Friendly words of persuasion on HK?

Who is friendlier to Hong Kong, Mark Mobius or Stephen Roach?

It would be too easy to say it must be Mobius due to the apparently upbeat remarks that the acclaimed "father of emerging markets" recently made on social media.

But Roach, Morgan Stanley's former Asia chief, has been no less friendly over the years.

Both had cultivated deep in the Chinese market and made a fortune out of it, especially during the country's steep take-off following the country's reform and opening-up policy.

However, are the two super-heavyweights of the financial world fundamentally different in their respective perspectives about Hong Kong?

Perhaps.

Mobius started off with a strong title, Hong Kong: Far from Over as he wrote one of his latest messages in the blog in a politically correct tone.

Meanwhile, Roach is still remembered for a damning article in which he was frank about the pain he felt when saying Hong Kong was over.

Before wrapping up his fourth visit to the city in 15 months on Wednesday, Roach went further to plead for greater tolerance of criticism from the authorities.

Obviously, he is not as politically correct as billionaire investor Mobius despite his long-standing friendship with China.

Apart from political correctness, there is not really much difference in the material of their opinions, although they have chosen to present their views in ways that may or may not irk.

The key message in Mobius' seemingly friendly post was that Hong Kong needs to "reinvent" itself and make "better" use of the strengths it has cultivated over the years as it moves on to get rid of the colonial baggage.

In other words, that has not yet happened. Had the city already reinvented itself and made better use of the strengths built over the period, Mobius - who is now based in Dubai - would have found it unnecessary to issue the double reminders.

It was also clear in the message that the years during which the various strengths of Hong Kong were cultivated were not limited to those years after the 1997 handover but also to the time prior to the handover.

It is never a good idea to write off the potential of any city or country because history is never static as there is always the possibility of making changes. This is a universal truth.

So, as Mobius said Hong Kong was far from being over, he was probably trying to say the current situation was far from desirable. After all, "reinvent" is a very strong word - much stronger than "improve."

Was Mobius' message similar to the one issued by Hong Kong and Macau Affairs Office director Xia Baolong in April when he demanded the city overcomes its problems with a trio of new attitudes - new thinking, new methods and new routes?

In the evening after Roach pleaded for the authorities to be more patient with criticisms, a government spokesman hit back with a lengthy statement stressing how successful Hong Kong has been with its stock market, as a center for foreign companies and the protection of the freedom of speech and the press.

The question is: can such a statement change people's perception?