The title of this post was an once very popular lines in an Hong Kong production TV drama. Ten years is indeed a long period of time, 120 months or about 480 weeks. Then how about 30 years? For 30 years people has been waiting. Waiting for the voice of conscience, if there is, from an administration on what has happened 30 years ago. Yet, in vain, sadly.
How many 30 years can one see throughout his life then? Three, at most, for most people. 30 years is a very long period of time so some people has changed their stance, because of interests or tiredness. Some said life must go on so one should not bathe in the sorrow. Some others said had there been no crack down then the country could has fallen into pieces cos things were losing control. They may be right but it was about hundreds of life. Hundreds of young life that were passionate on their country yet were ended in a brutal way by the regime that runs the country. Isn't it a tragical irony?
It is still a taboo at there even after 30 years. Let alone not just a single word of confession from the authority. There were once a naive wishful thinking that as time went by and hopefully they would improve so there would be the day of vindication but the reality is that it just went the other round. It is because they know clearly the root cause of that movement is still there. The trigger was anti-corruption but thing is getting even worse 30 years later. This provides no ground for them to retreat because it could possibly rock the legitimacy of their ruling. In a place where state leaders are inevitably wise and brilliant so impossible to be wrong, then the culprit can only be those whom against the formers.
In the quality management discipline, there is a theory saying that for any faulty quality issue to be corrected. The so-called root cause, ie., the fundamental reason, must first be identified thus a corresponding so-called corrective action, ie., the solution, can be incorporated to address the quality issue which hopefully is then resolved. If the social movement happened 30 years ago is seen as a glitch along the path of China's progress towards a sophisticated country, it was something bound to happen and not really a big deal relative to the major direction of development. The regime could has handled it in a more humane way. In the worst scenario that even if the movement was still ended in a brutal way, a sincere repent and a faithful corrective action should be able to earn the forgiveness internally and abroad. Unfortunately the regime not only is reluctant to recognize it was their fault on the loss of those precious life but also did every effort to cover up what has happened. Suppression one over another were used to clamp the people's anger and desperate arising from the series of suppression. The regime has missed the critical timing of repent and did the opposite of the right things. It literally is pushing herself in the path of no return and towards a dead end.
The situation is a bit bizarre now because the regime is facing a dilemma that people might not easily forgive its loads of wrong-doings even if it is willing to confess now but if it goes further along the existing way of suppression. It is literally building a time bomb of its own and it is ticking.
The regime is buying time now hoping people's memory will fade out and waiting for a miracle. But will there be one?
**This post is dedicated to those people who made tremendous sacrifice on the day of May 35 in 1989 which exists only in China's official calendar.
2019年6月3日 星期一
2019年5月27日 星期一
A noisy month
May is about over with just a few days to come and this month is really a noisy one particularly on this small island. Politically the extradition bill still captures the attention of the society here in Hong Kong thanks to the effort of the opposition camp and the involvement of the foreign embassies and chambers of commerce that make the issue became an international concern. As the dual committee arose in the Island's law making body, the Legco, that heated up in the local news report, the proposed bill received a greater concern over the society that now not only the law sector and business sector but the general walks of life has also paid more attention to the development of the issue.
This May is also a remarkable month in the financial market, particularly in the stock market as the HSI has once dipped up to 2912 points from the month's high, sees the biggest plunge in this year following a straight four months rally. This is the outcome of the "sudden" worsening of the trade tension between the U.S. and China. On the other hand in a wider scope, the recent various bans and restrictions on the China's biggest communication company, Huawei, remain the center piece of the trade negotiation.
Politics and economy are a twin as the development of either one heavily depends or influences the other. The above three major issues that dominant the headlines are in fact just about one thing, the combat between the world's lead and its challenger.
As I put it in my previous different posts that the trade issue between the U.S. and China has never really been the focus but just the wrestling of national power only. As the U.S. became more and more rocking on its attitude to close a trade deal with China and exercising its influence over different technical and standardization bodies and tech companies to imposing delisting of memberships and banning on supplies of parts and services to Huawei, the picture became very clear now that the U.S.'s strategy is to clamp China's rising by limiting the latter's edge on the 5G technology.
