This is an election year in Australia. April 12, the date previously recognized by the outside world, is no longer likely to be the date of the election. With at least 33 days between the announcement of the election and the official vote, there are only three possible election dates left: May 3rd, May 10th and May 17th. The general election must be held no later than May 17, and the campaign must last at least 33 days. To vote on May 3, Albanese must announce the election no later than Monday, March 31; to vote on May 10, he must announce it no later than Monday, April 7. By convention, Election Day is usually announced on a Sunday. If the election is not announced by April 7, then May 17 will be the only election date. As the federal election draws nearer, the latest opinion polls show Labor narrowly ahead of the Coalition.

Election is approaching and the race is tight

The latest YouGov poll shows that Labor and the Coalition are now tied, and the election has officially entered the heat of battle. Just two weeks ago, Labor was narrowly ahead of the Coalition 51% to 49%, thanks to Prime Minister Albanese’s response to Tropical Storm Alfred and the government’s support for Ukraine. But now, the situation has been completely leveled. In terms of the first-past-the-post vote, Labor’s support remains unchanged at 31%, while the Coalition’s support has risen by 1 percentage point to 37%, which is growing steadily. However, on the question of “who is more suitable to be the Prime Minister”, Albanese is still ahead of Dutton, at 45% to 40%, but Dutton has overtaken him in terms of voter satisfaction. As for the other minor parties, first-party support for the Greens and One Nation have both dropped by half a point to 13% and 7% respectively, while the independents have also dropped by one point to 8%.

Previously it was significant increases in support for the Albanese government in Queensland, Victoria, South Australia and Tasmania that tilted the overall result in Labor’s favor, giving it a narrow advantage. This advantage did not last long. Meanwhile, the Roy Morgan poll also suggests that the election may be a hung parliament, with the winner needing the support of smaller parties and independents to form a government, as the two parties are so close in support. Leader of the Opposition Peter Dutton has said that if Labor were to go into government as a minority party, it would increase inflation through higher taxes and spending. Dutton has emphasized throughout the election that under a Labor government, Australia’s inflation rate has been consistently higher than in most major developed economies, that household and small business budgets have been squeezed to the limit, and that the Coalition would aim to repair the damage done to the Australian economy by the Labor government in Albania, where living standards have suffered the worst of the developed world under Labor. Under Labor, Australia’s living standards have suffered the biggest decline of any developed country. Albanese responded that inflation was falling.

The poll was conducted between March 14 and 19, with 1,500 voters participating, and has a margin of error of 3.4%. It comes as Labor prepares to deliver its fourth federal budget next Tuesday, which suggests it will run a deficit after consecutive surpluses. The fiscal outlook had prompted many to predict the government would call a general election before the budget, but the onset of Storm Alfred forced Albanese to postpone plans to call an early election. Under Australia’s constitution, a federal election must be held on or before May 17, and Albanese is expected to announce a date within days of the budget.

Struggle for a middle-of-the-road vote

The Australian Financial Review has summarized the results of the last three polls to show that the Coalition has made significant progress in Victoria since the last election, but will need to increase its support in NSW and WA if it is to have a chance of forming a government after the next election. Figures show that in the key state of Victoria, policing is approaching the importance of housing as one of the most important issues for voters, second only to cost of living pressures. For the Coalition, Victoria is the most promising place to grab seats. The Coalition currently holds only 10 of Victoria’s 39 seats, and the Labor government’s declining popularity in recent years has given the Coalition a chance. It is only in the past month that the Coalition’s upward momentum has stalled. The reasons for this include a series of blunders by Mr. Dutton, the government’s new policies, and growing unease within the Coalition.

Albanese and Dutton’s joint appearances at three events over three consecutive weekends over the Lunar New Year period underscored their campaign to win over Australia’s Chinese voters, a key group that could play a significant role in the upcoming federal election. There are many reasons why former Prime Minister Morrison and his Coalition Party were ousted three years ago. One of them, rightly or wrongly, was the perception that the Alliance Party was anti-China. The Liberal Party’s analysis of the defeat found that in constituencies with a high concentration of Chinese voters, the swing away from the Liberal Party to other parties was significantly greater. This analysis found that in the 15 electorates with the highest number of Chinese-Australian voters, the swing in support between the two parties was 6.6%, compared to a 3.7% swing in other seats. The Liberal Party’s election analysis suggests that the party needs to prioritize rebuilding relationships with members of the Chinese Australian community. It’s no wonder that both parties are using festivals and celebrations to sway the Chinese vote, and even the popular Chinese social media platform Little Red Book has become a platform for politicians from both parties.

