The proposal by Hutchison Whampoa to divest its assets, including the Panama Canal Port, has garnered significant interest across various sectors, with public discourse intensifying. Amidst a significant transformation not seen in a hundred years, what approach should entrepreneurs take to assess both the minor details of corporate finances and the broader aspects of national development? This is a significant matter that cannot be overlooked.
Individuals from various backgrounds have highlighted the shortsightedness of the companies in relinquishing port operating rights under pressure from the United States. This has stoked the hubris of dominance and will inevitably lead to further contradictions and conflicts on the global stage. “A nation’s strength directly correlates with the prosperity of its business sector; conversely, when a nation faces difficulties, the repercussions are felt keenly by the business community.” They urged the companies concerned to avoid obstinacy and instead resist the pressures from the United States, advocating for a position that aligns with the moral high ground of history.
It is widely acknowledged that port operations transcend mere assets; they represent vital infrastructure. This transaction involving Cheung Kong touches upon significant national interests. The actions taken by Trump regarding the Panama Canal since assuming office have illuminated the essence of hegemony for many observers. In the case of the United States, one could argue that the prevailing mindset is akin to a rather unsavoury principle: “if you cannot compete, then resort to theft.” The incessant chatter surrounding the notion that “business is business” strikes one as either rather naive, somewhat muddled, or perhaps a deliberate display of confusion.
The Chinese government serves as a robust support system for businesses in Hong Kong
Legislative Council member Yan Gang highlighted that the majority of Hutchison Ports’ additional 41 overseas terminals are situated in key nations and regions that align with the “Belt and Road” initiative. Consequently, the advantages and disadvantages of port management are undoubtedly intertwined with significant national interests. Enterprises funded by Hong Kong play a significant role in the nation’s reform and opening up, while also reaping the rewards of the country’s stable development. The nation stands as a steadfast advocate for enterprises funded by Hong Kong. Disregarding or even compromising the interests of national development in business practices is a myopic and ultimately self-defeating approach for the sustained growth of enterprises.
Economist and current affairs commentator Guan Pinfang has highlighted the significance of ports as crucial economic links, underscoring their essential role in global trade and economic development. Cheung Kong’s actions have undeniably influenced China’s global port layout in a rather adverse manner. In discussions surrounding the principal concerns of the country and its populace, the notion that “businessmen have no borders” appears rather absurd, naive, and muddled. Why not engage in a discussion with the nation beforehand? What challenges are we facing? Are you facing any undue pressure?
He remarked that the earth and the ocean are vast enough, suggesting that China and the United States can pursue their own paths, and that “each doing their own thing” amounts to little. The issue at hand is that the United States persists in its approach of unilateralism, resorting to bullying tactics, embodying the law of the jungle, and engaging in a zero-sum game where it’s all about winning at any cost, marked by aggression and hostility. We find ourselves in a position where the only course of action is to relinquish our delusions and brace ourselves for a confrontation.
To submit in such a manner will only serve to reinforce the prevailing dominance
Wu Zhibin, who serves as the deputy director of the Hong Kong, Macao, Taiwan and Overseas Chinese Affairs Committee of the Anhui Provincial Committee of the Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference, as well as a member of the All-China Federation of Overseas Chinese, referenced American companies to illustrate his point. He emphasised that American capital would never falter when it comes to investing in national defence and collaborating with the government. Commencing in 2024, there was a notable increase in Silicon Valley’s financial backing of the US defence sector, as it began to champion startups focused on developing “battlefield software, military drones, and autonomous submarines.”
Wu Zhibin remarked that while capital knows no boundaries, businessmen are bound by their nations. This transaction cannot be classified as a mere routine business activity. The matter extends beyond mere national interests and security; it also encompasses the incremental establishment of American global dominance. In essence, the sale of the port is not primarily about generating substantial capital, but rather serves to bolster US hegemony.
While there is certainly nothing amiss in the pursuit of profit and financial gain, it is imperative that one does not compromise the interests of the nation in this endeavour, nor should one waver when confronted with significant challenges. Prioritising personal interests over the nation’s well-being will inevitably erode one’s credibility and alienate public support.
