Generation 40s – 四十世代

Good articles for buddies


Leave a comment

Hong Kong will embrace mobile payments – eventually

CommentInsight & Opinion
2017-11-07

Ken Chu says it will take time for Hongkongers to adapt to using mobile phones to pay for goods and services, as they need to overcome the habit of using the Octopus card, as well as security concerns

 

I often hear people deplore that Hong Kong is lagging so far behind mainland China in technology because mobile payments like Alipay and WeChat Pay are not widely available. More accurately, Hong Kong has just started to play catch-up in mobile payments.

To be fair, Hong Kong is not an innovation and technology backwater. It may be true that we do not have a robust innovation and technology industry and market, or giant e-commerce and tech companies. But, as far as innovation, science and technology are concerned, we do quite well.

Indeed, our universities, two of which are among the top 50 in the world, often achieve groundbreaking discoveries in scientific research projects. Sadly, ordinary folks are unaware of them.

Hong Kong is also among the top innovation start-up hubs globally, according to a world-leading US research group. The issue here, then, is not so much whether Hong Kong is lagging behind in innovation and technology but how quickly mobile payments can dominate the consumer market.

Secretary for Commerce and Economic Development Edward Yau Tang-wah attributed our attitude to mobile payments to our successful Octopus card.

Launched in 1997, the Octopus card was hailed as a pioneer in contactless, cashless payment methods. Over the years, Hongkongers became accustomed to using the card to pay public transport fares, buy goods at supermarkets and pay at fast-food stores. It is also easy to top up the value of the card at any convenience store in the city. Old habits die hard, and it will take time and incentives to get people to change.

Decades ago, “Don’t leave home without it” was a popular advertising slogan for a credit card commercial, summarising the usefulness of such a card. Today, smartphones have acquired the same status and become a daily necessity. In mainland China, it is even said that it wouldn’t be a problem to leave a wallet at home but one absolutely cannot leave home without a mobile phone; they can be used to buy almost anything, anywhere in the country. The ubiquity of mobile phones provides fertile ground for the growth of the mobile payment market.

Hong Kong boasts one of the highest mobile phone penetration rates in the world, yet its mobile payment market is still in its infancy. One reason often cited is security; in fact, the secretary for innovation and technology once said in a radio interview that he preferred an Octopus card to any e-wallet because of the security risk. However, stored-value smart cards like Octopus are not as convenient and versatile as most mobile payment apps and methods. With the latter, there’s no need to carry a card; instead, just use an enabled mobile phone to make the payment.

There is another challenge to the growth of the mobile payment market in Hong Kong: privacy concerns. Some people shudder at the idea that an electronic mobile payment service provider can learn when and where a user has made a purchase or transaction, as well as what they bought.

The mobile revolution is sweeping the globe because of its tremendous convenience. A thriving mobile payment market will surely empower the fintech industry. If Hong Kong is to hang on to its status as an international financial centre and innovation hub, the city must embrace mobile payment technology, to bring benefits to the government, economy and individuals. For the government, tax evasion and money laundering can be largely eliminated. For businesses, a more attractive and effective consumer incentive scheme can be structured to expand its market share. And, for individual consumers, convenience is the biggest benefit.

It will take time for Hong Kong consumers to truly appreciate the convenience of mobile payment apps but I am confident that the scheme will soon be widely adopted in the city; after all, Hongkongers are highly receptive to new things.

Dr Ken Chu is group chairman and CEO of the Mission Hills Group and a National Committee member of the Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference

Advertisements


Leave a comment

Cashless societies seem convenient, but Hong Kong should think it through first

CommentInsight & Opinion
2017-10-24

Peter Kammerer says we need a debate over going cashless, which benefits shoppers, stores and governments, but also has some worrisome implications for privacy, individual financial security and also government debt

Fintech Week in Hong Kong may not seem the right occasion to raise questions about rushing headlong into a cashless future. But there are as many downsides for all the benefits of ditching banknotes and coins. They involve privacy, choice, security and, for financially troubled governments, survival. As much as we should embrace a hi-tech way of life, there’s also a need to debate what’s best.

Not being able to see makes me a natural convert to electronic payments. Give me an app or a card over a handful of notes of uncertain denomination any day. The Octopus card was a blessing when introduced in 1997 and the day of the shop that Amazon envisages, with no checkouts and apps linked to bank accounts, and where sensors deal with transactions, can’t come soon enough for some of us.