Of course, Chinese social media platforms prohibit political advertisements, but Little Red Book’s algorithm allows politicians to target users in a geographic area with messages that are seldom extremely pro-party. Australian politicians rarely talk about Australia-China relations on the Little Red Book. They celebrate Chinese New Year, engage with the Chinese immigrant community, and sometimes attend community events, but they hardly ever talk about Australia-China relations. Even if they do post relevant information, it’s unlikely to spread very far because politicians’ accounts have recently been secretly blocked. While the MPs’ accounts are still visible to existing followers, new users seem unable to find them. This means that interactions with users and the growth of fans of politicians across the political spectrum on the platform are at a standstill. How this ultimately affects the outcome of the election can only be inferred from the results.

Variables remain

The economic pressures of the last two years have wiped out the accumulated wealth of millions of Australians, particularly in outer-city and remote electorates. A single interest rate cut may boost Labor’s morale, but it’s unlikely to ease the deep economic pain experienced by voters who will decide the election. For decades, pollsters around the world have used the question “is the country heading in the right or wrong direction” to measure voter attitudes to change. As the Australian federal election approaches, pessimism among Australian voters is on the rise.

Overall, Labor supporters are more optimistic than the rest of the electorate, with 56% saying the country is heading in the right direction, compared to 18% of Greens and 14% of Coalition voters. Not only is pessimism deepening among the elderly, but dissatisfaction is also spreading among the young people Labor is trying to win over. Regardless of who is in power, this is not a mess that any professional politician would be willing to take on.

As Cyclone Alfred moved towards Queensland, Albanese abandoned his campaign for the April 12 election. The postponement of the election has hampered the Coalition’s momentum in the same way that a delayed battle affects a soldier’s morale and motivation – it’s all over again. The 30-day campaign was ready to go, every moment carefully planned, the Coalition candidates with their propaganda policies in place, and the ammunition to crush the Labor or Blue-Green candidates. But at the moment, Dutton’s team is at a standstill, unsure of where to point their sights. By contrast, the current government still has all the major levers. In addition to the internal concerns, the two parties are now facing an even bigger variable in the international community – the geopolitical turmoil and great uncertainty caused by the U.S. government’s frequent punches since Trump took office in January of this year. Trump is dismantling the alliances that have kept the peace and safeguarded Western freedoms. This represents a major challenge for Albanese and Dutton.

Today, Australian voters are increasingly anxious, both because of the cost of living and because of ‘Trump anxiety’ and global turbulence. Over the past few years, Australians have been pressured by economic uncertainty, and now even their long-dependent US ally is no longer stable. This will have a direct impact on public attitudes towards defense spending, as well as the most practical questions: will it affect jobs? Will it drive up prices? All of this adds to social anxiety. Ultimately, the person who responds most effectively to these compounded anxieties is the one most likely to win the next federal election. For both Albanese and Dutton, how they balance the need to preserve Australia’s sovereignty and independence with the need to maximize the US-Australia alliance will undoubtedly play an important role in determining the winner of this election.

Federal budget proposes tax cuts to win re-election

On March 25th, the Treasurer delivered his fourth budget in office, and one of the most surprising, but not surprising, features was the tax cuts he introduced, which will reduce income tax by $17 billion over the next year, or an average of $5 less per week per taxpayer. Treasurer Jim Chalmers said that although this would leave a $47 billion shortfall in the budget and push Australia’s external debt to $789 billion by 2028-29, it was the government’s determination to ride out the rising cost of living with its citizens. The Coalition is in a dilemma as it disagrees with the tax cut proposal, but it cannot promise that it will not propose tax cuts at the election. The Labor Party’s move to reduce tax is only a symbolic way to reduce the burden of Australians, but it does not actually solve the problem. However, it is believed that it will generally gain the support of the public, and increase their support in the election. If the Liberal Party is adamantly against it, it will be ignoring the people’s suffering. However, it is not easy to put forward a proposal that can specifically solve the problems faced by the low-income group, and it will not be able to take care of the dissatisfaction of the whole nation.