Prior to its dominance over the world affairs, the U.S. has once had a hard time under the suppression of the British Empire and took the chance of the WWII that badly hit the latter's economic strength then replaced it to become the world's leader. From the lesson of the fall of the British Empire, the U.S. knows well its leadership is not granted and is deserved well protection, should it remain dominant. The U.S. also knows well its world leadership relies on two key dominance, ie., military muscle and the U.S. dollar landscape. China's 5G technology is the U.S.'s Achilles heel in military strength, and perhaps even in commercial sectors as well as and when more and more applications employ 5G technology which the U.S. does not has a say. That rocks the foundation of the U.S. "empire" from the cornerstone. This is something must not happen, from the U.S.'s standpoint.
The U.S. has bred its own monster by allowing it to join the WTO thus flourishes it into a 1.4 billion people market. The once little brother has grown up to a big guy now, big enough to test his muscle and to challenge the Uncle Sam. This is going to be a battle of life or death, as an empire. As Trump's words put it, it is not China's fault. She has every right to take down the U.S just like what the latter did on the British Empire. It is just the negligence(?) or the palliative by Trump's predecessors that put the U.S. in position where it is in now. Now Trump does what he thinks right. There are many more somethings yet to come. Just forget the trade war. Embrace the turbulence yet to come, the play is far from over!
This May is also a remarkable month in the financial market, particularly in the stock market as the HSI has once dipped up to 2912 points from the month's high, sees the biggest plunge in this year following a straight four months rally. This is the outcome of the "sudden" worsening of the trade tension between the U.S. and China. On the other hand in a wider scope, the recent various bans and restrictions on the China's biggest communication company, Huawei, remain the center piece of the trade negotiation.
Politics and economy are a twin as the development of either one heavily depends or influences the other. The above three major issues that dominant the headlines are in fact just about one thing, the combat between the world's lead and its challenger.
As I put it in my previous different posts that the trade issue between the U.S. and China has never really been the focus but just the wrestling of national power only. As the U.S. became more and more rocking on its attitude to close a trade deal with China and exercising its influence over different technical and standardization bodies and tech companies to imposing delisting of memberships and banning on supplies of parts and services to Huawei, the picture became very clear now that the U.S.'s strategy is to clamp China's rising by limiting the latter's edge on the 5G technology.
Prior to its dominance over the world affairs, the U.S. has once had a hard time under the suppression of the British Empire and took the chance of the WWII that badly hit the latter's economic strength then replaced it to become the world's leader. From the lesson of the fall of the British Empire, the U.S. knows well its leadership is not granted and is deserved well protection, should it remain dominant. The U.S. also knows well its world leadership relies on two key dominance, ie., military muscle and the U.S. dollar landscape. China's 5G technology is the U.S.'s Achilles heel in military strength, and perhaps even in commercial sectors as well as and when more and more applications employ 5G technology which the U.S. does not has a say. That rocks the foundation of the U.S. "empire" from the cornerstone. This is something must not happen, from the U.S.'s standpoint.
The U.S. has bred its own monster by allowing it to join the WTO thus flourishes it into a 1.4 billion people market. The once little brother has grown up to a big guy now, big enough to test his muscle and to challenge the Uncle Sam. This is going to be a battle of life or death, as an empire. As Trump's words put it, it is not China's fault. She has every right to take down the U.S just like what the latter did on the British Empire. It is just the negligence(?) or the palliative by Trump's predecessors that put the U.S. in position where it is in now. Now Trump does what he thinks right. There are many more somethings yet to come. Just forget the trade war. Embrace the turbulence yet to come, the play is far from over!
2019年4月23日 星期二
∵A=B, ∴B=A, or is it?
For those who are not familiar with mathematical equations, perhaps a little explanation is needed on the subject of this post. The symbol ∵ and ∴ are the signs of logical argument and mathematical proof. ∵ means because and ∴ means therefore. So the former part of the subject in wordings reads because A=B therefore B=A.
Now back to the topic of this post. Have you ever heard someone said he/she really wants or does not mind to pay a big amount of tax (usually means salary tax) because only those who has a high salary then needs to pay high tax. This saying sounds quite logical because unless tax evasion is employed, if everything equal, higher salary can only lead to higher payable tax. Therefore it is always true when someone gets a high tax demand note then he/she must has already got a high salary job meaning this person is a high income one. So the equation of high income tax=high income is valid but then what if we swap the two sides of the equation into high income=high income tax, then is it necessarily valid as well?
