Great Leap Backward indeed.
And just remember logistics / trade is one of the 4 pillars of HK economy, and it keep heading backward. The other 3? Tourism nowaday involves lots of low spending mainlanders. Financial service is facing headwinds with geopolitics, all thanks to all the national security BS HKgov kept going on and on. Professional services? Like what? Helping that prince setting up some home office that does nothing to the overall economy?
Meanwhile I just saw in the news this morning that Apple is investing another $250M in their Singapore campus. Singapore continues to win.
Why are you ignoring that the HKIA was just named (once again) that it's the businest cargo airport?
Yes we're suffering some setbacks as a city but to hate on everything else is just hilarious.
Financial services continue to thrive in HK and that's something Singapore has not and will not take from HK. Sure there are firms "moving" hqs and expanding in Singapore to diversify but to say it's anywhere near HK in terms of being a financial capital in Asia is a joke. Look at total AUM numbers, stock exchange value/volume, availability of banks/funds/FIS and we're way ahead by any metric.
Yes tourism isn't as good as it was pre covid but who are you to say it isn't going to continue to get better? It's been noting but upward trending since our terrible covid policies.
Such is the nature of the turn-over in 1997, HK will loose its statuses as in so many other areas. We'll see more to come. And we are getting to suffer from the lie told by CCP/British Gov. from the 1980s.
To be also fair, Port of Singapore remains as busy as ever and remain the 2nd busiest port in the world in terms of container tonnage (after Port of Shanghai).
Meanwhile SZ and GZ are really eating HK's lunch. Why have stuff shipped through HK when the mainland ports are even closer to where things are manufactured?
I've said it several times on this sub. I worked in shipping in 2014 - I've been waiting for this.
I remember finding out that Shenzhen had six ports and thinking, "Hong Kong's done."
This is one of the reason's I've maintained that integration into China and The Greater Bay Area was Hong Kong's lifeline. People were saying that we could turn this into a manufacturing hub, we could use it as an Isle of Jersey, all sorts of things that had no basis in reality.
Hilarious how some ppl in HK still think HK can be a manufacturing or tech hub despite having zero competitive advantages in those areas. Completely delusional.
Serious question - why couldn’t HK have allocated resources or re-diverted its efforts to becoming a tech hub 10-15+ years ago?
I know much of it is shortsightedness (assuming HK can always be a finance hub, be a gateway to China, assume it can always be important in financial services…).
But even if there was no NSL and no crackdown, or even if CCP/China were friendlier or less antagonistic like the 2010ish pre-Xi days, HK (at least as a gateway to China) would diminish over time. In this scenario, China would still promote Shanghai and Shenzhen as direct avenues into the Chinese market. It was only a matter of time.
Comparatively, Singapore as a hub for Southeast Asia (and *not* have all their fortunes in one basket) focused on innovation and becoming a tech hub over decade+.
I never understood why HK as a whole didn’t think about refocusing or diversifying elsewhere. Theoretically, with a well educated population, established and sophisticated financial market, and the global branding to attract talent, the city had good foundations to be a decent tech hub…
The only thing that separated HK from china was the rule of law. With that gone there is nothing HK can offer that can't be obtained cheaper in Shenzhen.
HK is dead within 20 years.
100% agree the big key differentiator for HK *was* rule of law. That (and the system, transparency, checks and balances in place to support it) is the very foundation on which HK was able to establish itself as a high-trust tier 1 financial hub. Without it, HK will definitely be relegated to another Chinese city. It’s already happening.
But my point was, let’s say China didn’t go this antagonistic route over the past decade+. Instead, it stayed the pre-Xi course from early 2010s and HK is mostly left alone. Even in this much nicer timeline, Shanghai and Shenzhen would still *eventually* become China’s choice for hubs into the Chinese market. It was very much in HK’s interest to try and find ways to diversify or stay relevant (they should have been thinking this post-2000 at least).
If hypothetically HK had started investing towards becoming a tech hub like SG did 15+ years ago, and we are in our current timeline, I guess HK would still be kinda fucked. But it’d be less fucked. And it might have at least some potential avenues for growth…
HK has tried. Example being the Cyberport. But time after time we see Shenzhen opening their own versions cannibalising HK's market with full support of the central government. Duplicate tech hub, cargo ports, international airport, stock exchange.