However, the Budget’s optimistic and positive outlook on the world economy may not be able to convince the majority of Australians. If the opposition party wants to continue to reduce its support to the government, it is believed that it will continue to sell the instability in the world, and only the Coalition party can have a strong leadership to lead Australians to face the crisis.

Obviously, the Labor government will be pushing for the budget to be passed by the parliament, implementing the policies that have been put forward in the past few months, and speeding up the process in the hope of getting a mandate from the voters, and at least three more years in power. It is believed that whether the Labor Party can make progress or not will be known in the coming one or two weeks when the budget is debated in the parliament.

Article/Editorial Sameway Magazine

Photo/Internet

“A “woman” cannot be interpreted as someone who “reasonably believes” that she is a woman, and a deer cannot become a horse because someone “reasonably believes” that it is a horse” – Tonyee Chow Hang-tung, arguing in the appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.

“Some people may say that the king’s lack of clothes is obvious to everyone, so what difference does it make whether or not it is said? … If we want to see changes in the outside world, we cannot remain unaware of them.”

“We must continue to burst the lies of power.” ‘No matter how many bubbles of lies, they are still fragile.’ ”It is not impossible to win, even if we have to pay a price.” — Written speech by Tonyee Chow Hang-tung

Introduction: Dissolved Hong Kong Alliance in Support of Patriotic Democratic Movements of China (HKASPDMC) Accused of Two Offenses

The Hong Kong Alliance in Support of Patriotic Democratic Movements of China, or the Hong Kong Alliance in Support of Patriotic Democratic Movements of China (HKASPDMC) for short, is a former pan-democratic political organization in Hong Kong. It was founded on May 21, 1989, in the midst of the global Chinese mass rally in support of the 1989 pro-democracy movement in Hong Kong. From 1990 to 2019, the HKASPDMC has been organizing the June Fourth Rally and the Victoria Park Candlelight Vigil for 30 consecutive years to commemorate the June Fourth Incident and to express its insistence on the protection of China. For the first 22 years of its existence, the HKASPDMC was chaired by Mr. Szeto Wah, who was regarded as a lifelong patriot.

On August 25, 2021, the National Security Bureau of the police wrote to the Standing Committee and the person-in-charge of the HKASPDMC, stating that based on the police investigation, the Commissioner of Police had reasonable grounds to believe that the HKASPDMC was an “agent of a foreign country”, and requesting the HKASPDMC to submit the information and the relevant supporting documents to the Police Headquarters in writing, in person and in accordance with the requirements of the 5th Schedule of the 43rd Schedule of the Hong Kong National Security Law, within 14 days (September 7th).

On September 7, four members of the Standing Committee of the HKASPDMC submitted a letter to the Police Headquarters in Wan Chai, explaining their refusal to submit information on the membership and finances of the HKASPDMC as requested by the Police’s National Security Bureau. In its reply to the Police, the HKASPDMC said that the HKASPDMC was not a “foreign agent” and the Police had no right to request the HKASPDMC to provide the information. The HKASPDMC also considered that the Police had committed a legal error in requesting the HKASPDMC to provide the information, and was dissatisfied that the Police had not provided any justification for the refusal in the letter, which was considered to be a violation of the principle of natural justice.

On September 8, the Vice-Chairman of the HKASPDMC, Ms. Tonyee Chow Hang-tung, and members of the Standing Committee, Mr. Leung Kam-wai, Mr. Tang Ngok-kwan and Mr. Chan To-wai, were arrested by the Police National Security Bureau (NSB) at different locations in the morning and detained for investigation. Four of them were detained for investigation. Later, together with Tsui Hon-kwong, five people were charged.

On September 25, 2021, the EGM passed a resolution to dissolve the organization.

