Singapore
Is Hong Kong better?
A good discussion of an old, endless debate. Sammyboy.com Forum
Aug 7, 2005

MADMASSES
I have lived in Hong Kong and do not feel in the least that Hong Kong is better than Singapore. While salaries in Hong Kong are higher than in Singapore, your quality of life suffers dramatically once you move to Hong Kong from Singapore. Only the very rich who live near the Peak or the upper reaches of Mid-Levels will find life congenial in Hong Kong. For everyone else, you're part of the writhing mass of humanity living in cramped and often unhealthy conditions.
Contrary to what Hong Kongers would like to believe, their recent economic recovery has nothing to do with how enterprising they are.
It is a well-known fact that China has been supporting Hong Kong's economy to the tune of several billion dollars every year since 1997.
Not only are large state privatizations taking place in Hong Kong, the massive influx of Chinese tourists have been critical in supporting the Hong Kong economy.
The irony of a poor country supporting the lifestyle of their rich brethren seems to be lost on the people of Hong Kong. It will not last.
Everywhere I go in China, when the topic of Hong Kong comes up, the Chinese invariably express a great deal of anger towards Hong Kong. And why shouldn't the Chinese be angry? Since the handover, not only has Hong Kong not helped China in its efforts to modernize, it has been an endless source of trouble for China. Resources that could be used to improve the lives of poor farmers are instead given over to Hong Kong to try and stop the never ending street demonstrations that threaten to destabilize China.
The continued use of Cantonese instead of Mandarin in Hong Kong is a very sore point. If you can speak Cantonese and read traditional Chinese, then you are just a skip and a hop away from speaking Mandarin and reading simplified Chinese. But the people of Hong Kong, in their obstinate pride, have refused to integrate culturally or linguistically into China. Such rejection is probably the greatest humiliation that Hong Kong can dish out to China. In time, the offence will be paid back with interest.
The financial world is caught in a state of flux at the moment. No one really knows for sure if Shanghai, Hong Kong or Singapore will prevail as Asia's financial capital. For the moment, out of sheer inertia, Hong Kong has the lead. But the students of history will know that Hong Kong's dominance in finance has been under assault in the last 25 years, and the upstarts have been winning.
In 1980, Hong Kong was the undisputed financial capital in Asia outside of Japan. By 1990, Singapore had emerged as a threat. We have successfully challenged Hong Kong on certain fronts like forex trading, commodities and new instruments like derivatives. It bears noting that the region's first REIT was launched in Singapore.
By the late 1990's, Shanghai had emerged from its 50 year slumber to mount its claim to be Asia's financial capital. Today, every major investment bank has a presence in Shanghai. Unfortunately, China is stymied by many factors - weak laws, a chaotic environment, language barriers, a confused market, poor governance, incomplete regulation etc. However, China does have one major advantage over Singapore and Hong Kong, the Chinese want Shanghai to be the winner.
The debate on who will win the "financial capital" sweepstakes is particularly important to Hong Kong because unlike Singapore, Hong Kong does not have anything else to fall back upon. Singapore has deep skill sets in IT and a huge petrochemicals complex. We do not have to be London; we can afford to be a Frankfurt or a Switzerland and still make a very good living. Of course, this does not mean that we should not go all out for the jugular and play to win. Here lie the deep insecurity that Hongkies harbor; they know full well that they are a one trick pony.
Slowly but surely, Hong Kong has seen its preeminent position chipped away by competitors they scorn. The Chinese are thought too lawless and Singaporeans too stodgy to be a threat. Given the number of Chinese companies that have decided to list in Singapore, I think we have given the Hongkies a run for their money. There have been moves by Chinese state enterprises to list on both Shanghai and Hong Kong. It is a reflection of the growing dissatisfaction that the Chinese feel over how Hongkies treat them and the genuine desire to make Shanghai the winner.
By virtue of its geographic location, Hong Kong has an advantage over Singapore when it comes to winning China's business. Speaking a common dialect with the Guangdong businessmen is also a competitive advantage. But more and more, Hong Kong is becoming defined as the commercial capital of Southern China. And even that role is under threat from cheaper locales like Shenzhen and Guangzhou. Outside of the Pearl River Delta, Hong Kong possesses no special advantage over its rivals and may not even be considered the destination of choice.
If you believe that the Asian Century is really the Chinese Century, then Singapore is likely to be relegated to a distant third in this three man race. As recent moves in liberalizing its foreign exchange regime and bids for foreign assets demonstrate, China's economic ascent will not occur in an isolationist paradigm. For better or worse, China will need to cultivate its neighbors, both as sources of raw materials and as an export markets. Indeed, the real trade story of the 21st century will not be America's persistent trade deficit with Asia, but the exponential growth in multilateral trade between Asian countries. For instance, China is a major exporter of agricultural equipment to Vietnam while the Vietnamese export fruits and vegetables to the Chinese market.
Probably the most important relationship in Asia is the China-India one. Despite the bruising border war that India lost and which both sides desperately want to forget, India and China have moved very much closer in recent years. Both countries clearly have much to gain from closer ties and of course, both being nuclear powers, it cannot be overemphasized that stable relations between the two are absolutely necessary for stability in Asia.
The rising complexity of China's relationship will put a strain on Hong Kong's cultural bank trust. As everyone knows, Hong Kong was ceded to the British after the Opium War as a staging point for Europeans to trade with China. Hong Kong has remained in the role as the intermediary between China and the Western world ever since; a role that has proven to be highly lucrative in the last 30 - 40 years. Can Hong Kong handle the demands of a China that seeks to engage the rest of Asia? I think not.
Singapore's multiculturalism is our strongest asset as we engage the Chinese and other Asian partners. Singapore is NOT China. Hong Kong is slowly turning into another Chinese city; monolingual, monoethinic and monocultural. Because China's needs are going to become more complex and sophisticated, it is Singapore, with our rich diversity, which stands the best chance of winning. We have Indian temples of all shades and shapes. It is not well known but the each South East Asian nation has established their little enclave in Singapore. Did you know that there is a little Myanmar in Peninsula Plaza? The Japanese, European and American communities are so well settled in Singapore that they have their own schools and live their lives in Singapore almost as naturally as they would back home.
Is Hong Kong better? Don't let the short term signals detract you from the long term picture.