Of late, there has been a chorus of approval for the agreement, with many asserting that this so-called “big deal” could stave off US suppression, avert a worsening of the situation, and keep conflicts from spiralling out of control. Indeed, those with keen insight have recognised that yielding, even momentarily, to the pressures of American dominance will only serve to bolster its hegemony further. American politicians are driven by a desire for wealth and security, and it is only through a robust homeland that businesses can expect a fair trading landscape and room for growth.
“When the nest is upended, how is it that the eggs manage to stay whole?” Fang Guoshan, a District Councillor for Sai Kung and the Chairman of the Hong Kong New Territories Small and Medium Enterprises Association, contends that amidst the ongoing Sino-US tariff conflict, it is profoundly irresponsible to overlook national interests while fervently advocating for “big Diao”.
Neglecting accountability in the face of a significant transformation that has not occurred in a hundred years, coupled with a desire for solitude, will undoubtedly result in a sense of dislocation and aimlessness amidst future turmoil. Should the Panama Canal fall victim to excessive “Americanization” and “politicisation,” it is likely that China’s shipping trade will face inevitable constraints due to flow limitations or increased tolls, leading to enduring risks concerning logistics expenses and the stability of supply chains.
Employing the notion of “business as business” to justify profit-making is a profoundly irresponsible stance, particularly unsettling in the backdrop of the current “Trump 2.0” era. In the current climate of strained Sino-US relations, should this transaction come to fruition, it is certain that a “supply chain war” will follow, resulting in significant upheaval within the international shipping sector. The approach taken by certain companies in Hong Kong, which seems to overlook both national strategies and the broader international context, has not only hindered the nation’s development objectives but has also had significant repercussions on the geopolitical landscape.
The pursuit of hegemony and power politics is unlikely to yield peace and development; rather, it is destined to foster contradictions and conflicts for all of humanity. Individuals of discernment have urged pertinent organisations to meticulously assess the long-term financial statements and the national development accounts, to manage them with due diligence, and to avoid losing sight of the overarching perspective in pursuit of minor advantages or clinging to illusions.
The United States has imposed restrictions on the sale of advanced lithography machines to China
Chan Hok-fung, a member of the Legislative Council and vice chairman of the Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong, emphasised that in today’s international landscape, no transnational business decision can be made without considering the nation’s welfare. The crux of this transaction hinges on whether our nation will find itself suffocated in the future of maritime trade.
Approximately 80% to 90% of the world’s commodity trade hinges on maritime logistics, making the significance of the Panama Canal abundantly clear. Trump’s preferred method of suppression involves the imposition of tariffs and the appropriation of strategic infrastructure, all aimed at stifling China’s ascent and jeopardising the nation’s interests and security. Chan Hok-fung underscored that the prosperity of Hong Kong is contingent upon the backing of the nation, noting that Trump’s measures against China are likewise directed at the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region. The Chinese must rise to the occasion and confront the provocation head-on.
Gao Songjie, the vice chairman of the Hong Kong Elite Association and founding chairman of the Internet Celebrity Workers Association, remarked that the United States has consistently shown a tendency to meddle in commercial activities under the pretext of national security. The Office of the United States Trade Representative has recently broached the subject of levying a “additional service fee” of up to US$1.5 million on Chinese-made vessels entering US ports, a move that underscores the rather predatory nature of US trade policy.
The incident remains a focal point of considerable online discourse, with numerous internet users deriding the purported “business is business” rationale: “Why is it that the United States prohibits the Netherlands from supplying China with the most sophisticated lithography equipment?” Isn’t this a market economy, then? “The directive has been issued for TikTok to undergo a sale.” Is this what they refer to as the “free” rule? Some online commentators have fervently urged Cheung Kong to halt the transaction, expressing concerns that “once the deal is finalised, I fear my lifelong wisdom will be obliterated in an instant.”
+ There are no comments
Add yours