I refer to your report on CBIRC chairman Guo Shuqing’s speech at the Asian Financial Forum, titled “ Regulator hails city’s financial hub role ” (January 19). It appears that Beijing sees Hong Kong playing a downsized financial role in South China, and not as a world-class financial centre. Last week, your columnist Peter Kammerer wrote about Hong Kong’s slide into becoming a second-tier status Chinese city , and, in your Saturday edition, Justin Bong-Kwan exhorted Hongkongers to embrace our identity as a Chinese city . Being Chinese isn’t a problem, but what exactly is “Chinese”? Moreover, tagging Hong Kong as a second-tier Chinese city feels premature. Has this really happened? I think we (and Mr Guo) need a refresher about what kind of “Chinese” city we are – and are meant to be. Hong Kong is ethnically, culturally (more or less), and linguistically Chinese (plus English), but that’s about as far as it goes. Unlike any other place in China, Hong Kong has its own currency , laws and a bit of history. Theoretically, we are operating “two systems” of governance. The slide into second-tier status, if indeed that’s what is happening, is occurring because of the mainland’s lack of understanding and neglect. This does not have to happen, and I am pretty sure former Chinese leaders Mao Zedong and Zhou Enlai would be aghast at what has happened since the 1967 riots . Mao decided not to invade Hong Kong, and Hong Kong rewarded China by becoming a financial powerhouse. China benefited hugely from Hong Kong and still could, but for the constraints applied to Hong Kong and a deep misunderstanding of the opportunities the city offers. My sense is that the recent Chinese leadership hasn’t really figured out how to deal with Hong Kong ever since paramount leader Deng Xiaoping died. A sadness and dejection pervade Hong Kong now, not all of it due to the pandemic. Stuart McCarthy, Wan Chai