But in one important respect, Singaporeans from all walks of life tend to take their hats off to the people of Hong Kong.

The place, they admit, simply buzzes with ideas, activity and - critically - entrepreneurship. The SAR tourist board's rather blunt catchphrase - "Hong Kong: City of Life" - does rather highlight the difference.

Singapore's collective appetite for risk-taking is somewhat subdued, a point often acknowledged by policymakers, most recently by S. Dhanabalan, former government minister and head of Temasek, the state's sprawling holding company.

Mr Dhanabalan's views are worth noting as he has been a key player in the Singapore establishment for decades.

"Why would anyone want to go into business?" he asked at a recent dinner.

The gist of his argument was that the very success government has had in promoting economic growth and servicing the needs of its citizens has eaten into people's commercial creativity.

The assessment was echoed by Daniel Lian, an economist at Morgan Stanley, in a commentary for the investment bank.

"Risk-takers, not savers, ultimately create wealth for a nation, and Singapore lacks a risk-taking culture," he said.

"We think that policy-makers need to revolutionise their fundamental economic thinking . . ."

This deficiency of entrepreneurship is much on the minds of those in government at present as they bid both to escape from the nasty recession and map out a viable strategy for the next two decades or so.

In Singaporean style, a swathe of committees has been formed this month to report on what steps to take. One of the groups will look at ways to foster more entrepreneurship and its head, Minister of Trade and Industry and Foreign Affairs Raymond Lim, had some revealing remarks when he got down to work.

"We have a society that has been nurtured on efficiency and order," he said. "If you want a more entrepreneurial culture, you need to have one which has a greater tolerance for untidiness. It is from these bits of untidiness that you get your creativity. And efficiency may not be the be-all and end-all. It is a social thing, but it is going to take some time."

The tantalising feature of his comments - to Monitor's ears at least - is how close they come to suggesting that if Singapore is to foster more risk-takers, it needs to loosen up economically and politically.

Tidiness - both in the literal and metaphorical sense - has been one of the hallmarks of the People's Action Party administration since it took power decades ago. Advocating "untidiness" in any form is a break with the past, although it remains to be see what recommendations the various committees will make.

While Mr Lim and his colleagues have no remit to examine political issues - much to the disappointment of some local commentators - they may find their work inevitably takes them in that direction. It is hard to imagine that it will not.

While the chances are the eventual submissions will appear unexciting, there may be some nuggets to be had in reading between the lines. We await their work with some interest.