Subsequently, Leung Kam Wai and Chan To Wai, who had already been imprisoned for more than the maximum sentence for the alleged offense, pleaded guilty and were sentenced to three months’ imprisonment and released immediately. Tonyee Chow Hang Tung, Tang Ngok Kwan and Tsui Hon Kwong pleaded not guilty and were convicted on March 11, 2023 and sentenced to four and a half months’ imprisonment. Their appeals to the High Court were dismissed and they finally appealed to the Court of Final Appeal.

At present, the HKASPDMC, Lee Cheuk-yan, Albert Ho and Tonyee Chow Hang-tung are still being prosecuted for one count of “inciting subversion of state power”. The case has been referred to the High Court, and the trial date is tentatively set for May 6 this year, but the court said it may be postponed due to the judge’s lack of time to hear the case.

A Rare Small Victory

The HKASPDMC’s refusal to hand over information was unanimously ruled in favor of its appeal by the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal (CFA) on June 6, with the convictions of Tonyee Chow Hang-tung, then vice-chairman of the HKASPDMC, and two former members of the Standing Committee of the HKASPDMC, namely, Tang Yuek-kwan and Tsui Hon-kwong, being quashed. The three were originally convicted and jailed for refusing to submit information about the organization to the police and were charged with violating the implementation details of the Hong Kong National Security Law. This is the first time that a case involving the Hong Kong National Security Law has been won at the Court of Final Appeal and the convictions quashed, a rare victory for Hong Kong’s pro-democracy camp.

The first case involving the implementation details of the Hong Kong National Security Law.

The HKASPDMC, famous for hosting the annual June 4 Candlelight Vigil in remembrance of the 1989 Tiananmen Square Incident, was disbanded in 2021 under the shadow of China’s enactment and full implementation of the Hong Kong National Security Law. Prior to its dissolution, the Hong Kong police’s National Security Bureau demanded that the organization provide information on its operations and finances, such as its members and donors, and accused it of being a “foreign agent” and of receiving HK$20,000 from an unnamed organization on suspicion of having ties to an overseas pro-democracy group. However, the HKASPDMC refused to cooperate, arguing that the authorities had arbitrarily labeled pro-democracy organizations as foreign agents and had no right to request information from them.

In March 2023, the Hong Kong Court of Appeal in West Kowloon stated that based on the background of the Alliance, the activities it organized and its relationship with people in Hong Kong and overseas over the past years, the Police had reasonable grounds to believe that the Alliance was a foreign agent. The judge found all the defendants guilty of the charge, as he considered that the activists were obliged to comply with the notification requirement to provide information, but did not intend to do so. But now, two years later, five judges of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal have unanimously held that the prosecution’s actions had “denied the defendants a fair trial” and ruled against the Department of Justice, which prosecuted on behalf of the Government.

In their judgment, the five Hong Kong CFA judges, headed by Chief Justice Andrew Cheung, said that the prosecution’s removal from evidence of the only material that would have established that the Alliance was a foreign agent was counterproductive to the prosecution’s case and “deprived the appellants of their right to a fair trial, resulting in their conviction involving an unfair trial”. Specifically, the Department of Justice had to prove that the HKASPDMC was in fact an “agent of a foreign state”, and the invocation of “public interest immunity” to substantially cover up the NSA’s investigation report denied the defendant access to the prosecution’s case, deprived him of his right to a fair trial, and rendered the Department of Justice’s conviction unsafe without any evidence to substantiate its case.

The Court also pointed out that the trial magistrate, Mr. Justice Lo Tak Chuen, had emphasized that in order to “effectively” safeguard national security, it was sufficient for the police to have reasonable grounds to believe that the HKASPDMC was an agent, and that the High Court Judge, Ms. Justice Lai Yuen Kei, had further ruled on appeal that the Defendant was unable to challenge the validity of the police notification letter, and that the ruling of the High Court Judge was wrong in both cases. The Court of Final Appeal pointed out that the courts could not ignore the protection of rights in the discharge of their duty to safeguard national security. This is the first time that a national security defendant has been acquitted in a final judgment. In the past, the Court of Final Appeal has lost national security cases, including the bail case of Jimmy Lai, the bail case of the defendant in the “Guardians of the Sheep Village” case, and the case of Lui Sai-yu’s commutation of sentence. Before leaving the court, Chow smiled and raised the “V” sign. Outside the court, Tang said “justice lies in the hearts of the people”, while Tsui replied that “unjust incarceration is untenable”.

