From Third World to First: Hongkong
Hongkong galt Lee Kuan Yew immer als Inspiration, weil in die Stadt viele fähige und fleißige Leute konzentrierten, die bei der Machtübernahme der Kommunisten in China aus vielen chinesischen Städten, wie Shanghai, dorthin geflohen waren. Lee dazu: “After independence in 1965, I made a point of visiting Hong Kong almost every year to see how they handled their difficulties, and whether there were any lessons I could learn from them. I saw Hong Kong as a source of inspiration, of ideas of what was possible given a hard-driving society. I also wanted to attract some of their businesspeople, especially their manufacturers, to set up textile and other factories in Singapore.”
Und manchmal blickt er fast neidisch auf die Geschäftstüchtigkeit der Menschen in Hongkong und vergleicht dazu die Mentalität der Menschen in Singapore: “But the Singaporean cannot match the Hong Konger in drive and motivation. In Hong Kong when people fail, they blame themselves or their bad luck, pick themselves up, and try again, hoping their luck will change. Singaporeans have different attitudes to government and to life. They prefer job security and freedom from worry. When they do not succeed, they blame the government since they assume its duty is to ensure that their lives get better. They expect the government not only to arrange a level playing field but, at the end of the race, to give prizes even to those who have not done so well.”
Die Probleme Hongkongs bis in die heutige Zeit mit Unruhen und einer gespalteten Gesellschaft geht auf die Zeit zurück, wie die britische Kolonialregierung die Stadt auf die Übernahme durch China nur mit unpassender britischer bzw. westlicher Sicht vorbereiteten: “Hong Kong had been taken through a crash course on democracy and human rights by Governor Patten, suported by the U.S. and U.K. media... This led many in Hong Kong to assume that the economy would look after itself, that if they protected democracy and human rights, all would be well. It turned out otherwise.”
Dabei hätte man es viel besser machen können. Denn Lee stellte auch fest, dass sich China besonders gut mit dem Prinzip Ein-Land-Zwei-Systeme eingerichtet hat, während die Britten eben eher Panik geschoben haben und dachten, dass China Hongkong mit der diktatorischen Macht der Kommunisten schnell an das chinesische Festland angleichen wollten. Dabei handelten die politischen Führer in Peking nach der wirtschaftlichen Öffnung des Landes mittlerweile anders. Lee stellt fest: “...if Hong Kong became just another Chinese city, it was of no value to China. What made Hong Kong useful to China was its strong institutions, management expertise, sophisticated financial markets, the rule of law, the transparency of legislation and regulations, a level playing field for all, plus a cosmopolitan lifestyle with English as the language of business. These made Hong Kong different.”
Und für ein Gelingen des Prinzipes Ein-Land-Zwei-Systeme gibt Lee Kuan Yew folgenden Rat: “Hong Kong faced two contrary pulls. To be useful to China, it must learn to work with Chinese officials and understand their different social, economic, and political system and mindset. But it must never allow those attitudes to affect Hong Kong for otherwise it would become just another Chinese city. It had to retain the characteristics that made it an indispensable intermediary between China and the world, as during British rule.” Die Chancen für diese Strategie stehen nicht schlecht, denn so Lee: “The heavy hand of China was nowhere in evidence...”