This is something like the paradox in logic saying my father has beard so as long as one is bearded then he is my father. Apparently this is not true and the logic is too simple. Then how is it when it comes to the second equation in the above paragraph? The answer also seems to be not always true, at least in Hong Kong. Or be more precise, the equation is mostly applicable to salary income but not others. The reason is very simple because only salary income has a high co-relation with tax payable.
As high salary income leads to high income tax then is it still wise for anyone saying does not mind to pay a big amount of tax? Or more specifically speaking, is it still wise to wish to pay high tax for the sake of a high salary job? High salary individuals seem to be lucky as they have an high pay jobs but indeed they are the victims in the existing taxation. High salary income is bound to pay high tax but high income from other forms does not necessarily lead to high income tax at least here in Hong Kong where capital gain and interest/dividend income for an individual, as long as not as a result of business operation, are not subjected to tax.
The traditional thinking is that one should do their best in schooling for the sake of entering a good university which usually renders a better chance of getting a job in a well established corporation. When one works hard then hopefully can climb up along the corporate ladder to reach a high pay job. However, as high pay jobs are bound to paying high salary tax and due to the unfair taxation to wage-earners, for the same amount of income the tax payable between the salary income and interest/dividend income could be a big difference.
For all average wage-earners the disadvantages of earning a living with a job is easily understood like the ever increasing job insecurity, no autonomy on working time, salary often lags behind the inflation...etc. When putting the tax payable into account, it seems there is one more reason to rethink whether it is really smart hoping to pay high tax because of a high pay job unless one does not mind to share the hard earned money with the government.
Now back to the topic of this post. Have you ever heard someone said he/she really wants or does not mind to pay a big amount of tax (usually means salary tax) because only those who has a high salary then needs to pay high tax. This saying sounds quite logical because unless tax evasion is employed, if everything equal, higher salary can only lead to higher payable tax. Therefore it is always true when someone gets a high tax demand note then he/she must has already got a high salary job meaning this person is a high income one. So the equation of high income tax=high income is valid but then what if we swap the two sides of the equation into high income=high income tax, then is it necessarily valid as well?
This is something like the paradox in logic saying my father has beard so as long as one is bearded then he is my father. Apparently this is not true and the logic is too simple. Then how is it when it comes to the second equation in the above paragraph? The answer also seems to be not always true, at least in Hong Kong. Or be more precise, the equation is mostly applicable to salary income but not others. The reason is very simple because only salary income has a high co-relation with tax payable.
As high salary income leads to high income tax then is it still wise for anyone saying does not mind to pay a big amount of tax? Or more specifically speaking, is it still wise to wish to pay high tax for the sake of a high salary job? High salary individuals seem to be lucky as they have an high pay jobs but indeed they are the victims in the existing taxation. High salary income is bound to pay high tax but high income from other forms does not necessarily lead to high income tax at least here in Hong Kong where capital gain and interest/dividend income for an individual, as long as not as a result of business operation, are not subjected to tax.
The traditional thinking is that one should do their best in schooling for the sake of entering a good university which usually renders a better chance of getting a job in a well established corporation. When one works hard then hopefully can climb up along the corporate ladder to reach a high pay job. However, as high pay jobs are bound to paying high salary tax and due to the unfair taxation to wage-earners, for the same amount of income the tax payable between the salary income and interest/dividend income could be a big difference.
For all average wage-earners the disadvantages of earning a living with a job is easily understood like the ever increasing job insecurity, no autonomy on working time, salary often lags behind the inflation...etc. When putting the tax payable into account, it seems there is one more reason to rethink whether it is really smart hoping to pay high tax because of a high pay job unless one does not mind to share the hard earned money with the government.
2019年3月17日 星期日
Cash is king? or cash is cost?
The former part of the subject of this post is so well known that no elaboration is needed. It is so true when the market has crashed and everything appears to be so cheap yet if someone is still so stuffed with cash in his pocket then he can shop whatever he likes. This is applicable to recession or in any financial market bust. So it seems cash is really almighty in the financial world, or is it?