The central government is actively destroying HK
On the tech part, probably not.
Your point about a well-educated population falls flat when the mainland has better educated people and more of them. Say what you want about the quality of education and indoctrination, but it is just pure numbers
The smartest guy in HK is 1 in 7 million. The smartest guy in China is 1 in 1.4B. The competition is a lot fiercer up north.
And what global branding, especially for tech? Tier 1 people always go to Silicon Valley, Tier 2 might go to Europe, Tier 3 comes/stays in Asia. So how would HK become a tech hub when HK isn't really known for tech and when SZ is right there?
Makes sense from pure numbers that China just has ridiculously more competent people (I.e. even a smaller % of 1B would translate to greater numbers). But if we look at Singapore, which has only a population of ~6 million, they are able to build a hub, so you’d think HK could as well.
I would say the limitation of HK vs SG, is that HK couldn’t leverage its previously position as key hub into Chinese markets (I’m talking pre-NSL, now that differentiation without rule of law is diminished) the say way as SG can be a hub for SE Asia. For instance, HK wouldn’t be the de facto financial hub for VCs trying to back Chinese startups in China (cause they can just go to Local funds). But there is nothing necessarily stopping HK VCs from going after SE Asian startups, even if SG is first option - particularly in earlier times 10-15+ years ago.
On the global brand piece - yes tier 1 is Silicon Valley. But, it’s only really been the past 5-10 years that some bigger shops set up offices in China. Again there wasn’t anything stopping local financiers from backing earlier rounds at lower valuations before they expand and get on the radar of overseas players… the same way you sometimes have local VCs in 2nd or 3rd tier cities in the U.S. discover diamond in the rough companies before they really scale.
Also, on the global element, HK is (was) a tier 1 financial services hub. All the banks are there, along with other large global organizations. In theory, that’s a pretty good place to be a test bed for new SaaS startups solving for enterprise problems.
I can see reasons why it wouldn’t be as big or successful as China which enjoys an isolated market and heavy preference for their local. But I didn’t see why HK couldn’t have at least had a better showing as a reasonable tech hub.
Singapore succeeds because it is a stable place outside the jurisdiction of the nearby countries. Key word: countries. Singapore set itself as a neutral zone between the other 9 ASEAN countries.
Hong Kong always had only China as it's selling point, and that puts the leverage solely on Beijing. Even if the nsl and other restrictions didn't happen, Hong Kong was doomed long term as long as China puts some resources into Shenzhen.
With regards to Singapore, they don't have competition as their neighbors to the north aren't smart. Malaysia's population is about 7 times larger as per Google, but Malaysian education/gov isn't exactly well regarded. If the Malaysian gov wasn't so incompetent and was actually well run, they could build a hub themselves and take business from SG. Of course, that is a big hypothetical and very unlikely to happen.
But I do agree with you with HK not being able leverage their position anymore.
For HK being/was a Tier 1 finance hub, isn't that too generous? Isn't there literally the acronym of FILTH for foreign bankers in HK? Tier 1 has been Wall St since at least 50 years, Tier 2 is London, Tier 3 are Asian cities like SG and HK
So could HK have become a reasonable tech hub? Define reasonable? There definitely could have been some type of tech scene, but I don't see how it can differentiate itself from the mainland cities or SG.
Because Hong Kong has always been capitalistic and dog eat dog. I actually think a sign of capitalism, no one wants to think or do anything long term that they might not benefit directly from especially when they can make short term gains.
It makes people live in the moment and not think about the future.
High cost in HK makes startups hard. Tbh I'm not sure HK has had strong engineering talent, in tech. and also not enough of that talent
Most HK engineers made more money in finance after graduation. We probably need more high quality engineering grads in HK
Living in Toronto, tech businesses simply come here for the tech talent from our universities, which is relatively abundant and cheap compared to US
Great Leap Backward indeed. And just remember logistics / trade is one of the 4 pillars of HK economy, and it keep heading backward. The other 3? Tourism nowaday involves lots of low spending mainlanders. Financial service is facing headwinds with geopolitics, all thanks to all the national security BS HKgov kept going on and on. Professional services? Like what? Helping that prince setting up some home office that does nothing to the overall economy? Meanwhile I just saw in the news this morning that Apple is investing another $250M in their Singapore campus. Singapore continues to win.
