Skip to main content

End of Li Ka-Shing Era in Hong Kong and Lessons for Singapore


Li Ka-Shing is the richest Chinese in the world and of course in Hong Kong, his business is almost everywhere ranging from logistic, supermarkets, energy, to property development.  Interestingly, a recent article from the influential 21st Century Business Herald#1 in China predicted that his monopoly or golden era in Hong Kong is over.

Li’s position in Hong Kong in many ways is even more important than Temasek Holdings in Singapore.  Why a mighty ‘Superman’ has to end his golden era in Hong Kong, 17 years after the return of HK? The reason is simply.  According to the article, Chinese state-owned enterprises (SOEs) are marching into Hong Kong.  In the eyes of Chinese political leaders, the most they can classify Li is just a successful businessman and for political reasons, the importance and existence of SOEs in Hong Kong are more than doing businesses and making money alone.

So, Li now moves his investment to Europe.

[Li Ka-Shing goes shopping in Europe as Hong Kong sales slump] #2

Why does he want to move to Europe when Li has so good connection in China? And Euro crisis and European recession are still not over yet. Perhaps, he sees the value in Europe or the undervalued assets in Europe as The Malay Mail above had suggested.

The 21 Century Business Herald gives another reason. Li predicts his future business development in Hong Kong is limited and his monopoly positions in many business sectors are ending.  However, the decisive reason is he sees his investment in Europe has a stable and predictable future with certainty. In another word, he wants to invest in a business environment that has legal protection.

We have to understand that media in China is controlled. Why does a Chinese publication make such a prediction? Why does Li think there are less legal protections in Hong Kong in future? And the 21st Century even says Li has made a right business decision and strategic move.

What lessons for Singapore?

It is very complicated.

At least, we are lucky Singapore is an independent sovereign country and Singaporeans can decide our future in the present moment.  Legal protection is always here and increasingly, the ruling party has to respect the rights of citizens.

But will the Hong Kong situation happen to us? When our population increases to 7 million, the game play will be very different. We have seen more and more SOEs coming to Singapore as well as many Indian companies too.  In theory, we can do a yin-yang balance to offset all the inflows of Western, Japanese, Chinese, Indian and Korean investments and businesses. Just like what we did in the past 50 years.

But with the increasing mistrust between the PAP and Singaporeans, what will be the future look like? Will the PAP be another Chief Executive of Hong Kong, having limited say in the running of Singapore?  Will Temasek Holdings like another Li Ka-Shing, having less control over Singapore economy? Perhaps, a less monopoly Temasek in Singapore is a good thing to all.  We don’t know.

The Wall Street Journal Chinese edition has an interesting article on political promise in China#3.

This is a book review by a constitutional law professor from Peking University. He talked about several ‘miss’ opportunities for a constitutional (and democratic) China. He said, ‘we entrust everything to the people who rule us and believe the delivery of political promise made by the rulers. Unfortunately, political promise cannot be trusted (given the situations in China).’

The review also touched on the mindset change and political demand of the Chinese:  

[When you realize you have the right to demand something, you are no more a slave. However, the Master has not adjusted to this change and he still treat you like before.  The logic of the Master is simple if you have no power to challenge me, you better wait.  Not to forget, I still hold the national machineries! And our pioneers had fought hard to win the war with your support.]#4    

Singapore’s situation today is certainly better than that of today’s China. Yes. The PAP won the elections in the 1960s with the people’s support. They now control the machineries of the country. But when we awake and demand for more changes, they hesitate and refuse to adjust.  

Under Singapore Constitutions, general elections have to be held regularly, this makes us very differently from China and Hong Kong.  We decide the political stability and legal protection in Singapore.  We still have a final say at least in the coming election.  We should appreciate it and vote wisely.



