Hong Kong Retains #3 Financial Capital Spot
By Raymond Chan, Waymark Hong Kong
Published March 24, 2010
London was recited as having been in first place, followed by New York City, now reversed in that rank, but continuing to hold the top pair of slots. Surprisingly Hong Kong came in at number three, but the curiosity and interest resides within the rest of the world’s rankings.
No longer were Frankfurt or Paris in the top 10 listings at all. Instead Singapore and Tokyo came in at 4th and 5th respectively, followed by newcomer Shenzhen, China and of course as we might expect, Shanghai – strategically designed to become number three if Beijing has its way in the near future. The point is this: 6 of the top 10 financial global powerhouses were located in Asia-Pacific, a first! More signs of the times quite possibly.
As a related news item to this intriguing commentary of the 21st century, another news article in the Wall Street Journal (Friday, March 19, 2010) has reported that the Russian aluminum producer, UC Rusal Ltd., is listing shares of its stock on the Hong Kong Exchange, or Hang Seng Index, instead of the more traditional Russian listings via London markets. It is seen as more of a choice when compared to earlier lacking options, according to industry observers. Stock-exchange operator Hong Kong Exchanges & Clearing Ltd. has been eager to attract listings beyond its traditional base of Hong Kong and Mainland China, as further stated in the article.
In other news, five pro-democracy lawmakers formally resigned in Hong Kong to force citywide by-elections, setting up what they call a de facto referendum on democracy that has drawn (once again) harsh criticism from Beijing, After over a decade of Mainland-based media propaganda regarding the smooth transition of British rule and the 1997 handover – some still call it a “takeover” – of the H.K. Special Administrative Region as it is now called, to China (a.k.a. The Motherland), we see more Chinese influence in daily affairs, even if the two-systems approach to governance remains in effect for the promised 50 years as part of the handover agreement.
The resignations of the five have escalated into inflamed tensions over a sensitive political issue, namely the direct elections in the SAR, still operating under a different set of laws than those of Mainland China. As most recent handover historians point out, Beijing did in fact promise Hong Kong with direct elections in the future, but retained the right to stall on solid timetables for this to occur. The resignations are an attempt to elevate their frustrations and force the issue. The members, currently in the Civic Party and the League of Social Democrats, participated in the 1989 (after Tiananmen Square) creation of The Democratic Party in Hong Kong, to develop a plan and long term strategy for building a pro-democracy movement throughout Greater China, but this has had continuing difficulties in gaining the necessary traction, especially by the so-called old guard democracy advocates. The primary membership of The Democratic Party decided to refrain from getting into this present controversy, waiting it out perhaps, for a Beijing response beyond the wording of a statement declaring “deep regrets” over their position. It is ultimately seen as yet another challenge to Beijing’s leadership.
While many native Hong Kong Chinese fled mainly to the West after the 1997 handover, fearful of China’s initial moves, many have since returned home to Hong Kong, both to regenerate business interests and to help restore confidence and stability in a period of lingering political uncertainty, in particular to whether or not Beijing will use heavy-handed tactics or more of a hands-off posture. As of this writing, none of us still knows from day-to-day.