Perhaps only the government of Hong Kong, an "international" world-class city in the world, uses the word "snatching talent".
Is it a talent or an idiot?
We really have to look at how the government in Hong Kong has "robbed" people and money over the past 25 years.
The Hong Kong government has a department called InvestHK, whose purpose is to snatch: to snatch business and talent.
But what business was stolen?
What talent did you steal?
Hong Kong spends a lot of money to organize events every year, such as investment exhibitions, fintech (fintech) activities, international seminars on big data, and green economy publicity. meeting.
The Chief's attendance at the ribbon-cutting speech ended without any long-term policy follow-up.
The Hong Kong government's eagerness to "snatch talent" really deserves the word "snatch".
Other international cities, such as Tokyo, Shanghai, Beijing, London, New York, do not need to compete for talent.
Because if it is really an international city with confidence, it will naturally be attractive and attract talents to gather.
The Chief Executive's "Policy Address" spent so much time talking about "robbing talents", but with a family like Hong Kong, there is no need to rob talents at all, and talents will naturally come.
How should the Hong Kong government adjust its policies so that talents can take root in Hong Kong? This is the key point.
Singapore does not need to rush for talents, but attracts talents in a systematic manner and cooperates with its own talent training for a long time.
The Singapore government's approach to tree conservation is to train its own tree experts, from the highest-level tree scientists such as Professor Zhan Zhiyong's series to the front-line arborists, who have undergone very precise and rigorous training.
The only thing that Hong Kong has cultivated are many "tree cutting experts", and they are outsourced to some gardening companies to cut trees.
Just chopping trees is not a complete management of trees.
Just as the Hong Kong government manages hawkers, it aims to eliminate hawkers, without thinking about how to cooperate with hawkers to create a healthy environment for hawkers to develop.
Of course, the government can also "grab trees" and use money to buy and plant trees.
However, if we blindly use this "one night stand" model to deal with any policy, Hong Kong will not be able to become a real talent concentration, at most it can only become a talent platform in the form of a short-term One Night Stand.
So, what kind of talent does Hong Kong need, must it be robbed with money?
Hong Kong has a population of 7.4 million. Why can't some talents be cultivated among these 7.4 million people?
This brings us back to a very important issue, that is, the overcapacity of tertiary institutions in Hong Kong has led to the fact that tertiary institutions are "robbing students".
The result of robbing students is to completely abandon the quality inspection of students.
Nowadays, many college graduates in Hong Kong have poor work attitudes, are not punctual, have no patience, and like to change jobs.
How can the industry develop in this working environment ecology?
Another important question: what is talent?
The government only says the word "talent", but what type of talent is needed?
How to attract?
The government only used money to solve the surface of the problem, but did not solve the core of the problem, which is how to adjust the model of Hong Kong colleges and universities.
From the VTC to the tertiary institutions, there is actually a possibility, that is, to give up the limit on the admission of mature students (Mature Students), and to allow tertiary institutions to admit students freely without setting unnecessary constraints.
I believe that if the admission system of colleges and universities is demolished, and universities are free to admit students, instead of admitting students based on the current government's backward indicators, a large number of college graduates will re-enter the school for further study and further study. Make some core changes to the entire learning environment.
Through these university platforms, students from Asia can also be attracted to study in Hong Kong and stay in Hong Kong to become Hong Kong talents after graduation.
Singapore has already established such an ecosystem, that is, students from Southeast Asia study in Singapore and work in Singapore after graduation.
Even if he returns to his own country after graduation, he has established a connection with Singapore.
Hong Kong also has such capabilities. The problem is that the Hong Kong government currently uses a Western perspective to govern Hong Kong’s universities, and the members of Hong Kong’s university councils themselves have little knowledge of academics. Therefore, the operation of Hong Kong’s universities only relies on money to buy foreign talents. Come to Hong Kong to create an international brand effect, but in fact the average academic standard of graduates is not high.
Chinese University is an example.
The recent scandal about the school logo of CUHK just shows that the management of CUHK is unprofessional and forgets its roots.
The core value of CUHK is Chinese culture. Like Yale University, it focuses on the humanistic spirit. It is the original intention of CUHK to cultivate Chinese cultural talents. However, it is very strange that CUHK has developed a lot of business in recent years.
Does turning the phoenix into a pheasant reflect their psychological subconsciousness that doing academics in Hong Kong is like "doing chickens"?
When the bureaucracy asks you to pay, you have to pay?
Of course I'm just joking, but to be honest, there is no difference between doing academia in Hong Kong and doing entertainment in the service industry.
You have to serve the students, make the students happy, satisfy the students, and give high marks to the tutors before you can renew your contract and stay in the university.
We should also make the bosses of the school board happy and the government officials happy, and hold many activities for them to cut the ribbon and make them feel happy.
All in all, there may be nothing wrong with Hong Kong's impatient talent-grabbing concept, and there may be successful examples in the end.
But is this model really sustainable?
In the future, the world's soft power competition will be very fierce, but Hong Kong does not even seem to have the ability to compete with Singapore, because Singapore has become a super number in the Premier League, and Hong Kong may have been relegated to League One.
The author Hu Enwei is a member of the National Hong Kong and Macao Research Association, a member of the Jiangsu Provincial Political Consultative Conference, and Zuni.
Icosahedron United Artistic Director and Chief Executive Officer.
The article is only the opinion of the author and does not represent the position of Hong Kong 01.
"01 View" welcomes contributions, please email to 01view@hk01.com.
Please include the author's real name and contact information.
If not applicable without notice.