From an oasis of rule of law to a “police state

During a hearing at the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal in January this year, Tonyee Chow Hang-tung defended herself in court, saying that the case highlighted what a police state is, and that a police state is the result of the courts’ connivance of such abuse of power. This connivance must stop immediately. China’s state security apparatus, which has always operated largely in the shadows, has been expanded in recent years by the Communist Party as a defender against threats to Communist rule, public order and national unity. With the introduction of the Hong Kong National Security Law a few years ago, China’s police state was rightfully extended to Hong Kong, where the Chinese security agencies will not be subject to the supervision of local laws and courts.

The open and unregulated nature of the security agencies’ operations represents a significant change for Hong Kong, which has long labeled itself an oasis of law and order. Hong Kong’s national security law introduced vaguely defined offenses, such as secession and collusion, that could well have been used to stifle protests. This was also the case when, on the first full day of the law, the Hong Kong police arrested protesters as a demonstration of the new powers given to the police under the law.

Although the Court of Final Appeal overturned the original verdict, Tonyee Chow Hang-tung , Tang Yuek Kwan and Tsui Hon-kwong were sentenced to 4.5 months in prison for “failing to comply with the notification requirement for the provision of information”, and all three of them have already served their sentences. In fact, for this kind of situation where the sentence is very short and the case is still under appeal, it is entirely possible to apply for bail. However, I do not know whether it is because the application of the Hong Kong National Security Law has increased the political sensitivity of the case that bail was not granted in this case. And it seems that there is no follow-up protection for the three people who have already served their sentences, so one cannot help but ask – is justice belatedly done, or is it still justice?

The June 4 Candlelight Vigil in Victoria Park was an annual event in Hong Kong to commemorate the victims of the June 4 Incident, organized by the HKASPDMC every year from 1990 to 2019, and held at the hard-surface soccer pitch in Victoria Park. The event was once the world’s largest June 4 commemoration, with tens to hundreds of thousands of participants each year. Hong Kong used to be the only place in Chinese territory where the victims of the June 4 Tiananmen Square incident in 1989 could be publicly commemorated, but in recent years the commemoration has gone underground. Since the central government imposed national security laws on Hong Kong in 2020, almost all forms of dissent have become criminalized in the city. As of early March this year, Hong Kong authorities have arrested 320 people on charges of endangering national security, of whom 161 have been convicted.

The Future of National Security Law in Hong Kong’s Judicial Practice

As a high standard common law jurisdiction, Hong Kong should strike a reasonable balance between safeguarding national security and protecting human rights. Specifically, it should not only implement the Hong Kong National Security Law, but also respect and protect the requirements of the Basic Law and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). Under common law principles, the law should be understood as a whole. Therefore, when the court interprets the elements of Schedule 5 to the legislation, it should not only consider the textual formulation of the Schedule, but should also consider the elements of Schedule 7 to the legislation where necessary and relevant. For example, in applying to the Court for an order to furnish information or produce material, the judge has to be satisfied that there are “reasonable grounds” for suspecting that a person is in possession of the information or material and that the information or material is likely to be relevant to the investigation.

Of course, the Court of Final Appeal’s ruling does not undermine the police’s investigative powers in national security cases. Even if it cannot be proved for the time being that a person or an organization belongs to “a foreign agent, a Taiwanese agent, or an agent or manager thereof”, the police can still apply to the court on the basis of “reasonable belief”, and after sufficient evidence has been provided, the court will issue an order for the provision of information or the production of materials in accordance with the law. This arrangement is in line with the propriety of the legal procedures and demonstrates the respect and protection of human rights.

