It will come as no surprise to most that Norman Chan has been named as the new head of the Hong Kong Monetary Authority, commencing his role on 1 October. Good choice!
I have known Norman for almost 30 years, and I cannot think of anyone else better qualified on an all round basis to assume the substantial mantle that will be left by Joseph Yam. What Hong Kong's premier regulator needs today is someone who understands Hong Kong and how it works. Someone who fully understands "central banking" and has a working knowledge of commercial banking. A person of integrity - who despite being appointed by Government, is capable of independent thought. An individual, then, who is known to and can work with the financial authorities and regulators in China. A character who understands that Hong Kong's position as a global financial centre is dependent on consultation and collaboration with the domestic financial industry.
I believe that Norman will serve Hong Kong's best interests loyally and with skillful competence. I wish him well.
Of course, I don't for one minute believe that the announcement of the appointment will be the end of the debate!
Comments will be made on the transparency of the process, as legislators will undoubtedly say they should have been involved in the selection, and in today's open world it is hard to deny that where cases of public office are involved, greater transparency is becoming more usual. The trouble with such an open process is that it then becomes "selection by media", with commentary often provided by people without a sufficient understanding of the real issues - concentrating instead on personalities instead of competence.
There will also be comments on the new salary level, where some people will be inclined to say that even though the remuneration is 32% lower than Josephs' it is still a substantial sum. Maybe so, but if you want good people you have to pay for them. I am sure that if Norman were to venture into the private sector, he would attract a much higher remuneration than the one he is receiving from the Government. (Salary is a much different issue from bonuses - and I have a view on the most recent announcements from the investment banking community!).
And is the five year term an issue? I hope it's renewable - if appropriate.
In my personal opinion, this is a good move for Hong Kong. But you should take into account a description I read on someone's opinion of my Blog recently who wrote
"... former lion of international high finance who is now in his winter. Mr. Eldon's views of the world, of China, and of HK are of his past spring. One may question how relevant his views are in today's political reality... "
Oh well!!!
I am not sure why I would single out any geographic region when I refer to a "community", and in particular why that might be British when I have had little to do with Britain in over 40 years.
My comments were in relation to announcements made by one or two investment banks suggesting the potential for record bonus pay-outs for the past quarter, and therefore deliberately thumbing their noses at an already irritated public.
I am not against bonus payments for the community, as it is an accepted part of the industry's remuneration but I wonder at the numbers, and I do get concerned about the methodology of pay outs which have led, in my personal view, to short term views related to short term pay-outs.
Posted by: David Eldon | 25 July 2009 at 07:03
"Salary is a much different issue from bonuses - and I have a view on the most recent announcements from the investment banking community!"
No doubt you refer to the British investment banking community.
Posted by: Bobby Lehman | 24 July 2009 at 22:44
Will the lesson never be learnt, that people with a sense of historical perspective, based on knowledge & experience, are always worth listening to - as history itself shows!
Posted by: Robert | 19 July 2009 at 00:26
Whether Elton's view is relevant or not, it is up to the judgment of history. To be a real democratic system, everyone's view point should be respected. This is what some of the so called "democratic parties" lacking in.
Posted by: agentyikes | 18 July 2009 at 21:25