Naturally cash is good and I like the purchasing power that comes with it. It is always a great relief when you know you have enough cash to meet all the existing or possible bills. On the other hand, knowing that you can hunt for bargains when the market crashes and the feeling of being in the upper hand in a deal negotiation is so brilliant that no one will question about the beauty of having much cash in hand.
However, any one who has a little financial knowledge also understands cash does not come without down side. Inflation erodes cash's purchasing power is just an ABC. On the other hand, cash is non-productive meaning it does not generate yield is also another common sense especially in this still relatively low interest rate environment. 10 years U.S. bonds just pays out some 2% interest only, let alone that of the humble saving account which cash usually sits in.
So apparently albeit the lovely side of cash, holding it, especially excessively, is not without costs. The erosion on the purchasing power against inflation is a very real and cruel cost. The opportunity cost of hold cash but not putting it in profit-producing investments is another one.
The above two drawbacks of sitting on cash are quite obvious, there are also other costs hidden from our sight though. To many people having plenty of cash means being wealthy. Let's imagine how happy one will be if the bank account balance shows a string of zeros following the first few digits. This wealthy feeling could easily breeds the desire of luxury indulgences if one lacks self discipline. Naturally a reward to self for the achievement of hardworking is reasonable but when it becomes a habit then it could be hazardous to wealth accumulation though.
Perhaps to those disciplined people the even bigger harm of holding a lot of cash is FOMO and the subsequent reckless investing decisions. Imagine if one closed all his/her position by last year end in the expectation on bargain hunting resulting from a further market crash but saw the market bounced significantly from the valley then how stressful he/she is now. The regret could even brings quite some sleepless nights as well. This state of mind is not only hazardous to both mental and physical health but could easily lead to improper investing decisions that could bring loss, rather than catching up the missed potential profit.
So while cash is still king but cash is also cost as well. The key is maintaining a proper proportion of cash vs assets. I used to write a post how do you classify your investments regarding the classification of assets which also explains this aspect in another perspective.
Naturally cash is good and I like the purchasing power that comes with it. It is always a great relief when you know you have enough cash to meet all the existing or possible bills. On the other hand, knowing that you can hunt for bargains when the market crashes and the feeling of being in the upper hand in a deal negotiation is so brilliant that no one will question about the beauty of having much cash in hand.
However, any one who has a little financial knowledge also understands cash does not come without down side. Inflation erodes cash's purchasing power is just an ABC. On the other hand, cash is non-productive meaning it does not generate yield is also another common sense especially in this still relatively low interest rate environment. 10 years U.S. bonds just pays out some 2% interest only, let alone that of the humble saving account which cash usually sits in.
So apparently albeit the lovely side of cash, holding it, especially excessively, is not without costs. The erosion on the purchasing power against inflation is a very real and cruel cost. The opportunity cost of hold cash but not putting it in profit-producing investments is another one.
The above two drawbacks of sitting on cash are quite obvious, there are also other costs hidden from our sight though. To many people having plenty of cash means being wealthy. Let's imagine how happy one will be if the bank account balance shows a string of zeros following the first few digits. This wealthy feeling could easily breeds the desire of luxury indulgences if one lacks self discipline. Naturally a reward to self for the achievement of hardworking is reasonable but when it becomes a habit then it could be hazardous to wealth accumulation though.
Perhaps to those disciplined people the even bigger harm of holding a lot of cash is FOMO and the subsequent reckless investing decisions. Imagine if one closed all his/her position by last year end in the expectation on bargain hunting resulting from a further market crash but saw the market bounced significantly from the valley then how stressful he/she is now. The regret could even brings quite some sleepless nights as well. This state of mind is not only hazardous to both mental and physical health but could easily lead to improper investing decisions that could bring loss, rather than catching up the missed potential profit.
So while cash is still king but cash is also cost as well. The key is maintaining a proper proportion of cash vs assets. I used to write a post how do you classify your investments regarding the classification of assets which also explains this aspect in another perspective.
2019年3月14日 星期四
It's not a big deal, or is it?
There is never shortage of talk of the town in this small island here in Hong Kong. However, there is one recent topic which receives quite different attention among the spectrum of different walks of life. To one end of the spectrum like the housewives (no offense) or primary school students, they just react as what the subject of this post puts it. However on the other end like the legal sector or the business sector sees it as if the opening of the Pandora Box. Yes, it is the proposed bill of extradition.
