Hong Kong must keep its unique edge even as it enjoys deeper mainland ties

In China’s political parlance, calling someone “one of us” is far more than an expression of ideological kinship. It signals that more doors can be opened, and preferential treatment extended. Yet it can also imply that “one of us” should now follow the rules of the group – rules that may differ sharply from previous ones. For decades, this mentality has shaped domestic policy. The private sector contributes over 60 per cent of the country’s GDP and over 80 per cent of urban employment but has largely been treated as a second-class citizen compared with the state sector, which enjoys better policy support and cheaper loans. Only in the past few years has China’s leadership, looking to revive confidence, started to call the private sector “one of us”. Now, as Beijing repeatedly urges Hong Kong to further integrate into national development, mainland officials are increasingly managing Hong Kong affairs through the “one of us” lens. The result is a double-edged sword: genuine benefits for residents and businesses, especially in the Greater Bay Area, alongside growing anxiety that the city’s distinct DNA and rule-of-law safeguards are being diluted. It also raises a very important question over whether Hong Kong should be given more freedom to play up its strength as the unique linkage between the Chinese mainland and the rest of the world. The busy flow of people through Lo Wu, Lok Ma Chau and other crossings is a daily testament to this integration. According to Hong Kong government data, nearly 600,000 Hong Kong residents stayed in Guangdong for more than six months in 2025. Equipped with mainland residence and travel permits, Hongkongers enjoy comprehensive rights on the mainland, covering employment, housing and daily life. Sometimes, they enjoy more benefits than in Hong Kong. For instance, those aged 60 and above enjoy free rides on the Shenzhen subway whereas they still have to pay HK$2 per ride back at home. This is the upside of being treated as “one of us”. The downside is equally visible: Hongkongers have also been caught up in administrative or legal quandaries. The most notable example is the exit ban, a policy tool increasingly used by the authorities to prevent people from leaving the country amid suspicion of wrongdoing or simply because they are on the wrong side of a business dispute. Most of those affected by the exit ban are Chinese nationals. The latest high-profile case involved two co-founders of artificial intelligence start-up Manus, which Meta Platforms acquired for US$2 billion. Manus chief executive Xiao Hong and chief scientist Ji Yichao were summoned to a meeting in Beijing with the National Development and Reform Commission in March. Afterwards, they were told they could not leave China due to a regulatory review of the deal, though they remain free to travel within the country. An increasing number of people placed under the ban, however, are from Hong Kong. The exact number remains unclear, but the trend is unmistakable. Bankers in Central can recount multiple cases of friends or colleagues suddenly unable to board a flight. Hong Kong officials seem to believe their hands are tied under “one country, two systems”. Yet there have been suggestions that the “one of us” mentality is also at work when mainland officials handle cases involving Hong Kong residents. By contrast, officials from the Taiwan Affairs Office are believed to be more proactive in helping Taiwanese residents and businesses caught up in similar jams – not least because Beijing is out to win Taiwanese hearts and minds in the quest for reunification. This is not a one-way street. Over the past few years, about 300,000 mainlanders have settled in Hong Kong through various talent schemes, with some importing mainland practices. Last month, a City University professor was jailed for 4½ months for offering a bribe. He offered HK$1,000 to a Midland Realty agent in an attempt to avoid paying a HK$16,000 penalty for breaching a tenancy agreement. The defence’s argument – that “cultural differences” were at work – was rejected by the magistrate, underscoring that Hong Kong’s stricter rules-based culture still holds. More broadly, the “one of us” mentality is also affecting the role of Hong Kong as a superconnector – particularly when China is assertively defending its national interest in dealings with the US and other Western countries. For instance, Hong Kong business and political elites have been discouraged from meeting American and Japanese diplomats based in the city, mirroring a policy on the Chinese mainland. In particular, Washington’s decision to sanction a number of leading Hong Kong and mainland Chinese officials has made contact even more difficult. Understandably, direct official contact is very unlikely unless Washington lifts those sanctions and ties with Tokyo improve. But a blanket ban seems harsh. Allowing some freedom for Hong Kong goes a long way towards highlighting its unique strength – the city can be “one of us” while able to do things differently. The central challenge is to ensure that deeper integration enhances rather than erodes Hong Kong’s irreplaceable value. Treating Hong Kong as “one of us” must therefore mean something more nuanced than applying mainland norms wholesale. That calls for giving Hong Kong explicit latitude to maintain open channels with the outside world, even when those channels are narrower on the mainland, and recognising that Hong Kong’s value to the nation lies exactly in its ability to be “one of us” while operating under different methods – the very essence of one country, two systems.

Hong Kong must keep its unique edge even as it enjoys deeper mainland ties

.css-1c6uqr6{color:inherit;font-weight:inherit;font-size:inherit;font-family:inherit;line-height:inherit;overflow-wrap:break-word;}As mainland officials manage Hong Kong affairs through the ‘one of us’ lens, it should not affect the city’s role as a superconnector

As mainland officials manage Hong Kong affairs through the ‘one of us’ lens, it should not affect the city’s role as a superconnector