dark
Hong Kong is a first world city being re-integrated into a second/third world country, which is communist in ideology. This 0.5% population of PRC will slowly but surely being displaced in the huge motherland.
Singapore is in theory a First World independent nation, it can chart its own destiny, it has talented people, it is at the centre of South East Asia which is extremely resource rich (The per capita resource index of SE Asia is at least 4-5 times that of PRC) and resources are what really matter when the whole world start to consume, people can manufacture things but they cannot make oil, gold, copper, silver, etc and they need land to cultivate.
My vote is with Singapore!

homer321
There's a point in saying Singapore is depending on the stability of Indonesia and Malaysia.
If Indonesia doesn't do well, spore will be affected. Just look at the number of Indonesians buy property in Singapore.
Hong Kong is always a better gateway to China than Singapore, just as S'pore is the better gateway to Southeast Asia. But China is bigger, smarter and more popular to big biz than Indonesia will ever be. And so HK has more potential than S'pore. Yes, one day HK will lose the gateway to China role. But will S'pore take over? No, by then China would be so modern it wouldn't need a gateway.
If you talk about Chinamen laundering money in HK, the same can be said of Indonesians doing the same here - something which the new Indonesian President is making an issue of. So you can also argue that all is not what it seems in S'pore as in HK.
The bottom-line - Hong Kongers are more enterprising. You can find them all over the world doing quite well. But I don't like Hongkies - they are cold.
S'pore is not really multicultural. If you want to know what multicultural is, go to Sydney, San Francisco, New York, etc.

madmasses
There is no proof that Hongkies are more enterprising than Singaporeans or anyone else for that matter. The data is not available; but if you look at the anecdotal evidence of business failures that Hongkies have suffered in Australia, I think you will have a different view of the Hongkie businessman.
There are many horror stories about Hongkies going to Australia with their "I'm better than you lazy red-necks" attitude, setting up businesses and failing miserably in the end.
The sort of business idea that Hongkie businessmen come up with tend to be me to proposals that could only work in a boom town situation or where you are willing to work your guts out to earn a 10% gross margin. When things get a little tougher and you need to innovate to survive, they fall apart.
This is one of the reasons why so many of them repatriated back to Hong Kong after spending a few years in Australia.
The point I have been trying to make is that China's needs are now growing more complex. If you imagine that China only needs to engage Europe and North America, then Hong Kong's role as gateway to China is secure.
But in a world where China's relationship with Asian countries and other third world trading partners are more important, will Hong Kong still be relevant?
There is probably no better way for a Chinese business to liaise with their Indian counterparts than to set up shop in Singapore.
Both Indian and Chinese are comfortable in Singapore and because we are a sovereign state, it is considered neutral territory.
All financial centres launder some amounts of money. Zurich grew to be as prominent as it is today because it hid the wealth of the rich all over the world and allowed them to escape taxes through secret bank accounts. The point I made about Hong Kong's triads is different though.
You must understand that underworld activities in China are extensive. The huge cash earnings that such activities generate cannot simply be deposited into the state banking system.
We are talking huge sums here. Almost all of that money is now flowing into Hong Kong.
Indonesian businessmen use Singapore as a place to store their wealth and also evade taxes. It is well known that private banking in Singapore is heavily dependent on the Indonesians.
But while the Indonesians may be doing something illegal by hiding their wealth off-shore, surely you can see that the impact of such activities is different from keeping the wealth of organised crime within your borders?
What impact is this influx of ill-gotten gains having on Hong Kong's judicial and criminal justice system? Does any one care so long as Hong Kong makes money from it?