Tech giants like Alibaba and Apple see their apps driving such a future and a visit to the mainland or Sweden, where cash accounts for 2 per cent of transactions, shows just how willing some are to embrace the idea. Try to use cash in some Shenzhen restaurants and you’ll get a worried frown; some no longer accept it. It’s all about convenience and there is a concerted push for Hong Kong to follow, in order to – as Jack Ma, the founder of Alibaba, said recently – be “more fashionable, modern and efficient”. (Alibaba owns The South China Morning Post). Hong Kong’s government has embarked on a course of promoting innovation, science and technology.

Credit card companies, and now those involved in electronic payment systems, portray cash as backward and inefficient. It’s difficult to argue against industries that aim to make life easier and create jobs. But as the cashless supermarkets Amazon is trying out in the US show, it’s as much about job creation as making jobs redundant.

Governments may see such losses as inevitable or negligible when compared to the advantages. Going cashless eradicates money-laundering. Their most effective tools to crack down at present are resource-heavy monitoring of currency and bank accounts or scrapping the high-denomination banknotes criminals favour. They can also track transactions by having access to records and more easily shut down money supplies, as in Uganda in February last year to keep funds out of the hands of the opposition during elections.

It’s why the Swiss have been so worried about the introduction of an equivalent of the Octopus card for trains; they fear authorities will spy on their travel patterns. Many shops in Switzerland also prefer cash to credit cards and there have even been pushes by lawmakers to make the use of banknotes and coins permanent, the thinking being, as Swiss people’s party member Manuel Brandenberg put it to Bloomberg last year, “cash is property and cash is freedom. It empowers the individual because it’s tangible wealth.”

There’s another matter that the wealthy Swiss government doesn’t have to worry about, but others may fear; a cashless society will prevent a government from printing banknotes to get out of debt or induce inflation. Robust security systems are also needed to lock hackers out.

A printer watches over a press printing US$1 bills at the Bureau of Engraving and Printing in March 2015, in Washington, DC. One side-effect of going cashless would be that governments could not print money to get out of debt or devalue currency. Photo: AFP

Such discussions aren’t taking place on the mainland in the scramble to be modern. Nor have we heard much in Hong Kong, although the idea that cash is king also has firm adherents here, as in Japan, where credit card use is low, too.

That reticence is still seen at bank counters, among taxi drivers who prefer tips in cash and in the surprising number of shops and restaurants that demand cash only. Such restraint offers hope for those worried about the drive to go cashless, and space for a much-needed debate of the issues.

Peter Kammerer is a senior writer at the Post


Leave a comment

China’s rise is assured in our new world order, but not as a hegemon

CommentInsight & Opinion
2017-10-13
Jean-Pierre Lehmann says though one major power dominated the past two centuries – Britain in the 19th and America in the 20th – in the 21st century, no single country will be calling the shots. Instead, the tussle for influence will be fiercest on the Asia-Pacific stage

During most of my working life, I have commuted physically and intellectually between western Europe and East Asia, where I spent part of my childhood and where I have over the years lived, studied, worked and taught. Of course, to get from one to the other, one has to traverse the Eurasian continent. Which is what I did. In the late 1960s/early 1970s, for example, I would take a ship from Portsmouth to Leningrad (as it then was), a train from Leningrad to Moscow, a plane from Moscow to Khabarovsk, a train from Khabarovsk to Nakhodka, a boat from Nakhodka to Yokohama, then, the final leg, a train from Yokohama to Tokyo.

I would occasionally stop for a few days along the way. The icy cold war atmosphere notwithstanding, the warmth (and liquidity: lots of vodka!) of Russian hospitality lived well up to its reputation. I had read in my teens lots of Russian literature, and was enthralled when I read 15 years ago that splendid history of Russian culture, Natasha’s Dance by Orlando Figes. That was 15 years ago, a year after China acceded to the World Trade Organisation. In the meantime, academically I remained an East-West guy.

I watched, totally bedazzled, the transformations occurring in the Asia-Pacific, especially the awesome developments in China. As a product of the mid-20th century, I was influenced by the view that the words “poor” and “Chinese” were synonymous. This was true not only in the West – whether in Europe or the United States – but also in Japan. The Chinatown in Yokohama, which I occasionally visited in the 1950s with my parents (who lived at the time in Tokyo), was poor. In the second half of the 1980s, when I was based in Tokyo, as rumours of a potential Chinese growth story began circulating and Japan was experiencing stratospheric growth, I found Japanese I spoke to quite dismissive.

By the beginning of this century, the China narrative has been dramatically transformed, as has its impact on the world. The global balance of economic power is moving from West to East, as the Atlantic centuries seem to be entering their concluding chapters and an Asia-Pacific century emerges in the 21st.