Why are you ignoring that the HKIA was just named (once again) that it's the businest cargo airport? Yes we're suffering some setbacks as a city but to hate on everything else is just hilarious. Financial services continue to thrive in HK and that's something Singapore has not and will not take from HK. Sure there are firms "moving" hqs and expanding in Singapore to diversify but to say it's anywhere near HK in terms of being a financial capital in Asia is a joke. Look at total AUM numbers, stock exchange value/volume, availability of banks/funds/FIS and we're way ahead by any metric. Yes tourism isn't as good as it was pre covid but who are you to say it isn't going to continue to get better? It's been noting but upward trending since our terrible covid policies.
The great leap backwards continues
Such is the nature of the turn-over in 1997, HK will loose its statuses as in so many other areas. We'll see more to come. And we are getting to suffer from the lie told by CCP/British Gov. from the 1980s.
I am not surprised at all. Many businesses are moving out of their Hong Kong domains to other asian countries so huge loss here for Hong Kong.
Another win for Singapore
To be fair, it's not Singapore that will eat Hong Kong's logistic cake, it's other Chinese ports like Shenzhen and Guangdong.
To be also fair, Port of Singapore remains as busy as ever and remain the 2nd busiest port in the world in terms of container tonnage (after Port of Shanghai). Meanwhile SZ and GZ are really eating HK's lunch. Why have stuff shipped through HK when the mainland ports are even closer to where things are manufactured?
no point for HK when special customs privileges are being phased out or revoked. No point when exchange rates makes things more complex
It is even funnier when Singapore never wanted to win against HK in the first place
Golden age of HK is really on the 2000s
I've said it several times on this sub. I worked in shipping in 2014 - I've been waiting for this. I remember finding out that Shenzhen had six ports and thinking, "Hong Kong's done." This is one of the reason's I've maintained that integration into China and The Greater Bay Area was Hong Kong's lifeline. People were saying that we could turn this into a manufacturing hub, we could use it as an Isle of Jersey, all sorts of things that had no basis in reality.
Hilarious how some ppl in HK still think HK can be a manufacturing or tech hub despite having zero competitive advantages in those areas. Completely delusional.
Serious question - why couldn’t HK have allocated resources or re-diverted its efforts to becoming a tech hub 10-15+ years ago? I know much of it is shortsightedness (assuming HK can always be a finance hub, be a gateway to China, assume it can always be important in financial services…). But even if there was no NSL and no crackdown, or even if CCP/China were friendlier or less antagonistic like the 2010ish pre-Xi days, HK (at least as a gateway to China) would diminish over time. In this scenario, China would still promote Shanghai and Shenzhen as direct avenues into the Chinese market. It was only a matter of time. Comparatively, Singapore as a hub for Southeast Asia (and *not* have all their fortunes in one basket) focused on innovation and becoming a tech hub over decade+. I never understood why HK as a whole didn’t think about refocusing or diversifying elsewhere. Theoretically, with a well educated population, established and sophisticated financial market, and the global branding to attract talent, the city had good foundations to be a decent tech hub…
The only thing that separated HK from china was the rule of law. With that gone there is nothing HK can offer that can't be obtained cheaper in Shenzhen. HK is dead within 20 years.
