There are reports that Beijing might try to reunify with Taiwan by force , while Russian troops might invade Ukraine . Russia and China are drawing closer together to challenge American dominance. This will start a new era in geopolitics, but will Hong Kong survive it? Dating back to the Opium War, Hong Kong has been a bridge between China and the West. Hong Kong’s role as a trading post will be more pronounced in a world embroiled in a hot or cold war, with more trade diverted from Shenzhen, Tianjin and Shanghai. A trend of Chinese companies moving their initial public offerings from New York to Hong Kong has already emerged. Many pessimistic property owners in Hong Kong will sell, while optimists will bet on the market rising. Fortunes will change hands. We saw similar developments in 1949 when the Communist Party won the civil war in China, in 1966 when Mao Zedong started the Cultural Revolution and in 1997 when China resumed sovereignty over Hong Kong. During each of these seismic historical events, there was always a group of risk-takers in Hong Kong who managed to succeed and flourish. Hong Kong was destined to encounter many crises and opportunities because of its geographical, political and historical position. The magic behind the Hong Kong success story is its ability to attract risk-takers from China and elsewhere, from refugees to millionaires, and afford them the possibility of prospering. This arises not from any five-year plan by the government but from the cooperation and sometimes conflict between communism and capitalism, between war and peace and between East and West. This magic will last at least until 2047 when the present “one country, two systems” constitutional arrangement will end, unless it is extended. Kwok Hung, The Peak Patriotism is an unnecessarily fraught term in Hong Kong As the 2022 Hong Kong chief executive election draws near, discussion of what patriotism means has emerged again. To me, patriotism is a simple concept that requires little elaboration: appreciation and love for one’s own country. I cannot fathom why some people have created so many different theories on it. Rather, I am deeply troubled by the growing sentiment of xenophilia for the West across all ages in our society, perhaps even among some self-proclaimed patriots. The perception of English-speaking people being superior is still commonplace. These individuals are often pictured as civilised, posh, humorous, creative and freedom-loving beings; the Chinese are, of course, cast as the opposite. In the past, such Eurocentric attitudes only subtly and implicitly manifested in terms of social norms and practices. In the recent past, we saw people prepared to flagrantly insult their own country, burn its flag and call for a return of Hong Kong to British rule. Many youngsters lament the fact that they are Chinese. Worse still, adherence to Western values has pervaded the governance system. It took the political elite over 20 years to realise the model of Western democracy is unfit for Hong Kong. Meanwhile, our judges rely on overseas jurisprudence to determine our constitutional affairs, as Henry Litton details in his work Is the Hong Kong Judiciary Sleepwalking to 2047? . In my view, patriotism begins with an appreciation of one’s own country. Our ancestors founded a successful and extensive network of trade, not to mention making independent advances and creating their own systems of mathematics, astronomy, medicine and meritocracy. Confucius introduced the idea of state legitimacy and morality thousands of years before John Locke. China is now resurrecting its central role in world history, having endured much agony and hardship. I am a university student in Britain. Yet, it is exactly this experience that strengthened my growing national consciousness and exposed me to the hypocritical side of the West. In a world full of geopolitical conflict, our leaders must know where their true loyalty lies. They can only do so through taking pride in our nation sincerely. Any calculation based on economic and business gains will not suffice. Norman Wan, Aberdeen Hong Kong doesn’t need a visionary leader I was amazed by the interview with former chief executive Leung Chun-ying (“Leung calls for visionary leader to seize chance”, January 27 ). If his criteria is being a visionary leader, then that rules him out as a candidate. His handling of social unrest in Hong Kong during the Occupy movement in 2014 has proven that he is far from visionary. His legacy put a big burden on his successor, Chief Executive Carrie Lam Cheng Yuet-ngor, who has performed even worse. As a result, we are seeing greater involvement of the central government in Hong Kong’s affairs. We already have a visionary leader in the form of President Xi Jinping. Our next “leader” is likely to be a civil servant who dutifully follows Beijing’s lead. Only dreamers still believe in “one country, two systems”. Peter den Hartog, Tuen Mun