Unused visas

Maybe Hong Kong officials should read this HKFP piece on Mainlanders who apply for talent visas to come to the city – but don’t come…

“Ultimately, does it make any difference between going to Hong Kong and staying in mainland China?” asked Lindsey in Mandarin. “For topics we can’t talk about in China, can you say it in Hong Kong now? You can’t.”

Lindsey, who is living in Singapore on an employment visa after setting up her own company, is not interested in going to Hong Kong. “My TTPS visa should expire early next year, but I am not planning to extend it,” she told HKFP.

…[Emma] decided to apply for a TTPS visa because she believed she would easily fulfil the criteria. After all, she graduated with a bachelor’s degree from a top university in mainland China and a master’s degree from a university in Hong Kong.

“It’s like stockpiling food before the end of the world, ” she said. “And Hong Kong is the easiest to add to the pile.”

She told HKFP that at least six of her friends also got TTPS visas, “but none of them actually went to Hong Kong or tried to look for a job there.”

In case you missed it, plus later developments…

A Ta Kung Pao commentary accuses CK Hutchison of ‘betraying the Chinese people’ by selling off its Panama and other non-China/HK ports to Blackrock. It is posted on the HK and Macau Affairs Office’s website, which suggests that it is endorsed by Beijing (as if being a Ta Kung Pao column isn’t enough).

The author’s main concern is that trade facilities should be neutral and that US ownership of these ports could be weaponized against China, for example by charging PRC vessels higher docking fees. But he also implies that the sale represents some sort of deeper loss for China beyond reliable trade infrastructure around the world. Could it be its own ability to weaponize port ownership? That was something that worried Western commentators when Cosco bought Piraeus in Greece.

Unlike Cosco, CK Hutchison is not state-controlled. Li Ka-shing has long performed the usual kowtowing rituals, but he has been investing less in China/HK and more in Europe and elsewhere for quite a few years now (as some patriotic commentators have noticed). As Bloomberg points out…

While Beijing could strike back at other parts of his empire, the billionaire has been lowering his group’s exposure to Greater China for decades now, a strategy that will help limit the impact of any political fallout arising from the Trump-endorsed deal. Only 12% of CK Hutchison’s revenue comes from operations in the mainland and Hong Kong, with Europe, North America and Australia making up the bulk of the rest.

…Whether China takes any further action against CK Hutchison will be a test case for how far Beijing is willing to go to rebuke companies caught in the middle of increasingly fraught US-China relations.

The SCMP says…

…experts warned on Friday that Hutchison, part of Hong Kong tycoon Li Ka-shing’s empire, was now caught in a dilemma and might end up being punished by both the United States and China no matter how it acted.

If it backed out of the deal, it could be seen as caving in to Beijing’s pressure and prompt punitive actions from the US. But if it went ahead, Li’s business empire might face political repercussions and be labelled unpatriotic even if it sought to show its loyalty by investing in mainland Chinese ports.

…“It’s obvious that Beijing is using an indirect way to express its discontent about the planned deal and hopes Li can mend things by turning the deal in Beijing’s favour,” said Lau Siu-kai, a consultant with the semi-official Chinese Association of Hong Kong and Macau Studies think tank.

“The planned deal is set to undermine the development of the nation’s Belt and Road Initiative and hit China’s maritime and shipbuilding industries as the US will wrest control of many overseas ports, which may drastically raise tax on Chinese vessels.”

If Beijing were to pressure the company into cancelling the Blackrock deal (assuming that’s even contractually possible), it could confirm US fears that Chinese control of ports is a risk. It would also raise serious questions for many Hong Kong companies about whether they are expected to put patriotism before profits, and indeed whether they are de facto state-run entities. (From a purely business point of view, selling the ports might be a smart move anyway at a time when the world is possibly entering a more protectionist trade climate. The deal fell into place with amazing speed.) Already, local officials feel a need to assure Hong Kong tycoons that it is not compulsory for them to invest in the Northern Metropolis project.

Now come signs of backtracking. A second TKP column posted on the HKMAO website is more measured in tone, looking back fondly at old capitalist patriots like Henry Fok and YK Pao. And Starry Lee says Hong Kong firms should focus on ‘win-win’ deals that benefit the motherland and the business. 

Beijing does not seem to be upset in any way with Blackrock. Boss Stephen Schwarzman is on the invitation list of global business leaders to Xi Jinping’s latest China Development Forum in a couple of weeks.  (Update: he’s from Blackstone. Still…)

It’s quite possible that CK Hutchison did in fact clear the deal with Beijing. One analyst calls the first TKP piece ‘face-saving bluster … to be expected’.