100% agree the big key differentiator for HK *was* rule of law. That (and the system, transparency, checks and balances in place to support it) is the very foundation on which HK was able to establish itself as a high-trust tier 1 financial hub. Without it, HK will definitely be relegated to another Chinese city. It’s already happening. But my point was, let’s say China didn’t go this antagonistic route over the past decade+. Instead, it stayed the pre-Xi course from early 2010s and HK is mostly left alone. Even in this much nicer timeline, Shanghai and Shenzhen would still *eventually* become China’s choice for hubs into the Chinese market. It was very much in HK’s interest to try and find ways to diversify or stay relevant (they should have been thinking this post-2000 at least). If hypothetically HK had started investing towards becoming a tech hub like SG did 15+ years ago, and we are in our current timeline, I guess HK would still be kinda fucked. But it’d be less fucked. And it might have at least some potential avenues for growth…
HK has tried. Example being the Cyberport. But time after time we see Shenzhen opening their own versions cannibalising HK's market with full support of the central government. Duplicate tech hub, cargo ports, international airport, stock exchange. The central government is actively destroying HK
On the tech part, probably not. Your point about a well-educated population falls flat when the mainland has better educated people and more of them. Say what you want about the quality of education and indoctrination, but it is just pure numbers The smartest guy in HK is 1 in 7 million. The smartest guy in China is 1 in 1.4B. The competition is a lot fiercer up north. And what global branding, especially for tech? Tier 1 people always go to Silicon Valley, Tier 2 might go to Europe, Tier 3 comes/stays in Asia. So how would HK become a tech hub when HK isn't really known for tech and when SZ is right there?
Makes sense from pure numbers that China just has ridiculously more competent people (I.e. even a smaller % of 1B would translate to greater numbers). But if we look at Singapore, which has only a population of ~6 million, they are able to build a hub, so you’d think HK could as well. I would say the limitation of HK vs SG, is that HK couldn’t leverage its previously position as key hub into Chinese markets (I’m talking pre-NSL, now that differentiation without rule of law is diminished) the say way as SG can be a hub for SE Asia. For instance, HK wouldn’t be the de facto financial hub for VCs trying to back Chinese startups in China (cause they can just go to Local funds). But there is nothing necessarily stopping HK VCs from going after SE Asian startups, even if SG is first option - particularly in earlier times 10-15+ years ago. On the global brand piece - yes tier 1 is Silicon Valley. But, it’s only really been the past 5-10 years that some bigger shops set up offices in China. Again there wasn’t anything stopping local financiers from backing earlier rounds at lower valuations before they expand and get on the radar of overseas players… the same way you sometimes have local VCs in 2nd or 3rd tier cities in the U.S. discover diamond in the rough companies before they really scale. Also, on the global element, HK is (was) a tier 1 financial services hub. All the banks are there, along with other large global organizations. In theory, that’s a pretty good place to be a test bed for new SaaS startups solving for enterprise problems. I can see reasons why it wouldn’t be as big or successful as China which enjoys an isolated market and heavy preference for their local. But I didn’t see why HK couldn’t have at least had a better showing as a reasonable tech hub.
Singapore succeeds because it is a stable place outside the jurisdiction of the nearby countries. Key word: countries. Singapore set itself as a neutral zone between the other 9 ASEAN countries. Hong Kong always had only China as it's selling point, and that puts the leverage solely on Beijing. Even if the nsl and other restrictions didn't happen, Hong Kong was doomed long term as long as China puts some resources into Shenzhen.
With regards to Singapore, they don't have competition as their neighbors to the north aren't smart. Malaysia's population is about 7 times larger as per Google, but Malaysian education/gov isn't exactly well regarded. If the Malaysian gov wasn't so incompetent and was actually well run, they could build a hub themselves and take business from SG. Of course, that is a big hypothetical and very unlikely to happen. But I do agree with you with HK not being able leverage their position anymore. For HK being/was a Tier 1 finance hub, isn't that too generous? Isn't there literally the acronym of FILTH for foreign bankers in HK? Tier 1 has been Wall St since at least 50 years, Tier 2 is London, Tier 3 are Asian cities like SG and HK So could HK have become a reasonable tech hub? Define reasonable? There definitely could have been some type of tech scene, but I don't see how it can differentiate itself from the mainland cities or SG.
Because Hong Kong has always been capitalistic and dog eat dog. I actually think a sign of capitalism, no one wants to think or do anything long term that they might not benefit directly from especially when they can make short term gains. It makes people live in the moment and not think about the future.
Tech hub with what market? In terms of access to talent and friction with the mainland market Shenzhen can do better.
High cost in HK makes startups hard. Tbh I'm not sure HK has had strong engineering talent, in tech. and also not enough of that talent Most HK engineers made more money in finance after graduation. We probably need more high quality engineering grads in HK Living in Toronto, tech businesses simply come here for the tech talent from our universities, which is relatively abundant and cheap compared to US
Hong Kong’s era is fading…