing's late 60s success could be repeated by a new challenger.
Would Hong Kong have been more successful if the property market had been allowed to collapse further? Such a collapse would have made commercial rents more amenable for new start-ups (and not just tech start-ups at the beginning of the tech bubble) that would have broadened Hong Kong's tax and employment base, but threatened the economic and political stranglehold the current elite still enjoy, so Hong Kong as a whole and the mass of Hong Kongers have ended up much worse off, as demonstrated by one of the worst Gini co-efficients in the world, due to the continued stranglehold.
In addition to the crap foundations of the elite's economic myth-making, their anti-democratic drumbeat relies on lies of omission and misdefinition of the most basic terms in Hong Kong's Basic Law. For example Regina Ip failed to explain what were the polarising forces the colonial government feared. I guess she doesn't like pointing out that Hong Kong doesn't have and will never have universal suffrage under democratic principles due to 70+ years of meddling by the Communist Party of China in Hong Kong's affairs and that the polarising forces were the CPC and KMT. At least Ms Ip has learned not to bite the hand that feeds her. On the other hand Andrew Leung starts swapping 'representation' with 'representative'. As anyone who studied basic statistics or polling theory, which the DAB has great interest in given their harrassment of HKUPOP, one group is representative of another if their respective proportions are 'similar', a maths concept taught in Hong Kong in the lower secondary forms. Since Hong Kong's Basic Law mentions democratic forms, we know the similarity should be along the lines of population democgraphics. The current Election Committee has lots of groups represented, but their proportions are not similar to Hong Kong's demographics unless you re-weight the greater population by making Party loyalty and wealth outweigh concepts of one man, one vote. Why would you do that? In order to ensure that your place as one of Hong Kong's elite at the pinnacle of the Gini co-efficient is never threatened by the groundlings that want to change the system they know is designed to exploit their labour (HK's 1st pillar industry) and skim their salaries directly into the pockets of HK's tycoons (HK's 2nd pillar industry).