It was a valid question: all evidence points to our distinctive branding as a place for shopping and culinary pleasure. Hong Kong's positioning as a desired travel destination is unique. Unlike other Asian cities, we boast a true fusion of east and west. But, like ying and yang, how can these two be kept in harmony?

More to the point, are homegrown icons like Bruce Lee and Victoria Harbour being displaced by Mickey Mouse and Space Mountain? Is our tourism industry selling its cultural soul, Faust-like, to the mass-market appeal of the "magic kingdom"?

The Hong Kong government has, in laissez faire fashion, managed to steer clear of the brickbats offered by deckchair experts on what constitutes the real "pearl of the orient". It has juggled a dramatic growth in the number of mainland visitors, a shift in traveller profile brought on by the Asian financial crisis of 1997-1998, with its own embracing of the notion of a sustainable tourism industry. In that vision, it seeks a portfolio of scenic locations, local arts and culture, and exposing Hong Kong's rich natural reserves to a wider audience. It also maintains the traditional shopping haunts and vestiges of our expansive colonial heritage.

The government argues that cultural tourism will blossom if we take an interest in our own heritage: tourists will follow; country parks and old Hakka communities will draw their share of the crowds. But this is about as removed from fact as one can get. The visiting hordes are less inclined to visit the rustic Tai Po Kau trail or Mai Po wetlands than to be photographed posing with Goofy and Pluto.

Globalisation is a two-edged sword. Do we want more amusement parks and even more shopping malls? Or can we emulate the example of Singapore, which ensures that old shopfronts are preserved for posterity? The demise of Wedding Card Street suggests not.

Another pressing issue is that the government's 2030 planning study predicts a significant growth in our tourism by that date. Already stretched, how will our industry cope?

We must promote a tourist industry that is not founded on just shopping and Mickey Mouse money. We need to pay more than lip service to our own natural and cultural strengths. As well as guides and the usual hospitality service providers, we need a number of sub-industries, clusters of complementary activities and people involved in them: language schools, history writers, nature specialists and scholars, for example -- all engaged in the business of making it known that there is much more to Hong Kong than bargains.

The clusters extend beyond Hong Kong itself. There are many excellent destinations to cater for many tastes in the Pearl River Delta, and Hong Kong can be the base from which they can all be explored.

Rather than marketing themselves as isolated individual destinations, Hong Kong, Macau, Guangzhou, Heyuan [1] and the hinterland should act together. Hong Kong, with its wealth of travel and tourism knowledge, must take the lead in this.

To cite one tourism authority: "... the work seeks to comprehend the spiritual and material needs and yearnings of gregarious humanity. It makes us reflect how completely dependent we are upon one another in our social and commercial life. The more diversified our labours and interests have become in the modern world, the more surely we need to integrate our efforts to justify our individual selves and our civilisation." These words are attributed to none other than Walt Disney.

Footnote:
[1] See Heyuan’s tentative steps towards sustainable eco-tourism

Thomas Tang is GIFT’s managing director, and a senior adviser to the Business Environment Council, an alliance of businesses in Hong Kong advocating environmental and sustainable development.
www.globalinstitutefortomorrow.org/