Commenting on the final judgment of the case, Mr. Sun Qingnuo, Deputy Director of the Office of National Security of the Central People’s Government in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, when asked whether there were loopholes in the Hong Kong National Security Law that needed to be amended, said that the Hong Kong National Security Law could be improved continuously, including through the National People’s Congress (NPC)’s interpretation of the Basic Law. On the other hand, Professor Albert Chan of the Faculty of Law of the University of Hong Kong is of the view that the case of the HKASPDMC only involves the interpretation by the Court of Final Appeal of individual provisions of the implementation details, and does not involve the interpretation of the Basic Law by NPC. Mr. Ronny Tong, a member of the Executive Council, also analyzed that an interpretation of the Basic Law by the NPC is unlikely at this stage. The SAR Government has already indicated that it will study the judgment and the relevant legal principles, and examine how to further improve the relevant legal system and enforcement mechanism, so as to more effectively prevent, stop and punish acts endangering national security, and to continue to strengthen law enforcement power.

In recent years, the Hong Kong Government has repeatedly emphasized on different occasions that safeguarding national security is a top priority for Hong Kong. The protection of national security is not a work in progress, but a work in progress. Meanwhile, the international community has never ceased to worry that the Hong Kong National Security Law will further undermine civil liberties and fundamental freedoms, and a number of international organizations have been committed to calling for the repeal of this law and for the cessation of interpreting co-operation with United Nations agencies as a threat to national security. It is conceivable that after the first final victory for the defendants of the Hong Kong National Security Law, these two forces will further tussle with each other – whether Hong Kong’s long-proud judicial independence will be reduced to a tool of the Hong Kong National Security Law, or whether this case will rekindle Hong Kong people’s hopes for the re-establishment of a civil society is still very much an unknown. This is still a big unknown.

Article/Editorial Department Sameway Magazine

Photo/Internet

Earlier this month, Cheung Kong Hutchison, controlled by the Li Ka-shing family, announced that it had reached an in-principle agreement with a consortium led by U.S.-based Blackrock to sell 80 percent of the assets of its CK Hutchison Port Group. The deal involves 43 ports and supporting logistics networks in 23 countries around the world, and is one of the largest port sales in the world in recent years. It is expected that the final agreement for the sale of Panama Ports will be signed by April 2nd. However, Beijing’s dissatisfaction may cast a shadow over the deal. With all the parties speaking out, the issue continues to attract strong attention and has become a new battleground in the U.S.-China wargame.

The uncertainty of the sale agreement

After US President Donald Trump threatened to repeal the Panama Canal transfer agreement due to Chinese manipulation, the issue of the right to operate this key international waterway has become a hotspot in US-China relations. A few days ago, Hong Kong’s richest man Li Ka-shing’s Cheung Kong Hutchison Holdings Ltd. has planned to sell its 43 overseas ports to a consortium led by BlackRock for US$19 billion, including the Panama Canal-related business, which Trump claimed “poses a national security problem for the U.S.”. Trump praised BlackRock after the deal was announced. Cheung Kong’s sale does not include its HPH Trust, which manages port facilities in Hong Kong, Shenzhen and other Chinese ports, including Yantian International and Hong Kong International Terminals.

The deal bears the mark of Li Ka-shing, the Hong Kong billionaire who has been dubbed “Superman” for building his vast business empire. Now, to avoid being drawn into a wider showdown between the U.S. and China, Li is looking to stay out of the line of fire by selling his business to a group of well-heeled U.S. investors for US$19 billion. However, a number of Chinese media outlets have recently published articles questioning Cheung Kong’s port deal, saying, “Don’t be naive, don’t be foolish,” and that “great entrepreneurs are all geniune patriots”, and questioning why CK Hutchison has so easily transferred so many of its important ports to “unsuspecting U.S. forces”. CK Hutchison responded to the skepticism by saying that the transaction was purely commercial in nature. It must be said that Li Ka-shing’s sale of global port assets other than China, especially the Panama port, once again demonstrates his precise grasp of capital market trends in the global geopolitical landscape.