teh_si
Investment banks see HK as a gateway to North Asia, including Taiwan and South Korea, not just China. With a vibrant tech sector and increasingly sophisticated companies in these economies, there is a strong demand for investment banking services operating out of HK.
Both India and China are too far for companies based in Singapore to service them.
Singapore is seen only as a gateway to South-East Asia.
Compared to SG, HK people are more passionate in what they do and have better work attitudes.
The cultural scene in HK is also more vibrant. If I have to choose between HK and SG to spend my next 5 years, my choice is HK.

madmasses
The problems in Singapore are the same as any international financial centre. New York, London and Zurich all suffer from the same problems of money laundering.
Because of their need for legitimacy, laundered money will always seek to pass their wealth through one of the world's major money markets. That way, it will provide some semblance of respectability.
Hong Kong's problems are different. Instead of being used by the launderers, it is the very place where money laundering is being directed.
No one who works in Hong Kong's financial industry will challenge my assertion as it is common knowledge. The sheer scale of the problem is frightening.
Dirty money from corrupt officials, smugglers of luxury cars, gangland bosses who run prostitution rings, drug running, racketeering... the annual sums are in the tens of billions at the very least.
Some of that money will be squirreled away to off-shore centres and some of it will be repatriated back to China as "foreign investment", but a portion of that money remains in Hong Kong.
Over the last few years, the influence of this money has become more noticeable.
Within the next 10 years (if it hasn't happened already), it is the Chinese underworld bosses who will be running Hong Kong.
They already own many of the luxury properties and have the pride of place at the Hong Kong Jockey Club. These people love Hong Kong, it is a place where money talks.

cutebayhunk
I'd rather put up with the inconvenience of sharing Volvo Club hostesses and rubbing the same dollar bill with the Chinese triad than sharing the same loo and rubbing shoulders with religious fanatics transiting and laundering their money thru' SG. HK has few enemies. SG has too many.

homer321
"But if you look at the anecdotal evidence of business failures that Hongkies have suffered in Australia, I think you will have a different view of the Hongkie businessman."
Ah ha, you just don't get it. That's what makes HK tick. Only when you have tried can you fail. I rather talk to people who have failed before than those who never failed. Only people who don't try won't fail, like many S'poreans.
Yes, there are lots of failures in HK, and that's because people there dare to try. In the aftermath of the Asian Financial crisis, a lot of HK people jumped down after losing money in stocks and property. The property market was allowed to crash. No desperate govt. measures to shore up prices like here. The losers were flushed out of the market, market crashed, new blood entered, and now its boom-time again. So HK is up and down very fast, opportunities for the daring and fleet footed.
Let me give you another example. I used to stay in a "guest house" in HK. The owner-operator, an old man in his 60s, had approached me at the airport. He had converted his condominium, which was right in the middle of TshimShaSui into more than 10 cubicles, each having a bathroom and TV.
And his Filipino maid doubled up as a receptionist and cleaning lady. (in S'pore, Ministry of Manpower would've fined the employer for using the maid for non-domestic duties). That was more than 10 years ago, way before S'pore introduced Board-and-Breakfast.
And when I was staying at the guesthouse, I found that there was a provision shop on the 10 floor of the block, and a barber on the 7th floor!
And the block was supposed to be a residential block! I'm quite sure these people didn't have any permit, and the authorities didn't care as long as nobody complained.
Now can this happen in Singapore? Here, even if nobody complains (which is unlikely because Singaporeans love to complain), the authorities would've fined the operators - not just because the operators didn't pay tax on their biz, but because here the law must be enforced all the time.
Having lots of losers is not a bad thing. One HK IT guy told me that there were countless ISPs in HK and many lost money and closed down. But guess what, because of the intense competition, HK Internet is cheaper than Singapore.
The obsession to absolutely control and to micro-manage in Singapore is best epitomised by its leader mentioning Bar Top dancing and Bungee Jumping in a National Day address to the nation. This can only happen here.
In other countries, these are very trivial things. And worst, Bar Top dancing and Bungee Jumping were hailed as examples of 'opening up'! What a joke! Was the speaker taking a jab at his master? He didn't seem smart enough for such sarcasm.
Chairman Mao's place in history as founder of modern China was confirmed when he beat the KMT and Japanese. He had united and made China strong once again.
If Mao had relinquished power 20 years earlier, China would have been even more developed and prosperous today. But Mao became obsessed with power.
By contrast, the founding fathers of the USA were an exceptional breed; they were so averse to the tyranny of power that they drafted a constitution that limited their own power! And that was one reason why USA became so great.
Singapore is too top-down, and that's dangerous. And HK is bottom-up. So are many other vibrant nations in the world - where there are lots of grassroots activism - people organising things themselves be it in biz, charity, politics, people speaking up, etc., instead of depending of the authorities. The initiative must be with the people.