The Hong Kong government claims the proposed bill (Bill) is the response to a murder case which the victim and the suspect are both Hong Kong people but happened in Taiwan so even if the suspect now came back to Hong Kong but the jurisdiction here in Hong Kong cannot act upon it. The Hong Kong government said therefore the Bill was proposed to close the loophole and to bring the justice back.
Naturally many people is upset about the situation that the suspect could escape from court trial and feel pity for the victim. The case happened in last March and the Hong Kong government reacts unprecedentedly fast to propose the Bill in just one year. Its enthusiasm in this case brought skepticism on its motive by the public, especially the opposition camp. Their doubt did not come with no ground. The Bill not only addresses this Taiwan murder case but extends the access of extradition to China. It is indeed a mutation of the national security law which has not yet been established in Hong Kong but is wanted so badly by Beijing.
This is another example of the manifestation that Beijing is tightening its grip onto Hong Kong's governing. The chief executive of HKSAR, Carrie Lam, has made it clear that the timing for the proposal of the nation security law (Law) is yet to come in light of the society currently is still so divided. Lam sees it so right and indeed the Law will definitely receive the most severe resistance even in the consultation stage, if any. However, Beijing is losing its patience and this murder case just gave rise to the chance to have it done to an even higher level in another way.
The Bill, if passed, virtually allows Beijing to fetch anybody back to China even if he/she is at the other side of the border. Despite it was claimed that the extradition must be applied under the alleged offense that is relevant in both China and Hong Kong and the Hong Kong law court can act as a screening gate. However, the screening function is merely on the inspection of due course in procedure but not to examine whether the application is made with sound and reasonable ground. Given its notorious judicial system so the fact is that Beijing can just name an offense then it can extradite someone whom is, as long as, deemed as a hostility by China. Hong Kong will no longer be a safe place for anyone whom is not welcome by China. Furthermore, the even more evil part of this Bill is that Beijing can even fetch anyone indirectly from countries where Hong Kong maintains extradition agreement.
Whether it is really not a big deal or a Pandora Box, it all depends on how one sees China's judicial system. The point is when yours and your family's well being rest on your decision, are you bold enough to bet on it? Anyway, at least there are two good things. One of them is that there will not be any more secret kidnapping to China in the dark in the future and on the other hand, the long awaited property market crash is very likely to happen cos with decades of preparation, many Hong Kong property owners are holders of foreign passport or residency now so a new round of exodus is at brink if the Bill is passed.
The Hong Kong government claims the proposed bill (Bill) is the response to a murder case which the victim and the suspect are both Hong Kong people but happened in Taiwan so even if the suspect now came back to Hong Kong but the jurisdiction here in Hong Kong cannot act upon it. The Hong Kong government said therefore the Bill was proposed to close the loophole and to bring the justice back.
Naturally many people is upset about the situation that the suspect could escape from court trial and feel pity for the victim. The case happened in last March and the Hong Kong government reacts unprecedentedly fast to propose the Bill in just one year. Its enthusiasm in this case brought skepticism on its motive by the public, especially the opposition camp. Their doubt did not come with no ground. The Bill not only addresses this Taiwan murder case but extends the access of extradition to China. It is indeed a mutation of the national security law which has not yet been established in Hong Kong but is wanted so badly by Beijing.
This is another example of the manifestation that Beijing is tightening its grip onto Hong Kong's governing. The chief executive of HKSAR, Carrie Lam, has made it clear that the timing for the proposal of the nation security law (Law) is yet to come in light of the society currently is still so divided. Lam sees it so right and indeed the Law will definitely receive the most severe resistance even in the consultation stage, if any. However, Beijing is losing its patience and this murder case just gave rise to the chance to have it done to an even higher level in another way.