It remains to be seen whether there will be any complications in the countdown to the signing of the agreement. The Hong Kong and Macao Affairs Office of the State Council of China has recently forwarded a number of commentaries to Ta Kung Pao, criticizing Li Ka-shing for “succumbing to U.S. pressure” and “betraying the interests of the country”. “The article “All Great Entrepreneurs are Geniune Patriots” begins with a series of five questions to CK Hutchison, including “In the face of right and wrong, how should an entrepreneur make choices and where should he lead his enterprise? The article said, “Great entrepreneurs are never cold-blooded speculators seeking profits, but passionate and proud patriots. Although the article did not name Li Ka-shing, it cited Henry Fok, Pao Yuk-kang, Tso Kwong-piu, Ko Lin, Ko Ching-ping and other deceased Hong Kong and Macau people who contributed to the country during the early period of the founding of the Communist Party of China (CPC) and after the reform and opening up of the country as a comparison group of Li Ka-shing, and emphasized that entrepreneurs have to have a spirit of “the greatness of the businessman is to serve the country for the sake of the people”. At a time when Beijing’s political pressure is escalating, CK Hutchison’s share price has fallen, underscoring the investment market’s heightened concern about Beijing’s involvement in geopolitical risks.

Who dares to invest?

Hong Kong’s richest man, Li Ka-shing, has built a multinational port business empire that has been able to expand, not only because it has gained trust from China, helping to promote important national strategic interests such as “One Belt, One Road”, but also because it has gained trust from the international community, proving that the group is not a spokesperson for China under Hong Kong’s unique position of “one country, two systems”. However, in recent years, with the entry into force of the Hong Kong National Security Law, the west sees Hong Kong as losing its autonomy, and it is difficult for Li Ka-shing’s multinational port business kingdom not to be viewed by the international community as a “Chinese enterprise” and become a target of attack by various countries.

According to a report by the Mercator Institute for China Studies in Germany, China has placed considerable emphasis on its global port presence, with 110 ports in 67 countries, and the roles of Chinese companies in these ports can be categorized into three types: operator/owner, developer, and funder. Among these ports, CKH owns or operates 78 ports in 37 countries, of which 33 are owned or operated by Chinese companies. The two ports that CKH intends to sell served 39% of the container ships in the Panama Canal last year, with the US being the largest user of the canal, accounting for 73% of the traffic. China was second with 21.4%. If CKH were to sell all of its overseas ports, it would mean an instant loss of 40 percent of this strategic node for China. The Chief Executive of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (HKSAR), Mr. Lee Ka-chiu, has already said that the concerns raised by Li Ka-shing’s deal “deserve to be taken seriously”.

Subtly, in the case of CK Hutchison’s port sale, it is different from the Chinese government’s direct statement and even intervention in the TikTok and Huawei’s Meng Wanzhou cases. This time, the Chinese government did not make a direct statement, but expressed its attitude through the official media department’s newspapers in Hong Kong, in order to incite nationalistic sentiments to flog a private enterprise. The fact that Li Ka-shing has not violated any laws or regulations, but has been subjected to a lot of pressure from public opinion, is questionable. At the same time, the fact that the government has not yet intervened directly shows that the Chinese top management may still be exploring and evaluating the situation. On the one hand, the matter is so big that it has to be taken care of, but on the other hand, since it is an offshore transaction of a foreign enterprise, it is not good to intervene. According to sources familiar with the matter, the Chinese authorities have begun to investigate the sale of Li Ka-shing’s overseas port business, and a number of departments, including the State Administration for Market Supervision, have been instructed by senior state leaders to examine whether there are any potential security loopholes or antitrust violations in this transaction.

In recent years, Hong Kong’s status as an international trading port has been facing serious challenges. Over the years, Hong Kong has become the world’s seventh-largest re-export port for goods by virtue of its independent tariff zone, with re-export trade supporting a quarter of Hong Kong’s economy. However, the Trump administration’s imposition of tariffs on Chinese goods and the inclusion of Hong Kong for the first time in the scope of the same tariffs have directly impacted this position. A few days ago, China’s official newspaper Ta Kung Pao commented that the agreement between CK Hutchison and BlackRock was “profit-oriented, forgetting righteousness in the face of profit,” and that it was related to “national interests and national justice. This kind of open contempt and warning to a private company in the media is reminiscent of “Cultural Revolution-style criticism” and will scare away many potential foreign investors. Beijing’s increasing interference in Hong Kong’s business community – pressuring business leaders to be patriotic through statements and visits by Chinese officials – suggests that it is becoming increasingly difficult for Hong Kong companies to dissociate themselves from Chinese politics.

