|
Forgotten knowledge
The third area I want to discuss is what we do not know we know. A translation of which might be the things we already know but often overlook or outright forget. For example, when it comes to Hong Kong, some people seem to think the SAR will be surpassed. Replaced if you will. This doomsday group seems to forget the fact that many of Hong Kong's infrastructural and institutional attributes - including its free-market philosophy, the rule of law and free flow of capital - are attributes which are impossible for any other city in China to replicate any time soon In terms of China itself, some executives of some companies still drool over the prospects of selling their goods or services to a single market of 1.3 billion people. They seem to overlook or forget the fact that the Mainland market includes 23 provinces, five autonomous regions, four municipalities directly under the central government, five special economic zones, 14 open coastal and border cities, 15 export processing areas, 14 bonded zones, some 30 provincial-level economic and technological development zones and more than 50 new and high-technology development zones. At least at last count. And while the preferential policies of some of these special zones will gradually disappear under WTO, the complexities of doing business in such a vast market will not. A fact which - I submit - should subdue any remaining overactive salivary glands. Finally, there are some who seem to think that China's entry into the WTO will provide an avenue to solve all future trade disputes. They seem to forget that the WTO is often used more as a weapon for protectionism than as a shield for open markets. Personally, I think China will work very hard to live up to its commitments and to operate within the rules of the WTO. And if they are smart - and I think they are - they will also seek ways to exploit the rules to the benefit of their own industries. In other words they will act much like every other country on the WTO membership list. Applying one's knowledge
Against this backdrop of knowledge - both the known and the unknown - it is clear that some foreign companies are itching to get access to the Mainland market. I recall reading the comments of one executive who said his two most important questions about China are "which month" and "which day" his company will get the necessary approvals. He went on to say: "If I get four questions, then the third question would be at which hour, and the fourth at which minute we will get our license." And just so you know, you can all breathe easier, he was not from an American company! The reality is that anyone focused solely on the short-term gains or anyone who is prone to impatience is destined to be disappointed. China is like any developing market. It takes time to build a business. Profits cannot be made overnight. It is not a place for foreign companies to improve next quarter's earnings. HSBC for its part is not a typical foreign company in the Mainland. As I mentioned earlier, our roots are in China. We have had a continuous presence in the Mainland for more than 135 years. Our name is also well known. For example, one survey done in Beijing, Shanghai and Guangzhou found that we were by far the most-recognised foreign financial institution. Close to 90 per cent of the respondents said they were familiar with the name HSBC. The next closest foreign bank scored in the low 70s. Despite this history and this recognition, we know that we will not automatically benefit from the further opening of China's financial services sector under WTO. We know that we will have to work very hard to maintain our position. And we are. We have moved our China headquarters to Pudong in Shanghai. We have signed RMB remittance pacts with all four of the big state banks and we continue to seek ways to enhance our co-operation with domestic banks. On the people side, localisation remains a top priority. Already, nine out of every 10 of our Mainland staff are hired locally. Recently we along with a few other foreign banks were given permission to offer foreign currency services to mainland Chinese citizens and corporations in select cities. In HSBC's case, we are allowed to offer such services in three cities: Beijing, Shanghai and Guangzhou. Last December we also purchased an 8 per cent equity stake in the Bank of Shanghai. In addition to becoming the first foreign commercial bank to be allowed to invest in a domestic Chinese bank, we also became - in effect - partners with the Shanghai Municipal Government, the major shareholder in the bank. For us, it was a high and historic note on which to end the year 2001. Just as an aside, not everyone seems to agree that our purchase of a strategic stake in the Bank of Shanghai was all that momentous. For example, in subsequent articles heralding the precedent-setting deal, one foreign banker was quoted as saying: "Most of the banks have been offering 15 per cent to the market. If you get 15 per cent you don't get anything." Another foreign banker said that our purchase was "only symbolic" and "without any actual benefits." He also said that his bank had no interest in acquiring a minority stake in any Mainland financial institution I will not tell you who made these rather pessimistic comments, if for no other reason than to help both individuals 'save face' should their banks later decide to reconsider. What I will say is that both work for our so-called 'strategic competitors'. Consequently, I am inclined to think they were suffering from a touch of fermented fruit syndrome. Otherwise known as a case of sour grapes! Conclusion
I have spent much of my time this morning talking about the implications of an agreement which became official on the 11th of December 2001. I also briefly mentioned another history-making agreement that was signed on the 28th of February 1972. In fact, there are a number of striking similarities between China's entry into the WTO and the signing of the Shanghai Communiqu¨|. Both agreements changed the world significantly. Both agreements set the stage for increased contact . . . economic and otherwise. And both agreements also came after some considerable negotiation. At the outset of the 1972 talks, Dr Kissinger reportedly told his Chinese hosts: "The good thing about our relationship is that we want nothing from each other." Chairman Mao is said to have promptly disagreed, noting: "If I had wanted nothing from you, I wouldn't have invited you. And if you wanted nothing from me, you shouldn't have come." Similar sentiments apply to the WTO agreement. If China did not have something to gain, it would not have joined the WTO. Nor would it have made, as some observers suggest, commitments that are far more reaching than any previous membership applicant has. Likewise, foreign companies would not be flocking to and expanding their operations in China if they thought there was nothing to gain. Nor if they thought there were no profits to be made. In closing, let me make one final observation about Hong Kong and the impact of China's entry into the WTO. I know and I think all of you would agree that Hong Kong is well positioned to play a significant role in the post-entry period. And I know that I know the people of Hong Kong have the capacity and the capability to respond to new challenges. Simply put, I know that if New York is the city that never sleeps, then Hong Kong is the city that never stagnates. Thank you. | 
我是深圳派2！Yeah!请笑对每一天哦，因为哪里都有阳光！：）
Doha, November 10th, 2001.（2001年11月10日，多哈）