Europe’s clout has declined, economically, geopolitically and demographically, and will continue to do so. The US remains a formidable power, but its days of hegemony are reaching their end. The institutions that Uncle Sam put together after the second world war – the United Nations, the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, the WTO – are becoming moribund. George W. Bush’s illegal invasion of Iraq in 2003 and its catastrophic consequences have undermined American geopolitical and moral leadership; while Donald Trump’s bombastic “America First” rhetoric provides a sort of tragic operatic finale. How embarrassing it must be for Americans to witness this Caligula-like figure drag the country down into barbarity. As Angela Merkel confirmed in her speech in Munich in May, the Western alliance, founded after the war by the US and the UK, is eroding.

The fact that the world is at a turning point is beyond dispute. Where it is turning to is another matter. Because the last two centuries have been dominated by one major global power – Britain in the 19th, the US in the 20th – there is an assumption that it must be someone else’s turn. (Presumably, China?)

In fact, as author Ian Morris compellingly argues in Why the West Rules – For Now, the history of the Eurasian continent – where civilisations flourished and history was made – was one of exchange, mutation and what we would call today, “multipolarity”. Rudyard Kipling’s famous “East is East and West is West” poem portrays a 9th-century imperialist view of the world, and does not correspond to historical reality. Throughout the millennia, Eurasian societies, emanating from five major civilisations (Chinese, Indian, Persian, Arabic and European), fought with each other, traded goods, sciences and ideas with each other, as they learned and borrowed from each other. There was no East and West, Europe and Asia. Arabic thought influenced the Renaissance; Confucian thought influenced the Enlightenment; India invented and developed the zero.

Things began changing with the rise of the Portuguese seaborne empire in the late 15th century. Initially incrementally, then, from the early 19th century on, rapidly and radically, Europe rose as virtually all of Asia declined. Europe’s “superiority” ensured Asia’s subjugation. This century is witnessing the resurgence of Asia; especially the rise of China as a global power. The idea, however, that the world was following a pattern and that China would emerge as the coming hegemon seems unconvincing.

Not clear as to where we’re now heading, I was intrigued when I read President Xi Jinping’s speech in Astana on September 7, 2013, in which he launched what has since become known as the “Belt and Road Initiative”.

I have made a considerable effort over the past four years to become more immersed in Eurasian and Central Asian historical patterns, contemporary dynamics and future prospects. I have travelled not just physically, but also intellectually across much of the Eurasian continent. This has included most recently an intensive week of discussions in Moscow with Russian interlocutors from different professions and generations (including a high-school class of 15-year-olds) to hear how they see the world.

Here, I wish to emphasise the concept that Dmitri Trenin, director of the Carnegie Moscow Centre, introduced me to, and which I found very useful in constructing my new view of the world. Whereas recently, there has been much talk of whether Russia is pivoting to the East or maintaining its historical ties with Europe, Trenin speaks of a “360-degree vision, where Moscow serves as the central element of a new geopolitical construct: Eurasia writ large, aka Greater Eurasia”.

In this Greater Eurasia are the former great civilisations and great powers: China, India, Mongolia, Korea, Japan, the members of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (especially Indonesia), the countries of Central Asia and the Levant, Russia, Turkey and the European Union. The EU’s past was integrated into that of Eurasia, and so, it would seem, will be its future. As Merkel implied in her speech in May, with Brexit and the election of Donald Trump in 2016, the Western alliance has reached its twilight.

In this Greater Eurasian space, China clearly dominates. Its gross domestic product is roughly 10 times the size of Russia’s and more than five times the size of India’s. But for a number of reasons, there will be no Chinese hegemon comparable to the UK or US. China is unlikely to match the US in hard power, and its soft power is weak.

The UK and the US gained hegemony in part by waging brutal imperialist wars and enforcing exploitative subjugation on much of the world – in Asia, Africa and Latin America. Whether China can be different, whether it can achieve its “peaceful rise”, will be the dominant question this century. Greater Eurasia is full of exciting potential. It is also, however, a geopolitical cauldron. Whatever happens, the narrative of the 21st century will be written there.

Jean-Pierre Lehmann is emeritus professor at IMD, founder of The Evian Group, and visiting professor at the University of Hong Kong


Leave a comment

With cowboy Trump leading trigger-happy America, should the world worry?

CommentInsight & Opinion
2017-10-10
Tom Plate says gun culture is in the DNA of America, represented by Donald Trump in the best tradition of John Wayne Westerns. Until diplomatic balance is achieved, this is a fact that the world, including China, must live with

Individual gun ownership is a right proffered under the ­second amendment to the US Constitution. In killing 58 people and injuring about 500 last week, the perpetrator of the Las Vegas mass shooting had at the ready about two dozen guns in his hotel room, and dozens elsewhere. The average citizen’s right to bear arms mirrors the way the US thinks about foreign relations – which will also lead to unnecessary tragedy.