#1

#2
http://www.themalaymailonline.com/money/article/li-ka-shing-goes-shopping-in-europe-as-hong-kong-sales-slump#sthash.rVxaJAxa.dpuf

#3


#4

你现在站起来向主人讨说法,那就表明你已经不是奴隶了。不过,主人还没有适应这种变化,他还和从前一样把你定位成奴隶。他的主流逻辑是:只要你还没有实力和我叫板,就慢慢等着吧。不要忘记,国家机器掌握在谁手里!这个江山是我们先辈打下来的,当初也是在你们拥戴下得到的。(cn.wsj)

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Sub-standard PAP and the Singapore education system

I make a 'policy shift' when I hear the debate of right politics, constructive politics and sub-standard opposition. My original aim is to discuss about “Su Dongbo, Zhang Juzheng and Singapore education system”. The discussion will end with a sub-standard PAP, in particular from the assessment of the quality of PAP potential candidates. Another policy shift is to discuss it like a play, a drama and make it more entertainment rather than a sub-standard political discussion. Act 1 Gangster’s demand Imagine a sense in the Hong Kong's gangster movie (or a godfather movie), the gangsters' master is shouting at his poor opponent and demand him to give a price for his wrong act. The poor guy without any resources can only offer his body or his service to work for the master. Back in his own chamber, the master is still not satisfied and continues to shout 'don't play, play, you think you are hero, you think you are tiger, or superstar or acting ...

Is Prism Project Another Central Planning of the PAP?

There are 3 scenarios under the Prism Project#1 of Institute of Public Policy.  However, it looks more like the central scenario planning of the People’s Action Party. From the instructional menu of Prism Project Primer #2, participants were guided to a situation in 2022 and they have to imagine, within the Primer framework, to come out with 3 possible scenarios in Jun-Aug 2012.  2022. What a coincidence! Not long ago, PM Lee declared that he would like to hold the prime minister post for another 10 years. The other coincidence is the similarity between the 3 scenarios and the candidates of PE2011. How competitive and sustainable are the 3 scenarios to the people of Singapore and to the PAP?   Will the scenarios produce competitive and sustainable Singapore, Singaporeans or the PAP?  Perhaps, as what the Chinese say: planning cannot always catch up with changes.   And planning sometimes turns out the wrong, bad and unexpected results, espec...

对话一定要有共识吗?还是求取多元性来丰富自我?

全国对话喊到现在还一直高喊全国要有共识,尤其是全国对话的结果就是要寻求新加坡人的共识。不然,行动党就会说,我国的政治将会出现分裂,新加坡就变成一个不团结的国家。 全国对话一定要取得共识吗?文明对话的目的难道就是为了取得全国共识吗?如果是共识,那就一定有取舍。是不是说强势的人就领头共识,而落势的就落得一无所有。这不又走回老路,一条行动党独大的旧政治框框吗?看来,行动党对于过去,仍然依依不舍,行动党的共识,就是国家的共识,新加坡人的共识。 对话是要加深双方的了解,尊敬并且互相学习,吸取对方的优点,填补自己的缺点。这就是多元性的好处。然而全国对话的结果,如果只是强求共识,而忽略多元性和不同的意见,甚至否定他人的意见,那么,这个共识,是否具建设性,破坏性,还是分裂性,那就很难说了。 行动党似乎忘记了多元性。文明的对话并不是要把自己的 意见,信仰和理念强加给对方。即使这些意见,信仰和理念都是好的,善的。但是,对方未必会欣赏,未必会接受。因此,对话的结果应该是吸取对方的意见,改进自己的治国方针,然后,交给人民去决定,而这个决定也不过是大多数人的共识,而不可能是全国人民百分百的共识。 (乐观的看,行动党的全国对话,也不过是改进自己的治国方针,通过自己的小圈圈,自我讨论,研究,更新和改良行动党的政治策略,然后,在下一次大选时,拿出来让选民决定。因此,所谓的共识,在全国人民还没有决定前,仍然不是全国大多数人的共识。很可惜,行动党原本应该通过全国对话这个平台,吸收更多对手的意见,不同的观点,将它们纳入自己的政治策略中,然后在大选中让选民选择这个纳入反对意见的新政纲。可惜的是,行动党没有这个雅量,也或许根本看不起反对的意见。因此,它只能企图通过全国对话,硬要说这是全国共识。所以,充其量这只能说是行动党小圈圈的改良版政治策略,绝对不能说是全国共识。) ‘己所不欲,忽施于人’我们不喜欢的,不要强加他人身上。同样的,我们喜欢的,也不可以强加于他人身上。例如,有些人不喜欢吃有些食物,我们却很喜欢吃这类食物,但是,我们要尊重个人的喜好,不要强迫他人接受我们的建议。了解了这点,下一回提供食物时,就会通过多些选择,而不是只提供自己喜欢的食物。这点一般新加坡人都有这个敏感度,我们会了解马来族的要求,尽量避免他们敏感的食物。 为何行动党过去能够了解国人...