Singapore's history of separation sets it apart from Hong Kong: Historian Wang Gungwu
This article is actually got an insightful read on why Singapore was able to survive through independence while Hong Kong is in a totally different scenario. Geographically, Peninsula Malaysia is Singapore's hinterland, but Singapore has never been very reliant on its hinterland, instead trying to source for resources from further away. As an international port who main purpose was to move goods, the focus has always been further away.
But Hong Kong is a different place. It served as a gateway for the West into China, and as such, there has always been that strong relationship with its hinterland, China. Even during British rule, Hong Kong businessmen have ventured into China in search of cheaper labour. This is all the more after the handing back of Hong Kong; Hong Kong is economically tied so closely to China that it is hard to imagine how an independent Hong Kong can survive. Remember, China is not reliant on Hong Kong; it now has other ports for international trade, other outlets for the products of its Guangzhou manufacturing sector. But Hong Kong has no other hinterland, and on its own, no resources to speak of. With the door to China closed, how many will continue to see Hong Kong as a beneficial trading partner?
So while I applaud the protesters for their determination to get greater freedom from Beijing, I think they need to think through about what is the final shape of things that they want. "Five demands" is not the endgame, and it serves no logical end except as a "feel-good" thing for the protesters. If they are really serious about effecting political change for the better of their society, they need to come up with a plan, not demands. Giving demands, and then bashing things up when the demands are not met... that's like a kid in a toy store, smashing toys in the store until the parents give in and buy the kid a toy.
And the longer this drags on, the worse it gets for the protesters, not Beijing. The protesters are making life difficult for the people of Hong Kong. In the beginning, they may have public sentiments on their side, but as inconvenience drags, and business starts to become adversely affected, there will be rising public resentment instead. The protesters should have sat down and tried to negotiate a better deal the moment Carrie Lam relented. That was the lost opportunity. Now, that opportunity is lost, and as time goes by, the attention of the global media will be drawn to other new things, and soon, the protesters will be left forgotten, their cause unfulfilled.
They didn't see the opportunity, and now have lost it. All that remains is for the media attention to die down, and this protest will be like a fire, slowing dying out after consuming everything within its reach.
And then, the Beijing hammer will strike down hard. And the protesters will have no one but themselves to blame. For they were the ones who lost that opportunity for a better deal.
This article is actually got an insightful read on why Singapore was able to survive through independence while Hong Kong is in a totally different scenario. Geographically, Peninsula Malaysia is Singapore's hinterland, but Singapore has never been very reliant on its hinterland, instead trying to source for resources from further away. As an international port who main purpose was to move goods, the focus has always been further away.
But Hong Kong is a different place. It served as a gateway for the West into China, and as such, there has always been that strong relationship with its hinterland, China. Even during British rule, Hong Kong businessmen have ventured into China in search of cheaper labour. This is all the more after the handing back of Hong Kong; Hong Kong is economically tied so closely to China that it is hard to imagine how an independent Hong Kong can survive. Remember, China is not reliant on Hong Kong; it now has other ports for international trade, other outlets for the products of its Guangzhou manufacturing sector. But Hong Kong has no other hinterland, and on its own, no resources to speak of. With the door to China closed, how many will continue to see Hong Kong as a beneficial trading partner?
So while I applaud the protesters for their determination to get greater freedom from Beijing, I think they need to think through about what is the final shape of things that they want. "Five demands" is not the endgame, and it serves no logical end except as a "feel-good" thing for the protesters. If they are really serious about effecting political change for the better of their society, they need to come up with a plan, not demands. Giving demands, and then bashing things up when the demands are not met... that's like a kid in a toy store, smashing toys in the store until the parents give in and buy the kid a toy.
And the longer this drags on, the worse it gets for the protesters, not Beijing. The protesters are making life difficult for the people of Hong Kong. In the beginning, they may have public sentiments on their side, but as inconvenience drags, and business starts to become adversely affected, there will be rising public resentment instead. The protesters should have sat down and tried to negotiate a better deal the moment Carrie Lam relented. That was the lost opportunity. Now, that opportunity is lost, and as time goes by, the attention of the global media will be drawn to other new things, and soon, the protesters will be left forgotten, their cause unfulfilled.
They didn't see the opportunity, and now have lost it. All that remains is for the media attention to die down, and this protest will be like a fire, slowing dying out after consuming everything within its reach.
And then, the Beijing hammer will strike down hard. And the protesters will have no one but themselves to blame. For they were the ones who lost that opportunity for a better deal.
No comments:
Post a Comment