The Bill, if passed, virtually allows Beijing to fetch anybody back to China even if he/she is at the other side of the border. Despite it was claimed that the extradition must be applied under the alleged offense that is relevant in both China and Hong Kong and the Hong Kong law court can act as a screening gate. However, the screening function is merely on the inspection of due course in procedure but not to examine whether the application is made with sound and reasonable ground. Given its notorious judicial system so the fact is that Beijing can just name an offense then it can extradite someone whom is, as long as, deemed as a hostility by China. Hong Kong will no longer be a safe place for anyone whom is not welcome by China. Furthermore, the even more evil part of this Bill is that Beijing can even fetch anyone indirectly from countries where Hong Kong maintains extradition agreement.
Whether it is really not a big deal or a Pandora Box, it all depends on how one sees China's judicial system. The point is when yours and your family's well being rest on your decision, are you bold enough to bet on it? Anyway, at least there are two good things. One of them is that there will not be any more secret kidnapping to China in the dark in the future and on the other hand, the long awaited property market crash is very likely to happen cos with decades of preparation, many Hong Kong property owners are holders of foreign passport or residency now so a new round of exodus is at brink if the Bill is passed.
2019年2月24日 星期日
Trade war? A trick!
I have posted two articles about this topic and my view was very clear since the first post that the trade war between the U.S. and China was not really about the trade but the wrestling on the status of No. 1 nation. Not long ago Trump said he may postpone the deadline on the elevation of the tariff on the China imports because the talks between the delegations of the two countries went well. Trump once stood very strongly that no extension would be given but his latest move brought me an extra perspective on this issue.
Allow me to detour the subject for a while. I like movie watching and nowadays movies market is dominated by Hollywood productions which heroic movies is definitely one of the blockbusters. In this category of movie, the story is usually about an imminent crisis or catastrophe which the U.S., if not the whole world, was facing and it could cost tens of thousands or even millions of life should it finally happen. The situation was pressing but seemed no way out and the clock was ticking. Then there came the hero who solved the problem and saved the world. This is the typical formula of Hollywood heroic movies.
I guess Trump is also a heroic movies fan but he not only likes watching but is also very much interested in screenwriting. He knows the Americans is fond of hero so he wrote a movie, the Trade War, in which he is the male lead. In Hollywood movies the U.S. presidents all were portrait as patriots who took the role to protect the nation and the people as their unshirkable duty. In his movie Trump created a crisis out from nothing and then fix it in order to win the applause. It is true there is a huge trade imbalance with China but as long as China keeps using that printed matter which is called Dollar, that they got from the trade surplus, to buy the U.S. government bonds. The trade deficit is only a matter of accounting entry but the fact is that China is financing the U.S. government in the exchange for the room of development. China leaders and all previous U.S. presidents knew what it is all about.
However Trump highlighted the trade imbalance and raised it up to a level that almost became a national crisis. He then directs the play of trade talk and naturally the ending of the story is that he wins the victory and the country is saved. What a national hero! Looking at the way he manipulates the progress of the trade talk I truly believe he is directing his own best movie of the year. Naturally Trump's effort in producing this movie is not just out of fun but for the next term of presidency. He is passionate to serve the country? I can't tell cos I don't know him but he can probably direct a few more "movies" in another four years if he wins the election again. On the other hand just imagine the market sentiment rocks like roller coasters along with the good and bad news that came with the trade talk and it means the market will see many more ups and downs to come if Trump managed to grab another term of presidency, isn't it a great chance for huge profit if there is a genius who can time the market right?
Allow me to detour the subject for a while. I like movie watching and nowadays movies market is dominated by Hollywood productions which heroic movies is definitely one of the blockbusters. In this category of movie, the story is usually about an imminent crisis or catastrophe which the U.S., if not the whole world, was facing and it could cost tens of thousands or even millions of life should it finally happen. The situation was pressing but seemed no way out and the clock was ticking. Then there came the hero who solved the problem and saved the world. This is the typical formula of Hollywood heroic movies.
I guess Trump is also a heroic movies fan but he not only likes watching but is also very much interested in screenwriting. He knows the Americans is fond of hero so he wrote a movie, the Trade War, in which he is the male lead. In Hollywood movies the U.S. presidents all were portrait as patriots who took the role to protect the nation and the people as their unshirkable duty. In his movie Trump created a crisis out from nothing and then fix it in order to win the applause. It is true there is a huge trade imbalance with China but as long as China keeps using that printed matter which is called Dollar, that they got from the trade surplus, to buy the U.S. government bonds. The trade deficit is only a matter of accounting entry but the fact is that China is financing the U.S. government in the exchange for the room of development. China leaders and all previous U.S. presidents knew what it is all about.