These days, neither near-absolute gun rights at home nor the reliance on military power abroad is working well for America. The Las Vegas massacre prompted knowing shrugs and dismissive ­gestures around the world. America is widely viewed as gun crazy and, after last week, the world might well view roll-the-dice Vegas as a symbol for our culture of risk.

Foreign policy is no easy subject even for university graduate students; so imagine my fear standing in front of a packed classroom of Chinese middle-school students, visiting my Loyola Marymount University not long ago, where I was to offer 90 minutes about US relations with the world. What does – what can – a professor say to 12- to 16-year-olds from Shenzhen? A John Wayne simulation seemed the best option – staging a virtual foreign-policy shootout. These great kids were asked to make believe they were in a Hollywood movie – like a John Wayne Western, with the Good Guys (white hats) aiming to take down the Bad Guys (black hats). After a few cowboy videos to illustrate, and utilising classroom rulers as guns, we randomly decided on a few Bad Guys to shoot and had the white-hats (more aggressive-looking kids) go after them, rulers blazing. Before long, we had got rid of all the Bad Guys (bad actors, rogue nations) who were of course responsible for all the “problems” (international tension, war threats).

Having created this virtual ­utopia, the students were gleeful and proud, until it was pointed out that two of the dead Bad Guys were really Good Guys. While they were shot by innocent mistake, they were still dead, and so now we had a different problem. How to tell the bad from the good guys – you can’t just shoot everyone.

The kids got the point – that trying to “solve problems” by pulling a gun and looking for troublemakers creates dangers itself. Yet, from Vietnam to Iraq, the US seeks to ­improve the world with guns and militaristic poses, though we are hardly the only country with a big military. In fact, the session ended with the classroom-wide hope that China will not “go cowboy” when faced with foreign-policy “problems” but will find a smarter way.

Alas, in America, the historic Chinese naval build-up has raised fears, not eased them. But, in addition to that new worry is the related fear that we Americans are starting to have about ourselves. Suddenly, there are visible holes in the “Great Wall of American ­exceptionalism”. To employ Jean Paul Sartre’s prescient phrase, it is as if the West understood it “was springing leaks everywhere”.

Las Vegas, where more people died than in any comparable incident in US history, ­offered unmistakable evidence of structural societal leakage.

Irrationality can be a symptom of insecurity: if you add up everything spent on defence not just by giant China but also by Russia – and also add in the defence budgets of Britain, Japan, India, France and Saudi Arabia – it all still bulks up to less than the US continues to spend.

China did not cause this long-running American spending binge that sets history’s high bar for perpetual militarisation. Such was in our DNA – macho movie star John Wayne rolling in front of our eyes with all the self-confidence we imagine guns can buy. Given a cultural heritage like this, might not President Donald Trump, a former casino owner, conflate a blazing missile offensive with hitting the jackpot? We hope not – but would it really be totally out of character when you consider his characteristic John Wayne public posturing and tweeting over North Korea?

“Sorry – but only one thing will work”, he bellowed over the weekend about Pyongyang.

Admittedly, there is no doubt that the rise of China, which started decades ago, of course, but only relatively recently caught the attention of the US public, has added weight to the droop in confidence – and need for ego reinforcement.

So, just as the gun-control movement in America will probably go nowhere, so too movement in ­reversing national armament levels – including, sadly, nuclear weapons – will go nowhere. DNA is destiny: and this is what the world, not to mention China, must be prepared to live with.

It is the one very big takeaway from the Vegas tragedy.

The so-named “Thucydides Trap”, so popular in certain circles, hypothesises that when the fast-rising power threatens the dominance of the established power, the conditions for war between them intensify. But it’s only one hypothesis.

Another hypothesis (mine) says that when the rising power brushes up against the established power, the rising power – if it is smart – will negotiate differences to keep a ­rational lid on its armaments spending, thus freeing up funds for the people’s true welfare.

This is the “Alliance-for-Progress Escape from the Thucydides Trap”. I know, it’s no catchy phrase. But it does propose a path away from hell, which is what happened in Vegas, reminding us anew that the violence option is often the problem itself.

To believe otherwise – especially in this nuclear age – is, well, moronic. Getting the balance right is the best way to avoid becoming seriously unbalanced.

Columnist Tom Plate is a Loyola Marymount University professor and an author of many books about Asia, including the recent Yo-Yo Diplomacy