CHAMBER PROGRAMMES
December 2001 Issue

Are there things we can learn from
Singapore?
The Chamber's recent mission to Singapore discovered that although
the city-state may be eating bitter fruit, it is wasting no time laying the
foundations of future economic growth
By Christopher Cheng
People are correct when they say
that comparing Singapore and Hong Kong is like comparing apples and oranges. Singapore's
system and society are very different from those of Hong Kong. But are there things we can
learn from the city-state? To find out the answer, the Hong Kong General Chamber of
Commerce recently sent a 30-person delegation to Singapore, to try to understand the
economic policy and situation there, to see what business opportunities exist, and to look
at the role of the government there concerning the business community.
The delegates came from the technology, property, manufacturing, retail,
investment, media, academic, and consulting sectors, and had access to all Singapore's
senior leaders. And we found that there are, indeed, lessons to be learned.
In Hong Kong, we do not want our economy planned to the extent of
Singapore. But we must admire the Singapore ministers' constant search for a vision and belief in their policies. There is
a sense of direction, a sense of focus, and a sense of commitment.
At the same time, we also found a willingness to re-examine and
re-evaluate policies, and readjust them and reset goals if needed. Finally, the marketing
and image-building of its vision is very effective internally and externally.
Our job here in Hong Kong is easier in one way, more difficult in another.
More difficult because we have a vibrant society with a lively political landscape and a
noisy press. The "executive-led" system of government belies the difficulty of persuading public opinion and
different interest groups to support the policy direction. But we can still act
resolutely. It may be difficult but it is not impossible.
It means we have to be responsive, as well as self-confident. We have to
be careful how we explain policies and how we implement them. We should not underestimate
the ability of Hong Kong people to rally together, even in tough times.
On the other hand, our job here is easier because we have some natural
advantages over Singapore, the most obvious and important one being our proximity to, and
relationship with, the mainland. Hong Kong ’s position in the market is also fairly clear.
We do not have to build a brand new pillar of the economy -- like
"bio-technology" -- as
Singapore has to do.
It is widely accepted here that we can be a logistics hub for China, an
international financial centre, a tourist destination, and a services bridge between China
and the outside world. We do not need an industrial policy. But we do need to nurture the
businesses in sectors that help our positioning.
When it comes to information technology (IT), Singapore places heavy
emphasis on education and research. It knows that it has to attract talent from all over
the world. Hong Kong is pushing ahead with much needed education reform and is now finally
trying to attract mainland talent in IT and financial services.
But we should be bolder. We need to open up more to all talent in all
sectors from all places, and we need to impress upon our population that this would create
more jobs.
Singapore, despite its deteriorating economy, is still doing everything it
can to import talent because it understands that this has a multiplying effect as far as
job creation is concerned. It even goes so far as not giving Singaporeans priority in the
hunt for jobs. We should not do that here, as Hong Kong people should have first priority,
but we can be more aggressive in attracting talent from everywhere in the world,
especially from the mainland.
It is clear, having spoken to the Singaporean leaders, that they envy our
position and worry about their own future now China's entry into the World Trade
Organisation (WTO) has been approved.
Our people's anxiety about China's WTO entry is tiny compared to
Singapore's. Our inter-relationship with the mainland commercially is so deep that our
integration economically ought to be natural. In fact, Singaporean leaders believe there
should be more co-operation between Hong Kong and Singapore, with Hong Kong bringing to
the table precisely this inter-relationship with the mainland. They are an
"outsider" to China,
whereas, under the "one country, two systems" principle, we can be both an "outsider" and an "insider" to China at the same time.
To develop that, our government must act faster in devising policies that
enhance our economic integration with the mainland. For example, 24-hour border crossing
which no doubt would cause some short-term pain to a small segment of society -- should
not be viewed as a long-term goal but as an urgent goal.
The perception is that the SAR Government does not have a sufficient sense
of urgency. Caution is good, but not at the expense of timely action. We can think of ways
to both maintain the "one country, two systems" principle and yet get closer to China economically with more
frequent dialogue and co-ordination. Otherwise, we will miss out on the chance of
co-operating and working in synergy with the mainland, which is destined to explode in
growth for decades.
We in the business community believe our government should be more
proactive.
At a recent conference, the following problem was posed. "If China is
feeling so good, why is Hong Kong feeling so bad?" The solution lies in finding mutually beneficial ways with the
Mainland to capture the opportunities brought about by China's WTO membership. Only then
can Hong Kong business people take advantage of new openings, something we do better than
any other business people on earth.
Christopher Cheng is the Chairman of
the Hong Kong General Chamber of Commerce
This article first appeared in the
South China Morning Post on November 22, 2001. |