homer321
"It has to be illegal to open up a business in a residential unit in Hong Kong as it would be in Singapore. If such things are happening, it is not because Hong Kong is a freer society, but that law and order is slowly breaking down in Hong Kong. Freedom without the law is anarchy."
The episode I mentioned happened more than 10 years ago, and I didn't see HK's law and order slowly breaking down since then.
Anarchy? Can a place where 500,000 people took to the streets to protest against an anti-subversion bill without a single incident of violence a place of anarchy?
So we have a stickler of rules and regulations here. No wonder Spore bizmen did so badly in China as compared to Taiwan and HK businessmen.
<<There is a reason why people have begun to disregard and disrespect the law. When you see the local hoodlums wielding more power than the police officer, or that the agents of the law turn a blind eye to the outrageous acts of these gangsters, .... >>
Wow, you make it sound like HK has descended into a lawless wild, wild West. Don't know why so many tourists and businessmen are still so happy to go there if it's so lawless.
<< When a Hongkie talks about going into business, it is invariably retail, retail and more retail. >>
You seem to have a disdain for the retail business. No matter what, at least the HongKies are able to create their own wealth and make their own living and not become helpless when they are retrenched and have become 'unemployable'.
Contrast this with Singaporeans who are totally lost once they cannot find a job. If the MNCs or GLCs are not hiring, they would be helpless.
<< You can see this principle at work most vividly by the appalling English that many Hong Kong professionals command. It is so bad that international law firms actively recruit lawyers from Singapore to work in Hong Kong because their clients cannot understand the English used by local Hong Kong lawyers.>>
I hope you are proficient in your 'native language' or 'Mother language'. And don't tell me that English is your native language - because many White men will not buy that.
A cat, which barks like a dog is still a cat. For all their deficiencies in English, at least HongKies can say they are masters of Cantonese. How many S'poreans can boast that they are masters of any language?
That international firms still want to set up office there in spite of the poor English skills of the HongKies is testimony to the attraction of HK. And that is not to say HongKies cringing onto Cantonese is a liability.
The value of culture to the economy is not directly measurable. A people steeped in its own culture and language has more vitality, unity and creativity, not to mention better efficiency (no problem in communication).
So many people in the world like to watch HK movies even though many HK film-makers didn't really make their movies for a 'world audience'. Many HK movies are quite parochial. People like them because the culture in the movies is genuine.

btanie
What you say is mostly true.... about China's support of HK. It is precisely for this reason that China will always come to help its "wayward " child and will see to it that HK does not "lose" out to Singapore.
I too lived in HK for a good decade.
One thing is for sure many HK people although are very colloquial and "stubbornly" Hongky they (almost all I spoke to and know) are very Chinese and will come to the defence of China regardless their differences in ideology.
About the disparity of living standards of Hong Kong people Singapore is no different.... District 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 versus the HDB Heartlands..... no difference with HK's Peak, Mid-Levels versus....the Kowloons, Chai Wan. Tsuen Wan, Yuen Long....etc.
One important point HK has in its favour. It does not have to worry about lumbering GLCs. GICs. Psuedo privately-owned companies which are causing Singapore to be uncompetitive...the utilisation of Capital is much, much higher in HK versus Singapore where for example land is nationalised through the Land Acquisition Act resulting in uneconomic use of land ..
Compare, for example, land use in port facilities vis-a-vis the amount of 20foot TEUs throughput of the HK and Singapore Ports... The comparison can go on adinfinitum.....but the bottom line is HK is part of China and China will never let it fail.

Sammyboy.com's Alfresco Coffee Shop