Geopolitical Risks Create Increasing Uncertainty

In the face of the intensifying US-China game, companies are naturally more concerned about whether they will be more easily victimized by the geopolitical rivalry between the big powers. If companies want to operate or expand their business in the international market, they have to strengthen their ability to anticipate geopolitical risks. Li Tzar Kuoi, the son of Li Ka-shing and chairman of Cheung Kong Hutchison, said in a statement accompanying last week’s financial results that the business environment for Cheung Kong Hutchison this year could be “volatile and unpredictable”. With just a week to go before the scheduled date for signing the agreement, any attempt by Hong Kong or Beijing to block the deal would be extraordinary. Chinese companies often have to get permission from regulators to move money out of mainland China. CK Hutchison operates ports around the world, including in China, but none of the 43 ports involved in the BlackRock deal are in China. None of the 43 ports involved in the BlackRock deal are in China, and CKH’s shares are not listed on the mainland.

Since 2012, shortly after Xi Jinping took power, Li has sold many of his real estate investments in mainland China and reinvested most of his money in Europe. His actions have been widely criticized by Chinese nationalists, but from a financial perspective, it was smart. He managed to divest himself of these investments before the start of the Chinese real estate market crash in 2021, which has continued to deteriorate ever since. It has since been argued that this sale of overseas ports, like the one that foresaw the dramatic changes in China’s real estate market, was strategically far-sighted if analyzed purely from a business perspective, avoiding possible political risks while realizing an asset at a very attractive price and leaving the group with plenty of room for its future strategic deployment. However, all these are based on the foundation that the agreement can be signed smoothly.

As geopolitical tensions between the US and China intensify, access to information on the flow of goods through key waterways will be crucial in the event of a “supply chain war”. Trump has repeatedly advocated regaining control of the Panama Canal and surrounding areas for reasons including the threat posed by Chinese influence. U.S. media revealed that the White House has asked the Pentagon to provide military options to ensure U.S. “free access” to the canal. In addition, the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative’s proposal to levy high fees on Chinese-made ships has triggered tremors in the international shipping industry. China’s influence in the global port network has also seen more setbacks than advances over the years, with a net overall decline in the number of ports owned directly by China or operated by third parties. As a result, Beijing is bound to take action against Li Ka-shing’s agreement to sell these two important ports. This standoff is a test of how far China’s top leader, Xi Jinping, is willing to go in exercising control over Hong Kong’s commercial sector, and the U.S. will certainly not stand by and watch. The global supply chain and control of ports are developing into a major battleground for great powers, and the future is sure to be a smoldering one.

Years ago, when globalization was in full swing, not many people questioned which country a company belonged to, but now, with the dramatic changes in geopolitics and the global economic crisis, ideology has once again taken over the high ground of public opinion. For example

TikTok is incorporated in the U.S., with corporate headquarters in Los Angeles and Singapore, but is controlled by the board of directors of the Chinese company, TikTok. Even if public opinion glosses over it, TikTok is a global private company: 60% of its investors are global institutions, 20% of its shares are held by its founder, Yiming Zhang, and the other 20% are shared by all its employees; and three of its five board members are Americans. But it’s hard to explain in a few words the real money at stake behind the scenes. And like most major Chinese companies, the Communist Party of China (CPC) set up a party branch at Beatnik in 2014, which probably says a lot. As for Li Ka-shing’s Cheung Kong Hutchison, there is breathing room in today’s searing situation only because of its reliance on Hong Kong, the former Pearl of the Orient, which has evolved into a multinational enterprise through decades of Chinese investment. The deal puts Beijing on the horns of a dilemma, as any major move to jeopardize it could aggravate tensions between the Chinese government and the Trump administration. As you can imagine, there will be consequences to this port sale, and even if the deal is signed, Beijing will be ready to “settle scores in the fall,” and there will be more to come.

Article/Editorial Department Sameway Magazine

Photo/Internet