However Trump highlighted the trade imbalance and raised it up to a level that almost became a national crisis. He then directs the play of trade talk and naturally the ending of the story is that he wins the victory and the country is saved. What a national hero! Looking at the way he manipulates the progress of the trade talk I truly believe he is directing his own best movie of the year. Naturally Trump's effort in producing this movie is not just out of fun but for the next term of presidency. He is passionate to serve the country? I can't tell cos I don't know him but he can probably direct a few more "movies" in another four years if he wins the election again. On the other hand just imagine the market sentiment rocks like roller coasters along with the good and bad news that came with the trade talk and it means the market will see many more ups and downs to come if Trump managed to grab another term of presidency, isn't it a great chance for huge profit if there is a genius who can time the market right?
2019年2月18日 星期一
China-isation
It's been quite a while I did not write any post because I was not in a good mood in writing in the past month. Things happened in the recent months were rather depressing. Despite the weather in the past Lunar New Year was exceptional good but the air pressure, I meant political, here in Hong Kong has never been so high.
Among the several major issues casting a very dark shadow on Hong Kong's future, the Shatin Central Link construction scandal is definitely one of them. Apart from the heavily delay and the huge over-budget, the scandal really destroyed the reputation on Hong Kong's integrity which was restored through decades of effort by 2 to 3 generations after the establishment of ICAC in 1974 when prior to its inception, corruption in both public and private sector was a norm. However, unfortunately after the returning to China, moral in this aspect started to erode quickly. In fact Timothy Tong, the ex chef of ICAC, himself was blamed on his misconduct in 2010 as being a civil servant and just narrowly escaped from prosecution. Since then the confidence on ICAC from the general public was largely undermined and perhaps that was the very first case which was brought to light that China-isation on Hong Kong is really happening.
Now back to this Shatin Central Link scandal, despite the culprit is Leighton but in fact the black sheep is MTR, an once renowned corporation not only in its technical know-how but also in its corporate governance for decades. Gone were the the days now that even an once well managed corporation ran into such a management crisis or strictly speaking, a fall on management ethic. It is still unknown who in the company should be held responsible yet and most of all, the root cause of the scandal and the likelihood of any criminal act element. For an once starred corporation to melt down so quickly there must be a change on the company culture which is actually the manifestation of the values and mindset of the top management. With the ever escalating integration with China, values and mindset of Hong Kong business leaders are inevitably compromised. Rigorism and professionalism are something dispensable in nations of rule by will, sadly also a sign of Hong Kong's China-isation.
Another similar case on construction scandal is the HK-Zhuahai-Macau bridge. Quite a number of the quality assurance forms were submitted by the contractor only after months of the opening of the bridge. These forms should have been submitted after the completion of a certain construction job and prior to the commencement of the next step to ensure the quality standard was well met. These forms are for quality assurance mechanism and no further work should has been commenced prior to the inspection and approval on these forms yet the fact is that things went through without them. However, the secretary of the Transport and Housing who should be the watchdog of the infrastructure yet just trying to lighten the case as a late submission only and tried to comfort the general public the quality and safety of the construction were not compromised. An originally policing role now turned into an escort of the malpractice. The reason? The contractor is a China company and most of all, this was the result on the expedition on construction completion meeting the wish of Beijing.
Deng Xiao Ping laid down the arrangement of "one country, two systems" for the returning of HK and set the policy of "no change for 50 years". Naturally no one will believe in naive that changes will happen only after 2047 but now it is just 20+ years after the returning yet Hong Kong is very much alike China now in one way or another. Hong Kong's value to China lies in its difference from China. I think the top boss in Beijing also wants to make HK different from China so that China can capitalize on this difference as a platform to deal with the western world. However, what the top boss cannot stop is the homogenization of HK towards China when people in HK, especially in businesses or government, has more and more interaction with the mainlanders when China economy is in much larger scale and much more influential than is the HK's. Leaders in both private and public sectors in Hong Kong are just too vulnerable when facing the tremendous financial benefits for the former and the pleasing culture towards the higher ranking officials for the latter. China-isation is bound to happen.
China influences are no doubt getting stronger and stronger in Hong Kong. Like it or not, the statement "one country, two systems" has become just a slogan more than ever. The above three cases have a common point, ie., China element. Tong hung around with Chinese officials closely. MTR has a lot of projects in China while the Bridge contractor is a China company. Shouldn't those people advocate and promote integration with China stop and re-think? There is one Chinese wisdom of words, 近朱者赤，近墨者黑 （One will be homogenized with people whom the one hangs around, be they good or bad.). When one day Hong Kong completely integrates with China, is that what Beijing wants and to their best benefits?
Among the several major issues casting a very dark shadow on Hong Kong's future, the Shatin Central Link construction scandal is definitely one of them. Apart from the heavily delay and the huge over-budget, the scandal really destroyed the reputation on Hong Kong's integrity which was restored through decades of effort by 2 to 3 generations after the establishment of ICAC in 1974 when prior to its inception, corruption in both public and private sector was a norm. However, unfortunately after the returning to China, moral in this aspect started to erode quickly. In fact Timothy Tong, the ex chef of ICAC, himself was blamed on his misconduct in 2010 as being a civil servant and just narrowly escaped from prosecution. Since then the confidence on ICAC from the general public was largely undermined and perhaps that was the very first case which was brought to light that China-isation on Hong Kong is really happening.
Now back to this Shatin Central Link scandal, despite the culprit is Leighton but in fact the black sheep is MTR, an once renowned corporation not only in its technical know-how but also in its corporate governance for decades. Gone were the the days now that even an once well managed corporation ran into such a management crisis or strictly speaking, a fall on management ethic. It is still unknown who in the company should be held responsible yet and most of all, the root cause of the scandal and the likelihood of any criminal act element. For an once starred corporation to melt down so quickly there must be a change on the company culture which is actually the manifestation of the values and mindset of the top management. With the ever escalating integration with China, values and mindset of Hong Kong business leaders are inevitably compromised. Rigorism and professionalism are something dispensable in nations of rule by will, sadly also a sign of Hong Kong's China-isation.
Another similar case on construction scandal is the HK-Zhuahai-Macau bridge. Quite a number of the quality assurance forms were submitted by the contractor only after months of the opening of the bridge. These forms should have been submitted after the completion of a certain construction job and prior to the commencement of the next step to ensure the quality standard was well met. These forms are for quality assurance mechanism and no further work should has been commenced prior to the inspection and approval on these forms yet the fact is that things went through without them. However, the secretary of the Transport and Housing who should be the watchdog of the infrastructure yet just trying to lighten the case as a late submission only and tried to comfort the general public the quality and safety of the construction were not compromised. An originally policing role now turned into an escort of the malpractice. The reason? The contractor is a China company and most of all, this was the result on the expedition on construction completion meeting the wish of Beijing.
Deng Xiao Ping laid down the arrangement of "one country, two systems" for the returning of HK and set the policy of "no change for 50 years". Naturally no one will believe in naive that changes will happen only after 2047 but now it is just 20+ years after the returning yet Hong Kong is very much alike China now in one way or another. Hong Kong's value to China lies in its difference from China. I think the top boss in Beijing also wants to make HK different from China so that China can capitalize on this difference as a platform to deal with the western world. However, what the top boss cannot stop is the homogenization of HK towards China when people in HK, especially in businesses or government, has more and more interaction with the mainlanders when China economy is in much larger scale and much more influential than is the HK's. Leaders in both private and public sectors in Hong Kong are just too vulnerable when facing the tremendous financial benefits for the former and the pleasing culture towards the higher ranking officials for the latter. China-isation is bound to happen.
China influences are no doubt getting stronger and stronger in Hong Kong. Like it or not, the statement "one country, two systems" has become just a slogan more than ever. The above three cases have a common point, ie., China element. Tong hung around with Chinese officials closely. MTR has a lot of projects in China while the Bridge contractor is a China company. Shouldn't those people advocate and promote integration with China stop and re-think? There is one Chinese wisdom of words, 近朱者赤，近墨者黑 （One will be homogenized with people whom the one hangs around, be they good or bad.). When one day Hong Kong completely integrates with China, is that what Beijing wants and to their best benefits?
訂閱：
文章 (Atom)